To Migrate or Not to Migrate?

A little while back, I stumbled upon a case study which challenges some common assumptions about how small island nations and their inhabitants would fare through the effects of global warming. This case study, authored by Colette Mortreux and Jon Barnett of the University of Melbourne, focuses on the inhabitants of Funafuti, the capital island of Tuvalu in the South Pacific.

The premises being questioned here are that rising sea levels will force Tuvaluans to abandon their island nation and migrate elsewhere, and that sea level rise induced by global warming is an overriding concern in their daily lives. In the process, they discuss how Tuvaluan values and perceptions affect their reactions to the threat of global warming. All of the following information and statistics are derived from this The idea of relocating entire populations from low-lying island nations was first laid out in 1996, referring to institutional support for the “refugees” of global warming as “compensation” for their lost homeland. However, a counterargument is made by these authors (among others) that falling back on mass migration as a solution detracts from more helpful adaptive strategies which could allow Tuvaluans and others to “lead the kind of lives they value in the places where they belong.” Despite its small size, small population, and relative obscurity on the international stage, Tuvalu has in the past received outside media attention fixated on rising sea levels. Indeed, the level of danger Tuvalu is in have been sensationalized by words like “sinking”, “drowning”, and “disappearing”, and association with the idea of forced migration. Even NGOs, in their efforts to raise awareness, have overstated the immediate danger. On the other hand, the more accurate and less dramatic assessments of the Tuvaluan government have difficulty being heard in the international scene. Mortreux and Barnett are quick to point out that they are not questioning the risk of rising sea levels for nations like Tuvalu. What they are questioning are outside assumptions about how native islanders and their governments will respond to the danger, and that migration from these island communities is motivated by global warming. As part of the case study, 28 personal interviews were conducted with inhabitants of the island of Funafuti. Out of these, 19 stated that they would continue living there for the foreseeable future. Out of the nine remaining, only two of them cited climate change as a concern, and one of these was as a secondary factor: the majority of those planning to leave sought better employment opportunities and/or family reunification. The citizens interviewed cited a feeling of community and a relaxed atmosphere. According to one woman interviewed: “Is good here. It is my paradise. I can sleep wherever I want, do whatever I want. I can visit my sister and just talk – and sleep there if I want. You can’t do that in Fiji. I can sleep and work when I want.” Said another woman: “Here, a man might catch lots of fish one day and sell it, and the next day he can relax, sleep, visit friends, loaf around for the whole day. You can’t do that in New Zealand.” Given such attitudes regarding the socio-economic environment on Funafuti, and the perception that life is more difficult and rigorous in larger nations, it is not surprising that many of the islanders want to stay. Government officials who were interviewed also cited personal identities tied in with Tuvalu; though they identified rising sea levels and global warming as issues of significant concern, many also felt a sense of responsibility to stay on the islands and see their country through these difficulties. Having assessed the general attitudes of the islanders, Mortreux and Barnett identify three factors that they found to have the most impact on attitudes regarding climate change. The first is religion: Tuvalu is a devoutly Christian nation. When asked about rising sea levels, many Tuvaluans insist that, because of their nation’s relationship with God, and the covenant made with Noah in the Bible, Tuvalu will not be lost to the ocean. This literal Biblical mindset is identified (by the authors) as a possible barrier to adaptation, and may mean that “the most significant potential social impact of climate change in Tuvalu is the existential tragedy of the loss of Tuvalu as God’s place for the Tuvaluans.” The second factor is personal experience with climate change: many of Funafuti’s inhabitants have not personally observed or experienced significant climatic or environmental changes. A major reason for this, it is found, is that a wide segment of the island’s population is young (39% under the age of 19) and only a quarter of the population is indigenous, the rest having migrated to Funafuti. Indeed, it turns out that older respondents from the island HAD noticed the environmental change. The third factor, related to the sentiments expressed by the residents and officials previously, are attitudes regarding “home”. Many of the inhabitants have an identity intertwined with their island, community, and nation, creating a solid attachment such that many Tuvaluans were “prepared to suffer at home rather than move . . .” Knowing this, the Tuvaluan government has rejected migration as a measure of absolute last resort, with an official summing up their reasoning: “you cannot make another Tuvalu.” As the authors themselves state, this case study was not designed to make projections about the future of Funafuti or Tuvalu, but to address the factor of human perception and values within the issue of climate change. However, they do conclude that, given the inhabitants’ deep and complex connections to the island, migration on a national level “should be avoided at all costs.” While individual or family migrations can serve as a viable form of social, cultural, and economic adaptation, forcing the entire nation to relocate would violate some widely-recognized human rights. Thus, in their conclusion, Barnett and Mortreux make an assertion directed more at the industrial world, and especially at well-meaning NGOs therein: “The rights of Tuvaluans to continue living in Tuvalu – and the value of Tuvaluan identity and culture to Tuvaluans and the world – means that there needs to be far greater effort at implementing adaptation in the islands to sustain the population and their way of life.” This article has indeed caused me to reevaluate my assumptions about the role of migration as adaptation for low-lying island nations. In hindsight, it seems rather obvious that people and nations should not be expected to simply uproot and relocate en masse, especially while less traumatic and less expensive means of adaptation are still available. We should never assume a lack of agency (roughly synonymous with “self-determination” or “initiative”) on the part of any nation or culture. Also, as a final thought, I should probably rethink my use of the word “sinking” in my titles. For those who wish to read the article itself, here is the URL: http://web.env.auckland.ac.nz/courses/geog320/resources/pdf/climate/Mortreux%20and%20Barnett%202009.pdf