The Nansen Initiative, UNHCR and the Foresight report … Nansen Initiative, UNHCR and the Foresight report on Migration and Global Environmental Change Contents Executive Summary

The Nansen Initiative, UNHCR and the Foresight report on Migration and

Global Environmental Change Authors: Angela Williams and Richard Black

September 2012

This review has been commissioned as part of the UK Government’s Foresight project, Migration and Global Environmental Change, for presentation to

the Nansen Initiative and UNHCR.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent policy of any government or organisation.

The Nansen Initiative, UNHCR and the Foresight report on Migration and Global Environmental Change

Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 3

Recommendations for the Nansen Initiative and UNHCR ................................................................... 5

1. Introduction to the Foresight report .................................................................................................. 6

2. Three key areas of importance for the Nansen Initiative and UNHCR ........................................... 7

2.1 Internal Migration and Displacement ................................................................................................. 8

2.1.1 Operational challenges caused by internal displacement .......................................................... 8

2.1.2 Policy approaches ...................................................................................................................... 8

(i) Developing protection and support through existing mechanisms ................................. 9

(ii) Migration as adaptation ............................................................................................... 12

(iii) Urban planning for sustainable cities .......................................................................... 13

(iv) Relocation as adaptation (planned relocation) ........................................................... 15

2.2 Cross-border Displacement ............................................................................................................. 18

2.2.1 Governance challenges associated with cross-border displacement and migration ................ 18

2.2.2 Policy approaches .................................................................................................................... 19

(i) Flexible and adaptable governance ............................................................................. 19

(ii) Inter-agency links and coordination ............................................................................. 20

(iii) Regional approaches: the European Union Temporary Protection Directive ............. 22

2.3 Trapped Populations ....................................................................................................................... 24

Annex - Key Findings of the Report .................................................................................................... 25

A. Summary of key conclusions from Foresight report .......................................................................... 25

B. Summary of Foresight policy conclusions ......................................................................................... 26

Selected Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 28


Executive Summary The Nansen Initiative on climate change and displacement is due to be formally launched by Norway and Switzerland at a side event of UNHCR’s Executive Committee in October 2012. This is a welcome development and Foresight is pleased to accept the invitation to participate in the work of the Nansen Consultative Committee. This report represents Foresight’s contribution to the launch of the Nansen Initiative.

This report examines the 2011 Foresight report on Migration and Global Environmental Change and considers its relevance for the Nansen Initiative. In addition, at various points throughout the report external evidence and analysis is juxtaposed with the Foresight report and the work of UNHCR so as to identify possible future areas of inquiry.

The report argues that it is important to consider migration and displacement together in the context of the implications of future environmental change. In this context, three key areas of importance for the Nansen Initiative are identified, where the Foresight report’s conclusions resonate with it: (a) internal migration and displacement; (b) cross-border displacement; and (c) trapped populations.

In relation to internal migration and displacement, there are three policy approaches that the Nansen Initiative can take to address the challenges and opportunities in the context of environmental change:

I. Developing protection and support through existing mechanisms: The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are applicable to displacement from rapid-onset environmental events, but it is less clear that they are applicable to migration in the context of slow-onset environmental change. There are acknowledged shortcomings with the Guiding Principles, but these are outweighed by the strengths and benefits of a ‘soft law’ approach. The Kampala Convention is a case study of how to build effectively on the potential of the Guiding Principles.

II. Migration as adaptation to environmental change: There are links between migration, adaptation and resilience, and this has implications for those at risk of displacement. Developing policies to facilitate migration as an adaptation mechanism represents an important strategy that could prevent subsequent forced displacement and problematic migration.

III. Urban planning for sustainable cities: Whilst migration can have benefits for resilience, urban policy must be adequately prepared for rural-urban migration to ensure that migrants and receiving areas do not become more vulnerable. Accordingly, urban planning is a highly relevant and important consideration for the Nansen Initiative in respect of both IDPs and other populations of concern to UNHCR, so as to build resilience and avoid increased vulnerability that might subsequently lead to displacement.

In addition, the Nansen Initiative and UNHCR should pay attention to state-led relocation, identified as a possible adaptation strategy in paragraph 14(f) of the Climate Change Adaptation Framework, which was concluded at the 2010 UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Cancun. Based on experiences to date, the Foresight report advises against using planned relocation as an adaptation strategy, save in extreme circumstances. However, it is possible that such situations will arise which will benefit from well-considered guidance that provides rigorous standards and protection for those migrants.


In relation to cross-border displacement, there is scope for the Nansen Initiative to consider appropriate ways forward that centre around:

Flexible and adaptable governance: An integrated multi-level approach that incorporates global, regional and local elements remains the ideal scenario for the Nansen Initiative to explore in terms of potential governance architecture;

Inter-agency links and coordination: The Foresight report emphasizes the importance of strong inter-agency linkages between policy areas. The best option could be to move to a collaborative approach for slow-onset migration where it may be difficult to identify the environmental driver; and

Regional approaches: The Foresight report also recognises the value of action at other regional levels ‘where geographical proximity leads to a heightened sense of interdependence and shared interests’.

Finally, a key conclusion of the Foresight report is the identification of the existence of so-called ‘trapped populations’. Global environmental change is likely to increase the vulnerability of trapped populations and reduce any opportunity that might exist to migrate towards more secure environmental conditions. This could exacerbate problematic displacement in the medium term.


Recommendations for the Nansen Initiative and UNHCR

The Nansen Initiative

1. The Nansen Initiative should lead the international community to consider migration and displacement together when considering the impact of future environmental change.

2. The Nansen Initiative should work with all relevant stakeholders to encourage a preventative approach to displacement associated with environmental change.

3. The Nansen Initiative should adopt a careful and measured response to planned relocation, with a view to developing guidance on how such relocation should be managed and when it might be appropriate.

4. The Nansen Initiative should pursue a ‘regime complex’ approach to cross-border displacement which builds on the multitude of existing international relationships, legal agreements, and institutions, such as the Guiding Principles, the Kampala Convention, the Nansen Principles and UNFCCC.

5. The Nansen Initiative should advocate that the international community adopts ‘collaborative approach’ for slow-onset migration where the environmental driver is difficult to determine.

6. The Nansen Initiative should work with stakeholders at regional level to build collaborative arrangements that can deal with displacement associated with environmental change in a structured way.

7. Trapped populations should become a key population of concern for the Nansen Initiative to the extent relevant support and protection can be provided to such people.

UNHCR

8. UNHCR should consider developing an approach to address the shortcomings, and build on the potential, of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, focusing on their application to displacement influenced by environmental change.

