Security Representations in Environmental Migration Policy

(1)

Security Representations in Environmental Migration Policy

A policy analysis on environmental migration policy in Central America from a human and state

security perspective

Author: Valentina Wignell Supervisor: Joakim Palme Uppsala University

Department of Political Science Spring semester 2020

(2)

2

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to analyse problem representations within national and multilateral policy concerning environmental migration in Central America. The study mainly focuses on Mexico and Costa Rica’s national legal frameworks regarding environmental migration but also draws on bilateral as well as multilateral agreements ratified by the countries. In a two-step analysis, the perspectives of human security and state security are used to identify key representations, followed by an application of Bacchi’s (2016) post-structural policy analysis tool ‘What is the problem represented to be?’, allowing for an understanding of environmental migration policy in a wider context. The results of the study show how human security characteristics are most prevalent within environmental migration policy, albeit acknowledging the implicit prevalence of state security characteristics. The study makes attributions to the understanding of the discourse and conceptualisation concerning environmental migration and recommends further studies on efficient interlinkages between human and state security-oriented policies.

Keywords: Environmental migration policy; Human security; State security; Policy analysis;

(3)

3

Abbreviations

CEPREDENAC Central American Regional Mechanism for Mutual Assistance and Coordination

CHS Commission on Human Security

ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

GCM Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

IDMC Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre

IOM International Organization for Migration

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

NRC Norwegian Refugee Council

OAS Organization of American States

OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

RCM Regional Conference on Migration

SICA Central American Integration System

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(5)

5

1. Introduction and background

1.1. Background

Migrating has been an inherent and recurrent part of human history (Harari, 2015). More recently, however, the number of migrants have increased significantly, reaching 272 million people in 2019 – approximately 3.5% of the world population (McAuliffe et al., 2019, p. 23). In this context, anxiety over immigration and asylum has become a potent political force in many parts of the world. Human rights and humanitarian values have been greatly affected as the issue of migration has become increasingly securitized. As a critique towards a state-centric, national security-oriented securitization of migration, scholars have attempted to present forced migration as ‘human security’ issues, emphasising safety from threats such as hunger, disease, and repression as well as protection from other harmful disruptions in the patterns of daily life (United Nations, 2016, p. 5). From this line of thought, migration both results from and can lead to human insecurity (Vietti and Scribner, 2013, p. 22). In this context, the formulation of migration policy often constitutes an issue of normative character where questions of responsibility and guilt are central, reflecting the issue of whether the opening of borders to refugees should be considered a duty or favour (Harari, 2018).

Climate change has added a new dimension to the debate between advocates of human and state security (IPCC, 2014, p. 759ff). With a rising number of people migrating as a consequence of the effects of climate change, environmental migration has received increased attention and is largely considered a future security issue (IDMC, 2019, p. 74). According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (2019), 28 million people abandoned their homes due to natural disasters such as floods or tornadoes in 2018, indicating a number three to ten times greater than that of armed conflict (IDMC, 2019, p. 5; NRC, 2020). The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that this number could increase nine fold – towards 250 million people in 2050 (IPCC, 2014). Having pressured millions to flee both internally and to other countries in recent years, migration and displacement in the context of disasters is nowadays recognized as a significant trend in Central America (CA) and North America1 (Pușcaș, 2018, p. 2; Selee, 2020). In 2018, 1,7 million people were displaced due to natural

disasters in the Americas, and the number of Central Americans living in a place other than that of their birth increased by about 35% between 2000 and 2010, while in Northern Central America2

1 Central America refers to Costa Rica, Belize, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. For climate modelling purposes the region includes Mexico in this study.

(6)

6 it averaged 59% (ECLAC, 2018, p. 26). These mobility trends highlight a significant need for policies, regulations and laws that states can use to manage migration flows prompted by disasters and environmental change (Pușcaș, 2018, p. 6).

