An Interview with Professor Jane McAdam

1. In the context of SIDS, could environmental challenges and climate change cause permanent resettlement and/or relocation of its inhabitants?

While Pacific island communities stress their desire to remain in their homes for as long as possible, there is also recognition that environmental challenges and the impacts of climate change may mean that islands become uninhabitable over time.  While relocation is their least preferred option, it is nevertheless one possible element in a ‘toolkit’ of responses.  Relocation and resettlement (terms that are often used interchangeably) in essence describe the physical movement of a community from one place to another, with an attempt to re-establish the community in the new location. 

States play a key role in facilitating that movement.  In this way, it differs from migration which tends to describe movement by individuals and households.  In low-lying SIDS, internal relocation is not feasible – which is why cross-border relocation is sometimes proposed.  At present, it is not a formal strategy pursued by any Pacific island government, although in the past, Tuvalu suggested that it was seeking land for relocation.  In reality, it is very unlikely that other countries will offer land for whole island communities to relocate en masse.  Instead, it would seem that staggered individual/household migration will be far more likely.   

2. Have there been any cross-border relocations in the past?  How successful have they been?

To my knowledge, there have been three cross-border relocations – all from SIDS.  They occurred in the mid-20^th century and involved communities moving from present-day Kiribati and Tuvalu to Fiji and the Solomon Islands.  In fact, from the 1930s onwards, the colonial government of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony (now Kiribati and Tuvalu) sought to respond to the scarcity of land and resources on these low-lying atolls by searching for land within the Pacific to which groups of islanders could relocate.  There were hundreds of internal relocations, along with the three cross-border relocations.  

In 2012 I visited Rabi and Kioa.  While virtually everyone I spoke to on both islands recognized that materially, they were better off in their ‘new’ Fijian homes – with abundant food and water, and access to greater educational and economic opportunities – this did not mean that relocation was necessarily viewed as a great success.  The chief difference between the two cases, which has had the greatest impact on the subsequent development of the two communities, is the degree of choice involved in moving.  The Kioans, who chose to move, tell their story as one of pioneering spirit and community survival.  The people say that they have two homes – Kioa, the homeland, and Vaitupu, the motherland.  By contrast, the Banaban [settlers in Rabi] story is one of injustice.  They feel they were forced from their island because of phosphate mining by Britain, Australia and New Zealand.  Theirs is a complex story about loss of homeland, deprivation of resources and the destruction of identity.  Loss of home is not just about loss of place and personality, but also about the loss of self-determination. 

3. What benefits can migration bring to SIDS?

Migration can be an effective form of adaptation and a means to build long-term resilience, especially in the face of slow-onset impacts of climate change.  The President of Kiribati, for example, has been very vocal in promoting the idea of ‘migration with dignity’. Overseas employment can provide a livelihood diversification and risk management strategy.  It can also relieve some of the resource pressures on SIDS – for instance: greater out-migration could mean that a smaller population could remain for longer.  Well-planned migration can also lessen the likelihood of future humanitarian emergencies and displacement. 

As participants stressed at the Nansen Initiative Pacific Consultation in 2013, improved opportunities for training and education at home can help equip people with the skills they might need to work abroad, as well as help them to contribute to their own society while they remain. 

Of course, the extent to which migration can function as a positive form of adaptation, rather than as a sign of vulnerability, will depend on people’s socio-economic status and the extent of government and other assistance available to them.

4. Regional, national and international migration policy responses should take into account the desires of affected communities. In the case of SIDS, how can a bottom-up approach to migration be ensured?

As in any context, it is important that the voices of affected communities are heard and listened to – and that the international community recognizes their knowledge of local conditions and existing adaptation strategies.  If this doesn’t happen, we could end up with all sorts of policy options that simply don’t fit with the needs and desires of the communities that will be affected by them.  As the Nansen Initiative’s Pacific Consultation in 2013 showed, bringing together community leaders from a variety of different sectors enables concerns and ideas to be articulated and shared.  It is also really important to look at existing patterns of migration from SIDS because it is natural that people will feel more comfortable moving to places where there are already diaspora communities.  Similarly, distinctions need to be made between different sectors of the population.  For instance, younger people will generally be far more open to the idea of moving overseas than older people.  A one-size-fits-all approach is therefore not appropriate.

---------------------------

Professor Jane McAdam

• Director of the Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, University of NSW, Australia
• Author of Climate Change, Forced Migration, and International Law (OUP 2012)
• Jane’s current research explores historical examples of cross-border relocation