9. UNHCR should focus bilateral, multilateral and donor engagements on securing more ratifications to the Kampala Convention.

10. UNHCR should promote the development of similar regional agreements to the Kampala Convention, in appropriate locations.

11. UNHCR should continue to focus on the specific requirements of different vulnerable groups amongst populations of its concern in urban areas to (a) protect refugees and displaced populations, and (b) prevent displacement of vulnerable populations.


1. Introduction to the Foresight report The Foresight Migration and Global Environmental Change report (Foresight report) aims to use the best available science and evidence to develop a vision for how human population movements across the world could be affected by global environmental changes between now and 2060, with a focus on the diverse challenges and opportunities for migrants, populations and policy makers in originating and receiving regions.

The report considers ‘migration’ to include both internal and international migration, and also considers issues related to ‘displacement’ (internal and cross-boundary).1

‘Environmental change’ is defined as changes in the physical and biogeochemical environment, over a large scale, either caused naturally or influenced by human activities. The most significant global environmental changes include climate change, widespread land degradation and the degradation of coastal and marine ecosystems. Important dimensions include:

a rise in sea level;

a change in tropical storm and cyclone frequency or intensity;

changes in rainfall regimes;

increases in temperature;

changes in atmospheric chemistry;

melting of mountain glaciers;

land degradation; and

coastal and marine ecosystem degradation.2

The time horizon for the Report’s analysis is 2060, with an additional focus on how issues develop by 2030.

1 Foresight, p35 (box 1.7 for further definitions). 2 Foresight, p.38 and boxes 2.3 and 2.4.


2. Three key areas of importance for the Nansen Initiative and UNHCR It is important to consider migration and displacement together in the context of the implications of future environmental change. Much of the research undertaken to date regarding the relationship between migration and environmental change has been approached from refugee and displacement discourse. However, the Foresight report adopts a broader approach by considering migration and environmental change from a wider ‘mobility’ perspective, examining the impact of voluntary migration on traditional notions of refugee and forced displacement protection. The broader perspective adopted by Foresight offers both a new perspective on current challenges facing traditional refugee discourse, along with an explanation of new mobility issues. This is important to the extent that voluntary migration could potentially reduce the risk of displacement in the longer term, whereas an inability to move from poor and vulnerable areas could leave trapped communities at risk of future involuntary displacement.

UNHCR can make a valuable contribution on issues relating to displacement and environmental change. Owing to its experience and the high level of respect held for UNHCR, its advice regarding how to manage displacement, especially cross-border displacement, as a result of global environmental change will be valuable, irrespective of its actual legal responsibility toward such individuals. Moreover, UNHCR recognises the role it has as a supporter and user of knowledge relating to displacement and global environmental change, and identifies itself as a rights-based agency that advocates for rights-based responses. Accordingly, it is likely UNHCR will be called upon to advise states in relation to displacement and global environmental change and furthermore, to offer some direction and guidance as to what protection currently exists and what gaps need to be addressed within the protection framework. This work commenced during expert meetings convened by UNHCR in the framework of commemoration of the refugee and prevention of statelessness conventions in 2011. In addition, there is also a need to identify and concentrate attention on the medium-term displacement challenges in relation to migrant and trapped populations highlighted in the Foresight report.

There are three areas where the Foresight report’s conclusions on migration and global environmental change resonate with the Nansen Initiative as well as UNHCR’s work. These policy areas are:

internal displacement;

cross-border displacement; and

trapped populations.


2.1 Internal Migration and Displacement

Despite the higher profile often accorded to cross-border displacement, the vast majority of movement remains within state borders. This is clearly evidenced by UNDP who (conservatively) estimate 740 million people became internal migrants in 2009 (compared with 210 million international migrants during the following year).3 Whilst the numbers are vast and raise potentially significant humanitarian concerns, the Foresight report highlights that not all movement is negative. In fact, the report argues that planned and properly managed internal migration can reduce the likelihood of forced displacement in the longer term. Moreover, to the extent internal migration can be properly facilitated it may become an effective adaptation strategy.

2.1.1 Operational challenges caused by internal displacement The Foresight report recognises six ‘human mobility outcomes’ where environmental change influences migration and is of relevance to policy makers.4 Of notable importance regarding internal displacement are operational challenges where displacement is temporary, for short periods and internal (for example, extreme climate events such as floods, storm surges, and droughts etc)5. In this case, operational challenges might include emergency and humanitarian relief such as food, water, health care, shelter and so on. This human mobility outcome represents populations commonly described as internally displaced people (IDPs) for which UNHCR has a lead role in a global cluster to oversee the protection and shelter needs of IDPs along with the coordination and management of camps for conflict-related displacement.

Also occurring within state borders is migration which is largely internal, relatively predictable, and an extension of existing flows (notably increased rural-urban migration and city expansion)6. The implications of this migration variant has the potential to create and foster vulnerability that will likely lead to longer-term displacement challenges.7 However, crucially, there is an increasing understanding that migration can provide a pathway to adaptation to environmental change and greater resilience. It is important that the Nansen Initiative see the possible opportunities that migration (as a form of adaptation) may provide to reduce the likelihood of displacement.

2.1.2 Policy approaches There are three policy approaches that the Nansen Initiative can explore to address the challenges of internal migration and displacement in the context of environmental change. Importantly, this also includes building on some of the opportunities inherent in migration.

3 UNDP Human Development Report 2009: Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development (New York: UNDP, 2009). 4 Foresight, p.108-‐120. 5 Termed ‘D1’ on p109 of the Foresight report 6 Termed ‘M1’ on p109 of the Foresight report 7 Foresight, p.110-‐111.


The three approaches are:

(i) Developing protection and support through existing mechanisms;

(ii) Migration as adaptation to environmental change; and

(iii) Urban planning for sustainable cities.

Finally, this section considers the issue of state-led relocation in section (iv).

(i) Developing protection and support through existing mechanisms

The Foresight report identifies a number of agreements and mechanisms already in place which focus on the needs of internal migrants (and more broadly, regional migration). Whilst these initiatives make an important contribution to the recognition and protection of many displaced populations, there remains scope for further development and integration with other institutional actors. This section identifies the key existing mechanisms and considers how they might be further developed.