While the 4th Assessment Report (2014) by the IPCC presented mixed evidence for the

linkages between climate change, conflict and migration, several scientific advances highlighting the effects of climate change on migration flows have since been made (Baez et al., 2017; ECLAC, 2018; McMichael, 2014; Smith et al., 2014; Wrathall et al., 2014). These scientific advances have emphasised how migration in CA is affected by climatic and environmental situations such as hurricanes or droughts among others (Kaenzig and Piguet, 2014, p. 24ff; Neumann et al., 2015, p. 23f). Parallel to these scientific advances, various developments concerning climate change policy have also been made. In 2015, three important international treaties which increased the opportunities to support in global initiatives on health, migration and conflict were ratified: the Paris Agreement, Sendai Framework and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Additionally, the adoption of the United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) in 2016 put the spotlight on the importance of protecting migrants and refugees in the context of disasters and climate change (Ebi et al., 2018, p. 6). These treaties underline the increased room for the issues concerning the nexus between migration and climate change within the international community (NRC, 2018) and increasingly incorporate perspectives within the normative framework of human security, including factors such as poverty, discrimination, and extreme natural and technological disasters (Adger et al., 2014, p. 759).

In the CA region, migration issues have become highly prioritized on both the development and political agenda (ECLAC, 2018, p. 5). The response to the concern of environmental migration has consisted of both humanitarian measures and regional as well as national disaster risk management policies (Wrathall et al., 2014). Although there is no binding international law concerning the rights of interstate migration, countries in Central and North America have established some of the most advanced normative and policy solutions to allow for foreigners to migrate and stay in the context of climate change (Pușcaș, 2018, p. 6). Various measures have been commissioned, many of which are included in the ‘Guide to Effective Practices for RCM Member Countries’ developed under the Nansen Initiative and adopted by RCM countries3 in 2016 (Nansen Initiative, 2016; Pușcaș, 2018, p. 8). Although there are several

multilateral and bilateral initiatives in Central and North America such as, for example, Costa Rica’s

(7)

7 bilateral agreements with most states in the region, policy concerning climate-induced migration tend to rely on domestic immigration law. Mexico and Costa Rica make up two of the countries with substantial frameworks to address migration due to natural disasters (Cantor, 2016).

Policy and governance in relation to climate-induced mobility has been scarcely studied in previous research and particularly in less developed countries (Lilleør and Van den Broeck, 2011, p. 70), thus constituting a research gap. As environmental migration has often been treated separate from other types of migration within the research (Dun and Gemenne, 2008, p. 10), this study aims to take on a wider perspective. Through analysing how security-related policy engages with problem representations within the context of climate change and migration, this paper attempts to contribute to a cross-disciplinary contemporary understanding of international migration and its ties to both development and human security as research fields and policy domains.

1.2. Purpose and research question

(8)

8 Drawing on the discourse within security studies, particularly the distinction between the perspectives of human and state security, as well as a general securitization of forced migration, this study aims to add to the understanding of policy regarding environmental migration. When investigating how environmental migration is represented in Costa Rican and Mexican law and other policy documents, the post structural policy analysis tool ‘What’s the problem represented to be?’ (WPR) will be used (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). This descriptive policy analysis aims to be critical and focus on power dynamics from a post-structural perspective and is thus based on Bacchi and Goodwin’s (2016) analytical questions. WPR has been selected as part of the method as it constitutes a practical policy analysis tool to examine the construction of policy problems in a wider context, and as the approach provides an important tool for questioning how governing takes place (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016, p. 3). By assessing how these policy frameworks relate to the concept of human and conventional state security, the purpose of this scientific study is to add to the understanding of the discourse on environmental migration in CA. The aim is to identify, describe and analyse representations of environmental migration in policy and to, through the analytical tool of WPR, add to the understanding of how policy is shaped by how ‘the problem’ is constructed. The research question is of descriptive character and is as follows: How is environmental

migration constructed as a security problem in policy in Central American destination countries?

1.3. Definitions and delimitations

In order to answer the research question, definitions and delimitations of several concepts are required. Firstly, the concept of security is understood differently within the human and state security discourse4. Human security, which can be understood at different scales of ambition5 is

considered a set of values in this study. In a similar manner, state security is considered a perspective centred on the state and the principle of state sovereignty, as was set out in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 (IIHR, 2010, p. 1). Worth noting is that the correlation between threats endangering national security and the security of individuals has been acknowledged, and this has implied a greater necessity for approaches that cover both human and national security issues (United Nations, 2004, p. 15). The need for policy incorporating both aspects does not, however, imply that the concepts of human and state security should be seen as similar6.