The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are applicable to displacement from rapid-onset environmental events – it is less clear whether they are applicable to migration in the context of slow-onset environmental change. The 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (Guiding Principles) are the main international human rights norms applicable to internal displacement. The Guiding Principles were concluded as an international ‘soft law’ initiative to provide protection at three stages of the displacement process (namely, protection from forced displacement, assistance during forced displacement and return and finally, resettlement and reintegration assistance). Importantly, assistance and protection will be offered to:

‘persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes of places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalised violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognised State border.’8

Accordingly, where global environmental change acts as a trigger for internal displacement, those affected fall within the scope of the Guiding Principles. The definition refers, however, to ‘natural or human-made disasters’, which would appear to fit much closer with the temporary and short term (D1) human mobility outcome, than the more predictable (M1) rural-urban migration variant that is more likely to reflect slow-onset environmental change.

There are acknowledged shortcomings with the Guiding Principles. The Foresight report recognises that the Guiding Principles offer a valuable model for the protection of displaced more broadly, as they represent a ‘bottom-up’ approach that builds consensus and allows for adaptable and tailored adoption by states.9 The Guiding Principles have so far been adopted by national governments as part of national policy frameworks (i.e. Kenya), endorsed at the

8 Paragraph 2, Introduction to the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. 9 Foresight, p.20.


international level,10 and have inspired the creation of regional initiatives (more on which, below). However, a number of limitations have been identified, including their soft law non-binding status, an absence of enforcement and accountability measures, and uncertainty as to whether or not ‘natural or human-made disasters’ would extend to slow-onset environmental situations.11

Shortcomings are outweighed by strengths and benefits of the ‘soft law’ approach. Despite such perceived shortcomings, there are many positives and scope for further development. The bottom-up approach employed by the Guiding Principles represents a model that is far more likely to attain higher levels of engagement and compliance as a result of state participation and ‘ownership’ of such initiatives, rather than a prescriptive global framework. Indeed, it has been noted that ‘normative statements contained in non-binding texts can generate a political impact equal at times to that of legally binding instruments’ and thus, such statements can give rise to customary international law through state practice.12 Furthermore, rather than a distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ law instruments (such as the Refugee Convention versus the Guiding Principles), it may be that the two in fact form ends of a continuum from legal obligation to complete freedom of action. As Shelton notes, the reality seems to be a ‘dynamic interplay between soft and hard law obligations similar to that which operates between international and national law’.13 Moreover, soft law rarely stands in isolation; instead, it is used most frequently either as a precursor to hard law or as a supplement to a hard-law instrument. Soft-law instruments often serve as an authoritative way to allow treaty parties to resolve ambiguities in a binding text or fill in gaps’. Shelton adds that ‘this function is part of an increasingly complex international system with variation in forms of instruments, means, and standards of measurement that… [have] …the common purpose of regulating behaviour within a rule of law framework’.14 In this way, a binding legal agreement with specific enforcement mechanisms is not always more effective in its objectives than a soft law initiative which arguably harnesses greater political will by virtue of being non-prescriptive.15

10 At the 2005 World Summit on Development. See Zetter, p.21. 11 Zetter, p.21. 12 Shelton, p.292-‐3. For a broader discussion on the topic also see, Shelton, Dinah (ed.) Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-‐binding Norms in the International Legal System (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). 13 Shelton, p.320. 14 Shelton, p.320. 15 For an explanation on how ‘soft-‐law creates the ‘pull’ of legitimacy even without sanctions’ see Ronald St John Macdonald, 'Solidarity in the Practice and Discourse of Public International Law' (1996) 8 Pace International Law Review 259 at 287. Also, for a discussion on the benefits of a soft law approach, see e.g. Betts (Soft Law) 223-‐226.


Recommendation 1: The Nansen Initiative to develop an approach to address the shortcomings, and build on the potential, of the Guiding Principles. The Foresight report has identified the value and scope for further development of the Guiding Principles in addressing migration and global environmental change. A first step would be for UNHCR and IOM to contribute to the Nansen Initiative by taking forward work to clarify whether slow-onset environmental situations are covered by the Guiding Principles and how non-displacement forms of migration might be best managed. Furthermore, there now needs to be a focus on developing or strengthening institutional relationships (perhaps in the first instance between UNHCR and the IOM, as leading global bodies responsible for forced displacement and migration) to determine how the Guiding Principles can be further implemented and/or act as a model for new developments. The Guiding Principles have been recognised as a successful non-binding instrument addressing internal displacement so as such, provide an important model for consideration.

The Kampala Convention is a case study of how to build effectively on the potential of the Guiding Principles. The African Union (AU) adopted the Convention for the Protection and Assistance of IDPs in Africa (Kampala Convention) in 2009. The Convention is based on the Guiding Principles and works to transition these soft law guidelines into binding rules applicable at the regional African level. Notably, Article 5(4) of the Convention obliges states to ‘take all measures to protect and assist persons who have been internally displaced due to natural or human made disasters, including climate change’. The Foresight report identifies the importance of the Kampala Convention as an example of the translation of ‘soft law’ into ‘hard law’ at a regional level.

Recommendation 2: UNHCR should continue to focus bilateral, multilateral and donor engagements on securing more ratifications to the Kampala Convention. The Kampala Convention requires a total of 15 ratifications to enter into force, but as of September 2012, only 11 of the 53 African states have chosen to be bound by the Convention.16 However, it is worth noting that 35 states have signed the Convention which by virtue of that act, means they must not act in any way which contravenes anything in the Convention.

16 Namely Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-‐Bissau, Lesotho, Sierra Leone, Togo, Uganda, Zambia)


Recommendation 3: The development of regional agreements similar to the Kampala Convention should be promoted, in appropriate locations. The conclusion of a regional framework allows for the specific needs and challenges of participating countries to be prioritised and similarly, less compromise required than would be the case with a global binding initiative. The importance of focusing on localised ‘bottom-up’ approaches is again emphasised as the Foresight report recognises, ‘policy approaches which empower the individual are likely to be more effective in different future scenarios, and are thus more resilient’.17 Where there exists sufficient political will and competence this is certainly a model that could be replicated in other regions.

(ii) Migration as adaptation

There are links between migration, adaptation and resilience, and this has implications for those at risk of displacement. The Foresight report recognises the benefits of promoting resilience to environmental change whereby scope for transformational adaptation is encouraged. Planned and managed migration is considered to potentially be ‘a transformational strategy to build human capital in populations and empower members of communities to obtain different income streams from different locations [which] greatly increases the longer-term resilience of individuals and communities alike to the threats of environmental change’.18 In particular, the Foresight report notes that:

There is evidence which suggests migration is a strategy employed by households or communities to diversify their livelihoods;

Remittances, sent home by members of a household/community who have migrated, often increase following environmental disasters; and

Geographically-dispersed social networks can lead to an increase in resilience (through, for example, the sharing of best practice)19.