Secondly, as there is no internationally accepted definition of environmental migrants the definition used in this study is the broad working definition by the IOM: “Environmental migrants

4 Further detailed in section 3.1. 5 Further detailed in section 2.2.2.

(9)

9

are persons or groups of persons who, predominantly for reasons of sudden or progressive change in the environment that adversely affects their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes, or choose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, and who move either within their country or abroad” (IOM, 2011, p. 33),

Thus, people who choose to migrate for environmental reasons do not fall solely within any one particular category neither in contemporary international legal frameworks or in national legal frameworks (IOM, 2018, 2011). Policy on environmental migration includes both international migrants and internally displaced people, forced ‘irregular’ migrant(s)7 and legal ‘regular’

migrant(s)8, and people who migrate due to sudden changes in the environment (e.g. natural

disasters) or due progressive environmental factors (e.g. effects of changes in temperature). In this study, policy on environmental migration is considered as encompassing different types of official policy and legal frameworks which directly affect migrants, although it is limited to focus only on policies regulating international migration. Destination country refers to the country that is a destination for both regular and irregular migrants (IOM, 2011, p. 15).

This paper considers EMP all policy which directly or indirectly determines the entry of environmental migrants. This paper sheds particular light on policies concerning sudden changes in the environment, since most responses in the region deal with rapid-onset disasters in the context of displacement and migration (Cantor, 2015, p. 7ff). Policies addressing disasters can be managed through either ‘regular’ (fitting persons affected into ‘regular’ migration policy) or ‘exceptional’ categories (temporary protection or humanitarian entry provisions9), and countries

can adopt both categories in different frameworks (Cantor, 2015, p. 32).

Additionally, WPR is defined as a tool rather than a theory for methodological purposes10.

Bacchi’s questions are addressed but there is no analysis regarding what is changed or left unchanged, as it is beyond the scope of this study. With regards to WPR, a necessary assumption of this paper is that security problem representations can be detected within the chosen policy documents.

7 An internationally adopted definition does not exist but IASFM had defines ‘forced migration’ as ‘a general term that

refers to the movements of refugees and internally displaced people (people displaced by conflicts) as well as people displaced by natural or environmental disasters, chemical or nuclear disasters, famine, or development projects’ (IASFM, 2020).

8 This report uses the terms ‘irregular’ migration and ‘irregular’ migrant(s). The term ‘irregular’ is conceptually problematic but is preferable to the term ‘illegal’, the other term most commonly used in this context (Koser, 2005). 9 Humanitarian admission is considered ‘an expedited process offering a pathway for admission into a country on a temporary or

permanent basis to persons or groups of persons with protection needs’. It can be used for persons in need of protection, with

urgent protection needs, migrants in vulnerable situations, extended family members, or persons in need of medical assistance and care (IOM, 2015).

(10)

10

2. Prior research and theoretical framework

This section briefly summarizes the previous lines of research on environmental migration and introduces the theoretical stances which this scientific study is based on. Initially, prior research on environmental migration policy (EMP) underlying this study is presented, followed by an account for the theoretical framework of the study. The latter includes a summary of human and state security and will guide the analysis in answering the research question.

2.1. Prior research

Although international migrants have existed for as long as the nation state, the inclusion of forced migration within security research agendas is rather new (Hammerstadt, 2014, p. 265; Harari, 2015). In recent decades, migration has proliferated across several disciplines: economics, legal studies, sociology, anthropology, history, political science and international relations (Truong and Gasper, 2011, p. 7). The interest in the security dimensions of forced migration increased in parallel with the widening of the security agenda by the end of the Cold War, when analysts and policymakers began to consider challenges beyond threats and use of military force. During the post-Cold War period, economic, environmental and identity security concerns were considered of similar importance to the defence of state sovereignty and territorial integrity, with refugees and asylum seekers seen as potential threats to all these ‘new’ types of insecurity (Hammerstadt, 2014, p. 265ff). As a result, the relationship between human mobility and environmental degradation was not given considerable scholarly attention until the mid-1970s (Stojanov et al., 2014, p. 509). In a 1985 report for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the term ‘environmental refugee’ was employed to describe people ‘forced to leave their traditional habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of a marked environmental disruption that jeopardized their existence and/or seriously affected the quality of their life’ (El-Hinnawi, 1985). Having since recognized the problematic legal and conceptual limitations of the term ’refugee’, researchers and policymakers have been devoting increasing attention to the potential causes of environmental migration, its legal and governance implications, future risks posed by climate change, and the role of migration within broader processes of adaptation (McAdam, 2012, p. 4).

(11)

11 insights into the delimitation of fundamental epistemological and ontological assumptions within science11, several security scholars attempted to present forced migration as a ’human security’

problem (Hammerstadt, 2014, p. 272f; Truong and Gasper, 2011, p. 3). The aim was to convince governments to deal proactively with the root causes of migration and find permanent solutions to refugee problems (Hammerstadt, 2014, p. 273). The ambition to portray forced migration as a human security issue is seen as a predominantly activist agenda as many activist NGOs, and indeed the UN itself, embraced human security (Hammerstadt, 2014, p. 273ff).

This wider security agenda claims security status for migration issues related to the environment (Churruca Muguruza, 2007, p. 4). Contemporary research on environmental mobility, in turn, is considered loosely divided into three strands of research: one strand made up of in-depth case studies of people and communities vulnerable to climate change; a second category aiming to comprehend the size of the issue; and a third line of research concerned with terminology and conceptualisations.

The first strand focuses on perceptions and different coping strategies among people and communities who are highly vulnerable to climate change. The second strand includes systematically modelling the phenomenon of climate-induced mobility and, although used methods have developed in the last years, a full conceptualisation has not been defined (Ebi et al., 2018, p. 2). Much of the available empirical research focuses on internal migration following natural disasters (e.g. Meze-Hausken, 2000, p. 380ff) but there exists a small but growing number of empirical studies that consider environmentally linked migration that spans international borders. Although a need for more research has been acknowledged, the existing studies provide valuable evidence in understanding how environmental factors interrelate with political, economic and social factors (Obokata et al., 2014, p. 113). The third category of studies is focused on the conceptualisation of mobility due to climatic stressors relate to the policy and legal frameworks for environmental migration and displacement, which are considered highly underdeveloped (Perry, 2011, p. 4).

Less literature has focused on policy in relation to environmental migration and mobility (Mortreux et al., 2018, p. 123f). As discussions of mechanisms to manage environmental migration are still in their early stages, several key areas for further research have been posed (Laczko, 2009, p. 25). These include shifting the research agenda and the framing of key issues as well as

(12)

12 identifying better data and methods (Laczko, 2009, p. 26f). This paper posits itself on the prior agenda and largely builds upon previous studies on environmental migration.

2.2. Theoretical framework

The nexus climate change-migration is relevant to analyse from a human security perspective due to the importance of migration within the security agenda (Hammerstadt, 2014, p. 265). More specifically, it is deemed relevant to study EMP through the perspectives of human and state security as these represent opposing understandings of the nature of security issues. This section will thus summarize the theoretical frameworks of state and human security respectively, highlighting aspects related to environmental migration.

2.2.1. State security

The traditional concept of security was based on the security of states and it was an outcome of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia (Martin, 2020). The Peace of Westphalia, in turn, initiated a series of significant changes in international affairs. The transnational role of the Catholic Church was delegitimized and the idea that international relations should be driven by balance of power was promoted, which laid the groundwork for the modern nation state. This system – the Westphalian model – stresses the importance of state sovereignty, the principle of non-interference by states in the domestic affairs of other states, and a territorial conceptualization of security. In this context, nation-states are considered the relevant political actors and maintain their power and stability according to a philosophy of si vis pacem para bellum (eng.: ‘if you want peace, prepare for war’). As a consequence, the international system consists of equal and sovereign states using a zero-sum game to achieve their aims, with conflicts occasioning from nations pursuing their interests. The state security model remains the dominant paradigm in international affairs (Vietti and Scribner, 2013, p. 17ff).