In each case the outcomes of migration can be seen to increase the resilience of communities and households, reducing their vulnerability and reducing the likelihood of displacement. Indeed, the Foresight report recognises that an absence of migration could result in undesirable risks and impacts, both to the potential migrants and also to wider communities.20

Developing policies to facilitate migration as an adaptation mechanism represents an important strategy that could prevent subsequent forced displacement. It represents a preventative and interventionist approach that, if executed correctly, can give greater

17 Foresight, p. 145 18 Foresight, p.175 19 For a summary of how migration may facilitate adaptation to climate change see Banjeree et al. (forthcoming) 20 Foresight, p.173


responsibility to the individual and thus, result in greater effectiveness and future resilient migration. There are a number of ways in which migration can be facilitated and supported as an adaptation strategy, including:

Reducing the relative cost, and increase the safety and ease of sending, of remittances – especially where sums are small or being sent to rural locations21;

Facilitating internal migration and circulation, for example, through improving urban-rural transportation connections; and

Ensuring that development policy is based on the premise that individuals may migrate, not on the presumption – or indeed with the explicit aim – that populations stay where they are.22

This does not necessarily mean that migration is explicitly encouraged, rather it is recognised that for ‘many people it is an important way of bringing themselves out of poverty and out of vulnerability to global environmental change’.23

Recommendation 4: The Nansen Initiative should lead the international community to consider migration and displacement together when considering the impact of future environmental change. There is a need for displacement and migration to be dealt with in a more holistic fashion leading to more effective strategies that target the needs of affected individuals. In practice this will likely result in great inter-agency linkages, efforts to address key migration drivers, and concentrated support and focus for the needs of those affected.

Recommendation 5: The Nansen Initiative should encourage all relevant stakeholders to devise a preventative approach to displacement associated with environmental change. This includes a need to recognise that providing people with the choice to migrate or not at an early stage can encourage resilience in the face of environmental change, and reduce vulnerability to later mass displacement.

(iii) Urban planning for sustainable cities

Whilst migration can have benefits for resilience, urban policy must be adequately prepared for rural-urban migration to ensure that migrants and receiving areas do not become more vulnerable. Whilst the Foresight report notes the irreversibility of future rural-

21 Deshingkar and Sward (forthcoming) 22 Banjeree et al. (forthcoming) 23 Foresight, p.182.


urban migration, and the important benefits it may bring, there are important policy challenges which are highlighted:

cities will experience growing populations;

cities will face challenges from future environmental change; and

new city migrants tend to concentrate in districts of cities that are hazardous and lacking even the most basic public services.

These challenges are compounded by the fact that many developing countries already experience a ‘massive shortage of adequate urban housing and weak land-use planning systems’ along with social cohesion being ‘threatened by unemployment, rising living costs and the widespread influence of … organised crime’.24 The challenge for the global community is to ensure that urban policy minimises the possible negative impacts of migration on community resilience, whilst allowing migrants to contribute as fully as possible to development and adaptation.

Urban planning is a highly relevant and important consideration for Nansen in respect of both IDPs and other populations, so as to build resilience and avoid increased vulnerability that might subsequently lead to displacement.

IDPs: additional and different operational challenges exist in respect of urban planning where displacement is temporary, for short periods and internal movement to urban areas (for example, in response to extreme climate events such as floods, storm surges, and droughts etc). In such cases, operational challenges might include emergency and humanitarian relief like food, water, health care, shelter etc.25

Other populations: the Foresight report identifies the particular policy challenges of migrants moving to cities noting they are frequently the most vulnerable of migrants who generally lack adequate voice and representation. Accordingly, ‘robust urban planning and policies specifically focused on the welfare of new city migrants are required’.26 Moreover, such urban planning should take into account future changes in climate risks (and sea level for coastal cities) and the likelihood of continuing rural–urban migration, and recognise in particular the irreversibility of defending areas as well as the indirect and social costs.27 Finally, in some cases the challenges for urban planning in existing settlements may be so severe that the establishment of new urban centres is a more durable solution. The Foresight report concludes that over the 50-year period the Report covers, development of new secondary cities must not be ruled out.28

24 Foresight, p.110. 25 Termed ‘D1’ on p109 of the Foresight report; also see Foresight, p.115. 26 Foresight, p.160. 27 Foresight, p.161. 28 Foresight, p.180.


Recommendation 6: UNHCR should continue to focus on the specific requirements of different vulnerable groups in urban areas to (a) protect refugee and displaced populations, and (b) prevent displacement of vulnerable populations. Urban planning for sustainable cities is crucial for a number of UNHCR’s populations of concern, including refugees, IDPs and returnees. The focus needs to be on building resilience and reducing vulnerability which will inevitably reduce the likelihood of displacement owing to environmental change.29 Careful differentiation and analysis of the various vulnerable groups in urban areas is required.

(iv) Relocation as adaptation (planned relocation)

The Foresight report recognises that in the face of future environmental change (such as sea-level rise and other consequences of climate change), the relocation of large populations from one location to another might be an option for governments.30 In this context, planned relocations can be defined as the ‘movement of people, typically in groups or whole communities, as part of process led by the state or other organisation, to a predefined location’.31

Planned relocation is identified as a possible adaptation strategy in paragraph 14(f) of the Climate Change Adaptation Framework, which was concluded at the 2010 UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Cancun. This is especially notable as the ‘discussion of migration has only recently entered the UNFCCC climate negotiations process’.32 However, the very fact planned relocation is included in the Adaptation Framework indicates ‘recognition that the issue that policy needs to address might not be migration or displacement per se, but those who are unable or unwilling to move without assistance’.33

A number of real-life examples are presented as case study evidence on planned relocations to highlight the bigger challenges as being socio-political and economic factors, rather than the traditional humanitarian needs.34 Based on the experience of these examples, several policy lessons are worth considering:

Given the challenges involved, a carefully planned movement is clearly superior to hastily organised, under-resourced, internal relocation;

29 This emphasis on resilience is echoed in UNHCR’s Policy on Refugee Protection and Solutions in Urban Areas which states that a refugee ‘who is unable to live in decent and dignified conditions and who has no real prospect of finding a durable solution …within a reasonable timeframe cannot be considered to have found effective protection’, UNHCR ‘Policy on Refugee Protection and Solutions in Urban Areas’ (September 2009) available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4ab8e7f72.html 30 Foresight, p.176 31 Foresight, p.176 32 Foresight, p.176. 33 Foresight, p.154. 34 Foresight, p.176-‐178.


The need to plan carefully also implies that funding has to be secured well in advance, and not, for example, raised when natural disasters precipitate the need for urgent relocation;

Large-scale movement of agricultural populations to another agricultural area is at best high risk and unlikely to be conducive to permanent transformation of living conditions;

As all examples have highlighted, the key question of economic livelihoods in destination areas is not easily resolved, leading to a risk that protection issues might emerge around livelihoods and food security;

Organised relocation tends to be very expensive; and

Finally, all current programmes should be voluntary in that participation can in principle be refused35.

This strategy of planned relocation is referred to in a number of National Adaptation Programme of Actions (NAPA) on climate change as a development intervention.36 Yet Foresight recognises it is an area fraught with problems, where there are few positive experiences on which policy lessons can be built. Instead, the Foresight report identifies as an alternative the development of national plans for investment in new towns and cities, which will relieve pressure on existing urban infrastructure and seek to meet high environmental standards from the outset. This area of ‘spatial planning’ has a mixed but perhaps more positive history, and is one in which greater potential arguably lies.37

To any extent that planned relocation is implemented as a form of adaptation (hopefully by means of a last resort only), new guidance is required in order to support and direct how such migration should be undertaken so as to minimise the sort of negative experiences and protection issues identified in case studies to date. As stated by the Nansen Principles ‘national and international policies and responses, including planned relocation, need to be implemented on the basis of non-discrimination, consent, empowerment, participation and partnerships with those directly affected, with due sensitivity to age, gender and diversity aspects.’38

Based on experiences to date, the Foresight report advises against using planned relocation as an adaptation strategy, save in extreme circumstances. However, it is possible that such situations will arise which will benefit from well-considered guidance that provides rigorous standards and protection for those affected.

It is worth remaining aware of the current discussion surrounding planned relocation as an adaptation strategy for longer term consideration, and considering further the extent to which protection issues might emerge from implementation of this strategy.

35 Foresight, p.178-‐179. 36 Also note the work of Alexander de Sherbinin on resettlement and climate change in, de Sherbinin, Alexander et al ‘Preparing for Resettlement Associated with Climate Change’ 334 Science (28 October 2011) 456-‐7. 37 Foresight, p.198. 38 Principle X, Nansen Principles.


Recommendation 7: The Nansen Initiative should advocate for a careful and measured response to planned relocation. Planned relocation should only ever be employed as a last resort, and new strict guidance is required on how such relocation should be managed and when it might be appropriate, with the interests of those affected being central to conclusions.


2.2 Cross-border Displacement

Although cross-border displacement is generally considered to be less significant in the context of global environmental change than internal displacement, this is an area in which greater protection gaps exist.

The key theme identified by the Foresight report that is integral to addressing the issue of cross-border displacement is that of governance. The Foresight report calls for global governance to focus on what existing international processes and fora can deliver, rather than seeking a global framework as a ‘silver bullet’. This is why the Foresight report is especially relevant for the Nansen Initiative. This section examines a number of the governance issues raised in the Report and considers possible areas for development.

2.2.1 Governance challenges associated with cross-border displacement and migration The issue of governance is central to the Foresight report and key to any effective and sustainable solution for migration, displacement and global environmental change. At present there exists no global governance system for migration that provides an over-arching structure and guidance for those affected by global environmental change. Instead, there are a number of independent and overlapping initiatives that offer an ad hoc governance approach.

Good governance can be instrumental in responding to forced migration and displacement by offering a framework for global solutions. The Foresight report identifies the value of inclusive and connected governance39 – something that is all the more important in relation to the needs of small island states. Specifically, governance dilemmas are raised when considering the potential displacement of island nations, such as the future of Exclusive Economic Zones, or the risk that some island nations could become completely uninhabitable.40 The lacuna within existing international law means global governance will be hugely important when considering not only issues of sovereignty and citizenship, but also economic issues where island states are reliant on threatened marine ecosystems.

Whilst it is possible to identify the lacuna in current international regulation regarding migration and global environmental change, there is little evidence to indicate that a powerful global consensus on migration could be possible, or indeed if so, lead to the emergence of a comprehensive, integrated structure for the global governance of migration. As the Foresight report explains, this is because of a divergence of interests within the generalised international governance system, whereby interests are influenced by different beliefs, access to information, and weighted by power and can mean that the interests of receiving countries are different from those of sending countries.41

Nonetheless, some argue a global governance system still represents the most effective way to address the problem. For example, Biermann and Boas outline a blueprint for a global governance architecture for the protection and settlement of so-called ‘climate refugees’.42 This approach calls for a new legal instrument especially tailored for the needs of climate

39 Foresight, p.63. 40 Foresight, p.117. 41 Foresight, p.115. 42 Biermann and Boas (2010).


refugees (rather than extending the 1951 Geneva Convention), namely a protocol to the UNFCCC on Recognition, Protection, and Resettlement of climate refugees. This would further be supplemented by a separate funding mechanism; the Climate Refugee Protection and Resettlement Fund. Given the nature of the problem of climate change and migration, Biermann and Boas have deliberately chosen not to frame their proposal in terms of emergency response and disaster relief, but instead focus on planned and organised voluntary resettlement programs. For such a system to be effective, there would need to be ‘some terminological adjustment within the UNHCR regime’ (something the authors view as legally and practically unproblematic) so as to distinguish between political and climate refugees.43 Further, UNHCR would play a role (albeit not as the main agency) as the expertise of the High Commissioner in view of emergencies, as well as its legal and technical expertise in dealing with refugee crises, would be indispensible.44

2.2.2 Policy approaches The Foresight report welcomes the bottom-up approach in examining policy options that the Nansen Initiative proposes to adopt. Such blueprints (as advocated by Biermann and Boas above) seem to prioritise global initiatives at the expense of more local or regional initiatives. This risks attention being diverted towards trying to attain some form of global agreement which will inherently result in a great investment of time and resources, while less work will be undertaken at the local level where those affected by migration and displacement continue to be affected and where it may in fact be much easier and quicker to affect change. In this context, three areas are highlighted that represent a possible way forward.