(13)

13

2.2.2. Human security

First formally introduced by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in its Human

Development Report of 1994, the concept of human security emphasizes the security of the individual

rather than the state (UNDP, 1994, p. 22). In its report, UNDP suggests that the term ‘security’ has long been interpreted too narrowly, merely used in the context of ‘security of territory from external aggression’. In contrast, human security considers not only the absence of conflict but includes several dimensions12 as part of the qualification of human security (UNDP, 1994, p. 23).

This United Nations General Assembly Resolution 66/290 (2012) provides a key formulation, emphasizing human rights values, a ‘people-centred, comprehensive, context-specific and prevention-oriented’ approach to policy, and a stress on interlinkages between peace, development and human rights (United Nations, 2012). The UN Commission on Human Security (CHS) has also assigned ‘freedom from fear, freedom from deprivation and freedom to live in dignity’ as basic elements of human security, and highlighted the need to consider vulnerable people in the context of human security (CHS, 2003; United Nations, 2012, 2005).

Despite a recent re-introduction of human security in official policy documents, it is not a new idea but rather rooted in a long trajectory of referencing the individual and individual rights in international politics. The concept of human security has had a remarkable revival since the 90th

century, but specific ideas about what security means for the individual actually appear already in the Treaty of Westphalia, in which the issue of freedom and individual rights is viewed in contrast to the issue of national state security. In a similar manner, the first legal sources13 mentioning the

protection of human rights and other documents14 by frontrunners of human security have also

helped shape the human security phenomena. Much of human security-like framing can be identified within the fields of socio-cultural anthropology, human ecology and in some peace and conflict studies and critical security studies (Gasper and Sinatti, 2016, p. 5ff).

Building on its prevalent presence in history, human security is today seen as a broad concept which is defined in many different ways depending on discipline (Adger et al., 2014, p. 759). Human security is not an exact theoretical model but rather a general framework for orienting attention, and it has been essayed at four scales of ambition: 1) a set of values, criteria or objectives; 2) an approach to analysing social realities; 3) an approach to policy analysis; or 4) a perspective

12The seven dimensions of human security mentioned by UNDP (1994) are economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security and political security (UNDP, 1994).

13 The United States Constitution (1787), Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), as well as the Bill of rights (1791) (Gasper and Sinatti, 2016).

(14)

14 on governance. The first characterization can be seen as the core, and the following characterizations become increasingly penumbral, with the fourth level representing the most diversity in thinking. The first level is considered the origin concept of human security thinking as a set of values, criteria and objectives, and is not tied to any other schools of thought. The first two scales are particularly prevalent within migration studies, as migrants generally have been too marginalized to include in the more conventional policy analyses on the third and fourth scale (Gasper and Sinatti, 2016, p. 5f).

When considering human security as a set of criteria and values, important features in understanding the concept include an evaluative focus on persons and their lives in society and an explanatory focus that involves all persons. The aforementioned evaluative focus implies a commitment to human rights, as well as a focus on individual’s subjective and objective security (Gasper and Sinatti, 2016; UNDP, 1994, p. 22f). The following explanatory focus, in turn, involves a rejection of methodological nationalism (including a dehumanized language of migration, e.g. ‘flows’) which takes countries as the main unit of attention, and instead underscores both a methodological individualism – a person-focus which includes factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, culture and more – and a methodological globalism which shift focus to influences that cross boundaries. Human security is thus characterized by a holistic anthropological orientation that explores specificity, diversity and complexity (Gasper and Sinatti, 2016, p. 4f).

(15)

15

Figure 1: Key human security characteristics

Source: Own elaboration based on Gasper and Sinatti (2016) and Vietti and Scribner (2013).