(i) Flexible and adaptable governance

An integrated multi-level approach to governance architecture that incorporates global, regional and local elements remains the ideal scenario for the Nansen Initiative to promote. Keohane and Victor explain that in relation to climate change, where policy makers are eager to make international regulation more effective, a strategy focused on managing a ‘regime complex’ may allow for more effective management of climate change than large political and diplomatic investments in efforts to craft a comprehensive regime.45 (The authors describe a ‘regime complex’ as a loosely-coupled set of specific regimes.)46 To the extent such a framework is appropriate for climate change, the regime complex approach lends itself well to migration and global environmental change where there already exists a piecemeal governance system resulting from a number of decisions being concluded at different times and on different issues (for example, some to do with climate change adaptation, others dealing with internal displacement, and so on).

Indeed, as the Foresight report recognises, it would be preferable, and ultimately a more effective response, if domestic political systems took the initiative in creating protection and support for those affected by global environmental change that was consistent with broader international norms. This approach is endorsed by the Nansen Principles on Climate Change and Displacement which recognise the state’s primary duty to ‘protect their populations and give particular attention to the special needs of the people most vulnerable to and most

43 Biermann and Boas, p.78. 44 Biermann and Boas, p.79. 45 Keohane, Robert and Victor, David ‘The Regime Complex for Climate Change’ 9(1) Perspectives on Politics (2011) 7-‐23 at 7. 46 For a more detailed explanation of the term, see Keohane and Victor, p.8.


affected by climate change and other environmental hazards, including the displaced, hosting communities, and those at risk of displacement’ … and as such, the ‘development of legislation, policies and institutions as well as the investment of adequate resources are key in this regard’ (Principle 2). Indeed, the Nansen Principles embody a preferable ‘bottom-up’ approach and identify key guidelines to promote a more comprehensive and efficient global response to displacement.

Based on these factors, the Foresight report suggests that the best strategy regarding the governance of mobility and the environment is to build on the multitude of existing international relationships, legal agreements and institutions. There has been much work already done in this area, and there now exists scope for further development and consolidation. In addition, effective action is possible through the array of existing partially overlapping and non-hierarchical institutions.47

Recommendation 8: The Nansen Initiative should pursue a ‘regime complex’ approach which builds on the multitude of existing international relationships, legal agreements, and institutions (such as, for example, the Guiding Principles, Kampala Convention, Nansen Principles, UNFCCC and so on).

Ideally domestic political systems should take the initiative, thereby developing a more effective bottom-up response whilst still remaining consistent with broader international norms.

(ii) Inter-agency links and coordination

Existing protection gaps enhance operational challenges in respect of environmentally related cross-border displacement. The trans-boundary nature of such displacement means any operational measures required to provide support for those affected is outside a single state’s competence and therefore requires cooperation and coordination by multiple states and institutions, which inherently makes action more difficult.

The Foresight report emphasises the importance of strong inter-agency linkages between policy areas.48 Furthermore, Betts has identified various types of existing mechanisms employed to enhance inter-agency collaboration so as to address existing gaps, including:49

inter-agency coordination on migration (such as the existing structure of the Global Migration Group). This is recognised as an effective tool for dialogue, but is limited in that it cannot be expected to lead to focused inter-agency collaboration;

47 Foresight, p.152. 48 Foresight, p.154. 49 Betts (2010a) p.227-‐228.


the cluster approach (for example, developed by the Inter Agency Standing Committee (IASC) in 2005 in the context of UN humanitarian reform). Note this approach has been the subject of much criticism;

the appointment of a Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) on the Protection of Vulnerable Migrants to advocate for migrant protection;

the creation of a small, streamlined agency structure with secretariat (similar to, for example, UNAIDS) to work with and draw on existing expertise; and

the development of different joint standard operating procedures between agencies (for example, 2009 joint standard operating procedures in counter-trafficking between UNHCR and IOM).

The role of participants and the division of responsibilities can be considered by comparing the ‘collaborative’ and ‘cluster’ approaches. A ‘collaborative approach’ indicates an inter-organisational division of labour where a range of UN and non-UN agencies share responsibility. A ‘cluster approach’ differs to the extent it represents the clear allocation of specific responsibilities across different UN agencies.50 In particular, the work of the IASC is identified as having developed a ‘cluster approach’ to humanitarian intervention where there is no clear leadership or accountability chain already established. In this case, the cluster approach designates sector leads, e.g. the UNHCR takes the lead for ‘conflict induced’ IDPs whereas the IOM and the IFRC lead on internal displacement due to natural disasters.51 This approach appears not to work well in respect of rapid-onset disaster situations where humanitarian assistance frequently needs to be engaged and dispatched with haste.

For the purpose of environmentally related cross-border displacement, the two options with the greatest potential seem to be the cluster and collaborative approaches. As demonstrated by Betts above, there are a myriad of possible options for structuring international cooperation and coordination. However, the very fact that existing mechanisms relevant to migration and global environmental change have evolved in an ad hoc and spontaneous fashion suggests that the approach of shared responsibility inherent to a collaborative approach might offer value to mobility in the context of environmental change. Furthermore, a cluster approach which seeks to divide and attribute tasks is perhaps more suited to situations that require a humanitarian response to a specific event, where the identification of organisational leaders for various areas (such as food and water, emergency shelter, logistics, camp management and so on) would improve accountability, predictability and reliability. It is worth noting that there has been some criticism of the effectiveness of the cluster approach in its use to date so its application is best restricted to appropriate situations.52

50 Betts (2010a), p.227 51 Foresight, p.154 and One Response website. 52 Action Aid The Evolving UN Cluster Approach in the Aftermath of the Pakistan Earthquake: an NGO perspective (London, 24 April 2006) available at http://www.actionaid.org.uk/doc_lib/234_1_un_cluster_approach.pdf (accessed 15 April 2012); Mercy Corps Commentary on the Implementation and Effectiveness of the Cluster Approach (September 2006) available at


Any model for coordination and cooperation to be adopted for climate change and global environmental change requires an integrated system capable of dealing with not only disaster recovery, but also forward planning and positively supporting migration where appropriate. In this sense the authors recommend employing a cluster approach for rapid-onset disaster type displacement events, but move to a collaborative approach for slow-onset migration where it may be difficult to identify the environmental driver. This recognises the different needs and characteristics of environmental disaster induced displacement and slow-onset migration, whilst responding with more tailored systems of coordination.

Recommendation 9: The Nansen Initiative should explore the merits of the international community adopting a dualistic approach whereby the cluster approach is employed for displacement from fast-onset environmental events, whilst the collaborative approach is employed for slow-onset migration where the environmental driver is uncertain. This would further build on the Nansen Principles, which call for normative gaps to be addressed within existing norms of international law (Principle 7), and focus on regional frameworks and international cooperation to support action at national level and contribute to capacity building (Principle 4).