In the context of climate change, the IPCC (2014) defines human security as ‘a condition that exists when the vital core of human lives is protected, and when people have the freedom and capacity to live with dignity’. Through this assessment, the vital core of human lives includes the universal and culturally specific, material and non-material elements necessary for people to act on behalf of their interests (Adger et al., 2014, p. 12). Human security is inherently linked to both climate change and migration, as it is largely based on human rights (Adger et al., 2014, p. 12f). Disruptions in the economic lives of individuals and their families, dislocation due to environmental disasters, and political and religious persecution constitute a few of the threats to human security that drive migration on a mass scale (Vietti and Scribner, 2013, p. 20).

Climate change relates to both migration in the sense that migration is widely considered an adaptation strategy that can be promoted to reduce risk successfully, not least through remittance flows between sending and destination areas (Adger et al., 2014, p. 762ff). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) acknowledged the prospect of migration as an effective adaptation through its inclusion Cancun Accord and there is today a widespread understanding that migration can represent an adaptive response to emerging and realized climate threats (McMichael et al., 2019, p. 3f). This is supported by research on the experience of migration policy which concludes that a greater emphasis on mobility within adaptation policies would be effective when undertaken in a thoughtful manner (Gemenne, 2011, p. 5). Many governments are now engaged in planning to move settlements as part of adaptation strategies, either because of the assessment of new risks or to justify existing resettlement programs. However, scientific literature on these policies most often portrays resettlement as a failure of adaptation and a policy of last resort (Ebi et al., 2018, p. 3ff).

(16)

16 Existing policy responses have been focused on establishing current patterns and trends of climate change rather than on predicting the impact of that change on human societies. The principal focus within the policy that has been formulated primarily concerns three areas: the definition of refugees, adaptation, and resettlement. Some scholars have pointed out that environmental migration research is mainly conducted in countries of the Global South (Piguet et al., 2018, p. 2f).

(17)

17

3. Research design and method

This section details the conceptual framework and accounts for the policy analysis tool as well as other methodological considerations relevant to the study. The first subsection details the conceptual framework which explains how the research problem should be explored in a first step of the analysis and includes an account for the operationalization of the conceptual framework. The conceptual framework establishes relevant key concepts and representations identified within the policy and is founded on the theoretical framework, which lies on a broader scale of resolution. The second subsection details the post-structural policy tool of WPR, used in a latter step of the analysis to add to a further analysis of EMP in a wider context. The third subsection explains other methodical concerns relevant to the paper.

3.1. Conceptual framework

This study is conducted in two steps due to its descriptive and analytical aim, with an initial step involving identification and representations within selected EMP. The initial step of the analysis involves the application of a conceptual framework and represents the proposed solution to the research problem. The conceptual framework presented in this section encompasses three analytical questions used to answer the research question of the study, as well as a number of indicators used in addressing the analytical questions. The analytical questions are formulated based on prior research the theoretical framework and are formulated with the aim of identifying and characterising policies and problem representation within EMP. The conceptual framework is possible to replicate, and in concrete terms the three questions ‘will be asked to the text’ (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p. 212f). Descriptive questions have been addressed first in order to establish key facts, focusing on the concepts of human security and state security.

The first analytical question, ‘How is environmental migration represented in policy?’, provides an

overview of existing policy frameworks on environmental migration by drawing on the categorization of migration policy as understood by Pușcaș (2018) as either managed through regular or exceptional categories15 (Pușcaș, 2018, p. 6ff). To exhaust the possible answers to this

analytical question, a third category of ‘undefined’ will be used, as demonstrated in the operationalisation.

The second analytical question is expressed as: How is human security and state security

represented in environmental migration policy? This question targets the representation of environmental

(18)

18 migration and how it is considered a security issue. As per the theory described in proceeding section 2.2., the following table summarizes the indicators of human and state security, respectively.

Table 1: Human security and state security indicators

Indicator

Human security

State security

a) Level of security Person-oriented State-oriented

b) View of environmental migrants

Human rights to be protected A threat to national security

c) EMP level of governing Mostly multilateral;

supra-regional threats require a response that extends beyond

discrete nations

Mostly national; national sovereignty vital in policy to

ensure security

d) EMP in relation to other policy frameworks

Connected to economic, political, environmental and

social issues and policies

Connected to national defence issues and policies

Source: Own elaboration based on the theory accounted for in section 2.2.

The third question reads: What reasons for environmental migration are represented? This question relates to the cause of environmental migration as either direct or indirect effects of climate change; with the purpose of identifying how these relate to the concept of human and state security.

Table 2: Human security and state security indicators

Indicator

Human security

State security

a) Reasons for

environmental migration

Legitimate; based on human rights

Illegitimate; based on state sovereignty

b) Nature of migration due to effects of climate change

Involuntary Voluntary

c) Effects of climate change (direct or indirect)

Both direct and indirect effects of climate change legitimize

entry

Effects of climate change irrelevant in context of entry

(19)

19

3.1.1. Operationalisation

The first step in the analysis involves a systemized reading of the material, based on the analytical questions mentioned in the preceding section. This systemized reading will draw on operational definitions of the abstract concepts which the study is investigating. The first analytical question establishes key characteristics of EMP. Analytical question 2 and 3 draw on the opposing concepts of human and state security, which in this study are considered ‘real types’ and, thus, divided into four categories (including the category ‘undefined’) which are mutually exclusive and exhaustive16

(Teorell and Svensson, 2007, p. 29ff). The following Table 3 is a summary of the operationalisation consisting of analytical questions and operational indicators used for documenting a certain part of the text as a certain type of security.

Table 3: Summary of operationalisation 1. How is environmental migration represented in policy?

Type Operational indicator

Exceptional categories Environmental migration is governed through exceptional categories, e.g. humanitarian visas on basis of climate change

Regular categories Environmental migration governed through regular categories in main regulatory framework on migration

Both categories Both regular and exceptional categories to regulate environmental migration

Other Not at all OR undefined categories

2. How is human and state security represented in EMP?

Type Criteria Operational indicator

Human security

Mostly a) - d) AND/OR

a) Reference to individual security characteristics in policy, e.g. gender or culture

b) Environmental migrants’ human rights to be protected c) Larger unit (bilateral or multilateral) frameworks apply

d) Reference to environmental migration in economic, political, environmental or social policy frameworks AND mention of economic, political, environmental or social issues related to environmental migration in main framework17

State security

Mostly a) - d) AND/OR

a) Reference to state security characteristics in policy, e.g. national security interest or border controls

b) No reference to environmental migrants’ human rights c) Only national frameworks apply

16 A further explanation of this methodological decision is given in section 3.3.3.

(20)

20 d) No refence to environmental migration in other frameworks than main migration, national defence-related policy AND no mention of economic, political, environmental or social issues related to environmental migration in main framework

Other Mostly a) – d) Undefined

a) Both OR undefined security characteristics

b) View of human rights in the context of environmental migrants undefined

c) Level of governing undefined d) Other combinations

3. What reasons for environmental migration are represented?

Type Criteria Operational indicator

Human security

Mostly a) – c) AND/OR

a) Reasons for environmental migration legitimate b) Environmental migration seen as involuntary

c) Reference to direct (e.g. due to natural disasters) or indirect environmental factors (e.g. due to drought, changes in temperature) in the context of allowing entry

State security

Mostly a) – c) AND/OR

a) Reasons for environmental migration illegitimate b) Environmental migration seen as voluntary

c) No reference to direct or indirect environmental factors in the context of allowing entry

Other Mostly a) – e) Undefined

a) Reasons for environmental migration undefined b) Environmental characterization undefined c) Reference to direct OR indirect effects

3.2. Policy analysis tool: ‘What is the problem represented to be?’

After determining whether human security or state security are detectable in existing EMP, the second step of the analysis draws on Bacchi and Goodwins (2016) method for policy analysis, ‘What is the problem represented to be?’ (WPR). WPR represents a notion which views policy as a way of conceptualising social relations and assumes policy to be heavily impacted by certain problem representations (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016, p. 6f). WPR, which draws on Foucault’s post-structural ideas, is relevant in the context of analysing security representations in policy. The use of language, which adds to the creation of societal problems, is key to understanding not only the framing of migration but also how it is positioned with regards to climate change. Since the context of policy frameworks is considered to take place within a discourse, WPR adds to the wider understanding of EMP.