(iii) Regional approaches: the European Union Temporary Protection Directive

The Foresight report also recognises the value of action at other regional levels ‘where geographical proximity leads to a heightened sense of interdependence and shared interests’.53 The 2001 European Union Temporary Protection Directive54 was created in order to ‘establish minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons from third countries who are unable to return to their country of origin’ and also ‘to promote a balance of effort between Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving such persons’.55

Temporary protection is considered to be an exceptional measure to provide displaced persons from non-EU countries who are unable to return to their country of origin, with immediate and temporary protection (‘temporary‘ being one year56). It applies in particular when there is a risk that the standard asylum system is struggling to cope with demand stemming from a mass influx which risks having a negative impact on the processing of claims.

The Directive does not explicitly recognise environmental change as a driver of displacement, but rather keeps with the triggers identified by the 1951 Refugee Convention.57 Therefore, establishing the rights of those affected by environmental change is problematic. Moreover,

http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/6297BD5CFEFEDACB8525720D006D252D-‐Mercy%20Corps-‐clusters-‐sep2006.pdf (accessed 15 April 2012).

53 Foresight, p.153 54 (2001/55/EC) 55 Article 1, Temporary Protection Directive. 56 Article 4, Temporary Protection Directive. 57 Article 2, Temporary Protection Directive.


the EU’s reluctance to invoke the Temporary Protection Directive in seemingly relevant situations, such as the exceptional influx of people into Italy from North Africa following the 2011 ‘Arab Spring’ insurrections, has led to discussion on how the regime might be further strengthened so as be more effective.58 Nevertheless, the Temporary Protection Directive does provide an example of how solidarity amongst countries and a balance between EU States in receiving displaced persons can be promoted through a structured regional mechanism59, and there is scope for similar developments elsewhere.

Recommendation 10: The Nansen Initiative should work with relevant stakeholders at regional levels to explore collaborative arrangements that can deal with displacement associated with environmental change in a structured way. Such regional cooperation and solidarity amongst those most directly affected by mobility linked to global environmental change presents a significant opportunity for future development.

58 Nascimbene, Bruno and Di Pascale, Alessia ‘The “Arab spring” and the extraordinary influx of people who arrived in Italy from North Africa’ 13(4) European Journal of Migration and Law (2011) 341-‐360. 59 For a discussion on the value of solidarity as a mechanism for promoting justice within international climate change law see, Williams, Angela ‘Solidarity, Justice and Climate Change Law’ 10 Melbourne Journal of International Law (2009) 493-‐508.


2.3 Trapped Populations

A key conclusion of the Foresight report is the identification of the existence of so-called ‘trapped populations’. A form of double jeopardy is identified for those with lower wealth or capital in respect of future environmental change whereby ‘their reduced level of capital means that they are unable to move away from situations of increasing environmental threats; yet, at the same time, this very lack of capital makes them even more vulnerable to environmental change’.60 The Foresight report recognises that these populations are likely to become trapped in places where they are vulnerable to environmental change.

The six ‘human mobility outcomes’ discussed by the Foresight report include (S2) ‘non-migration influenced by environmental change’ where people are unable to leave (and thereby ‘trapped’).61 Whether populations are trapped through direct force, or through implied constraint, the policy implications … are likely to be more severe than in situations where the decision to stay is more clearly voluntary’.62 Importantly, where policymakers focus only on migration and displacement, they neglect those who are potentially the most vulnerable, i.e. people who are unable to migrate from environmentally prone locations and thus, will become increasingly threatened by environmental change.63

Policy makers need to examine closely the link between migration, lack of migration, and displacement.64 The Foresight report presents a schematic diagram of the relationship between well managed migration and those who are trapped and more likely to suffer humanitarian emergencies and problematic displacement.65

Global environmental change is likely to increase the vulnerability of trapped populations and reduce any opportunity that might exist to migrate towards more secure environmental conditions. Therefore, increased vulnerability in the face of extreme events is likely to result in forced displacement demonstrating (D2) geopolitical challenges which leads to significant, permanent and often cross border displacement.66

Recommendation 11: The Nansen Initiative should encompass the situation of trapped populations and examine how relevant support and protection can most effectively be provided to such people before other challenges (such as legal status and protection, human security, social protection, health and development) become established because of displacement.

60 Foresight, p.14. 61 Foresight, p.108. 62 Foresight, p.119. 63 Foresight, p.119. 64 Foresight, p.120. 65 Firgure 4.3, Foresight, p.121. 66 Foresight, p.117.


Annex - Key Findings of the Report

A. Summary of key conclusions from Foresight report

(i) Environmental change can lead to different ‘migration outcomes’. The decision to migrate is influenced by five broad categories of ‘driver’. These drivers are set out at the vertices of the pentagon in Figure 1.3. Environmental change will influence migration outcomes through affecting existing drivers of migration. This influence is likely to be most pronounced for economic, environmental and, to a lesser degree, political drivers. Environmental change will affect these drivers by impacting, for example, rural wages, agricultural prices, exposure to hazard and provisioning ecosystems.67

(ii) The complex interactions of drivers can lead to different outcomes, which include migration and displacement. These movements will in turn differ depending upon the political and socio-economic context, and may vary in their permanence, duration, novelty, speed, distance, and whether they are cross-border or internal. The variations in these types of movement will pose different policy challenges.68

(iii) Movement towards vulnerable areas: powerful economic, political and social drivers mean that some types of migration are likely to continue regardless of environmental change. Indeed, people are as likely to migrate to places of environmental vulnerability as from these places. For example, compared to 2000, there may be between 114 and 192 million additional people living in floodplains in urban areas in Africa and Asia by 2060, in alternative scenarios of the future. This will pose a range of challenges to policy makers.69

(iv) The implications of immobility: Migration is costly, and with environmental conditions such as drought and flooding eroding people’s livelihoods, migration – particularly over long distances – may be less possible in some situations. This creates high risk conditions. In the decades ahead, millions of people will be unable to move away from locations in which they are extremely vulnerable to environmental change. They will be ‘trapped’ in those vulnerable areas, particularly in low-income countries. In some cases people may seemingly be choosing to stay (rather than being forced to). This may be a positive outcome and the circumstances which enable it should be considered; but it should also be noted there could be public policy issues related to people staying in dangerous environments, and a seemingly voluntary decision to stay may actually be compromised by socio-political circumstances such as land tenure issues or social networks.70

67 Foresight, section 1.2.2 and chapter 2. 68 Foresight, section 1.2.3, chapter 3 and sections 4.1-‐4.5. 69 Foresight, sections 3.3 and 4.2. 70 Foresight, box 1.3, chapter 3 and sections 4.6-‐4.7.


B. Summary of Foresight policy conclusions

(i) A key priority should be an increased focus on urban policy in the context of rural-urban migration and increased risks from environmental change71 Cities are growing through natural population growth and increased rural–urban migration. Cities are extremely vulnerable to future environmental change, especially those in drylands, low-elevation coastal zones or mountain regions. Migrants are particularly vulnerable, as they tend to live in high-density settlements in areas prone to environmental risks, and may not have the human, social or financial capital to protect themselves from these risks. Implications for policy include:

The need to plan for environmental change in expanding cities, including water availability and quality, long term land loss, more frequent hazards, waste, mobility and congestion;

Urban planning and policies specifically focused on the welfare of new migrants are required, including in regards to informal settlements and migrant rights in planning processes; and

National and sub-national planners may need to take a more strategic and long-term approach to city planning which recognises future changes in environmental risks and the likelihood of continuing rural–urban migration, and potentially plans for new settlements.

(ii) A key priority is that adaptation policy, planning and funding should recognise the positive

and negative impacts that migration can have on adaptive capacity and resilience.72 Policies are being enacted by local, national and international governments to increase resilience and facilitate adaptation to environmental change. It is important that such policies are not developed in isolation of future migration patterns. Some migration may negatively impact a community’s adaptive capacity. However, it is often overlooked that migration can deliver benefits to help individuals, households and communities adapt to environmental change; e.g. through diversifying income streams or financial / social remittances. Examples of adaptation projects which have migration at their centre could include:

projects which look to utilise remittances / diasporas for adapting to environmental change in the sending area;

projects which look to make migration a more positive experience for migrants through targeted education schemes;

projects which look to facilitate migration through enabling mobility – e.g. provision of national insurance cards which make it easier to claim benefits anywhere in a country; and

regional migration schemes or initiatives – e.g. ECOWAS free movement.

71 Foresight, sections 7.3 and 8.4. 72 Foresight, sections 6.4, 8.4 and 8.5.


Policies may not explicitly aim to ensure migration contributes to adaptation, but may in effect achieve this – e.g. policies which look to harness migration for development. Given the strong positive correlation between development and adaptive capacity, these are important and relevant.

(iii) Preventing or constraining migration is not a ‘no risk’ option.73 Doing so may lead to increased impoverishment, displacement and irregular migration in many settings, particularly in low elevation coastal zones, drylands and mountain regions. Policies may be explicitly conceived to reduce (internal or international) migration, or may de facto do so. The latter may include for example social protection schemes which only provide for people in the area of their birth, or policies which discriminate against migrants. Indeed even some well-intentioned development spending could in effect result in more people being trapped in areas where they will, in the long run, become increasingly vulnerable.

(iv) The Foresight policy framework: Figure 5.2 provides an overview of the range of policies that can be considered relevant for future migration in the context of global environmental change. Some policies may be more appropriate than others at any given point (indeed it is argued in the report that policies to limit or slow environmental change are unlikely to impact migration over the shorter term,74 that a global protocol on ‘environmental migrants’ is unlikely to be successful,75 and that policies to relocate communities should only be considered last the last resort.76

73 Foresight, p.111. 74 Foresight, section 6.2. 75 Foresight, section 7.2. 76 Foresight, section 8.3.


Selected Bibliography McAdam, Jane Climate Change, Forced Migration and International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)

McAdam, Jane ‘Environmental Migration Governance’ in Betts, A. (ed.) Global Migration Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 153-188

McAdam, Jane ‘Swimming against the Tide: Why a Climate Change Displacement Treaty is Not the Answer’ 23(1) International Journal of Refugee Law (2011) 2-27

Banerjee, Soumyadeep et al ‘Migration as an effective mode of adaptation to climate change’ (forthcoming 2012)

Betts, Alexander ‘Towards a ‘Soft Law’ Framework for the Protection of Vulnerable Irregular Migrants’ 22(2) International Journal of Refugee Law (2010) 209-236 (2010a)

Betts, Alexander ‘Survival Migration: A New Protection Framework’ 16 Global Governance (2010) 361-382 (2010b)

Biermann, Frank and Boas, Ingrid ‘Preparing for a Warmer World: Towards a Global Governance System to Protect Climate Refugees’ 10(1) Global Environmental Politics (2010) 60-88.

Corlett, David Stormy Weather: The Challenge of Climate Change and Displacement (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2008)

Deshingkar, Priya and Sward, Jon ‘Urbanisation, migration and social protection in the context of global environmental change’ (forthcoming 2012)

Elie, Jérôme ‘The Historical Roots of Cooperation between the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration’ 16 Global Governance (2010) 345-360

Foresight Migration and Global Environmental Change (2011) Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science, London

Kälin, Walter and Schrepfer, Nina ‘Protecting People Crossing Borders in the Context of Climate Change: Normative Gaps and Possible Approaches’ UNHCR Legal and Protection Policy Research Series (February 2012) available at: http://www.unhcr.org/4f33f1729.pdf (accessed 6 April 2012)

Keohane, Robert and Victor, David ‘The Regime Complex for Climate Change’ 9(1) Perspectives on Politics (2011) 7-23

Koser, Khalid ‘Introduction: International Migration and Global Governance’ 16 Global Governance (2010) 301-315

Martin, Susan ‘Climate Change, Migration and Governance’ 16 Global Governance (2010) 397-414


Newland, Kathleen ‘The Governance of International Migration: Mechanisms, Processes, and Institutions’ 16 Global Governance (2010) 331-343

Shelton, Dinah ‘Normative Hierarchy in International Law 100 American Journal of International Law (2006) 291-323

de Sherbinin, Alexander et al ‘Preparing for Resettlement Associated with Climate Change’ 334 Science (28 October 2011) 456-7.

UNDP Human Development Report 2009: Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development (New York: UNDP, 2009)

Zetter, Roger ‘Protecting Environmentally Displaced People: Developing the Capacity of Legal and Normative Frameworks’ Refugee Studies Centre Research Report (University of Oxford, February 2011) available at: http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/workshop-conference-research-reports/Zetter-%20EnvDispRep%2015022011.pdf (accessed 8 April 2012)

© Crown copyright 2012 Foresight 1 Victoria Street London SW1H 0ET www.foresight.gov.uk

Documents

The Nansen Initiative, UNHCR and the Foresight report … Nansen Initiative, UNHCR and the Foresight report on Migration and Global Environmental Change Contents Executive Summary