(21)

21 may have, policy is considered a good material for analysis (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p. 212). Following Bacchi’s WPR analysis, policy-problems are also considered open for interpretation (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p. 217).

WPR enables a critical reaction to governing practices, theorizing within those practices, and to resist practices deemed to have deleterious consequences for specific people and groups (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016, p. 9). Drawing on the fact that ideas are constructions which construct social realities, WPR is used as a tool to map out these constructed discourses. In the context of human and state security representations within EMP, WPR contributes to a critical analysis of power positions, its related subjects, and sheds light on how delegitimization occurs (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016, p. 65). The analytical questions within Bacchi’s framework of WPR can, in the context of this paper, be expressed as the following: 1) ‘What is the ‘problem’ represented to be?’; 2) ‘What is implicit concerning the problem representation?’; 3) ‘Which effects does the problem representation have? What subjects are constructed? Who earns from it?’; 4) ‘What is left unproblematized?’. Note that two of Bacchi’s original questions ‘How would the solution differ is the ’problem was posed differently?’ and ‘What is changed/left unchanged?’ have not been addressed as they are beyond the scope of this paper.

The first question is aimed at clarifying general assumptions within environmental migration policy, while the second question will be used to explain underlying assumptions within the problem representation. Here, the theoretical foundations of the study will be used in answering the question. The third question studies what has not been assessed within the policy document. Since this question may generate a near countless amount of answers, it will draw heavily on both the logic of the reasoning, and the most extensive international policies on environmental migration, acting as a guide.

3.3. Methodological considerations

This section details considerations relevant the method used in the study, drawing on its descriptive, explorative and intensive character. The intensive characteristic of this paper adds not only to the ability to closely study a phenomenon, but also to its theory and hypothesis generating capabilities. In this section, the logic behind the choice of cases, material, the validity and reliability as well as other considerations are further explained.

3.3.1. Selection of cases

(22)

22 area concerning migration due to effects of climate change. The cases were strategically selected, as recommended within descriptive studies (Teorell and Svensson, 2007, p. 107ff). Although the most-likely logic is often used to disregard hypothesises, it is in the context of this text analysis considered necessary. For example, to shed light on the characteristics of EMP, cases with more extensive frameworks need to be studied. This enables a generalization not so much for the region as a whole but for policy frameworks constructed on the same premises. In this paper, the critical cases of Mexico and Costa Rica’s policies, were selected due to the comparatively extensive policy frameworks on environmental migration, compared to other countries in the region which do not have public policies on the theme whatsoever (Cantor, 2015, p. 8). Furthermore, Mexico and Costa Rica have different frameworks which open for a wider understanding of policy on the topic, and they represent the only two countries in the region which not only act as transit but also as destination countries for migrants (Ochoa Lupián and Ayvar Campos, 2015). Since migration thinking traditionally has been dominated by the policy interests and worries of in-migration countries, this motivates the choice further (Gasper and Sinatti, 2016, p. 2). However, the issue with this type of most-likely strategic choice of cases is that it minimizes the ability to generalize the results (Teorell and Svensson, 2007, p. 108ff). As a consequence, this study is open to potentially disregard initial hypothesises and ideas of status quo, as reflected in its expressed explorative purpose.

The selection of the cases has been based on a preliminary pilot study of countries in CA. In the pilot study, the conceptual framework of state and human security, as well as the WPR-tool, were tested against the material, which proved significant enough to resume the study.

3.3.2. Selection of material

(23)

23

Table 4: Policy frameworks assessed in this study

Multilateral policy frameworks signed (international and regional) Commitment IOM Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

(GCM)18

Both

UNFCC The Cancun Agreement19 Both

OAS 1984 Cartagena Declaration for Refugees20 Both

SICA 2010 Central American Regional Strategy on Climate Change

(RSCC)21

Both RCM 2016 Guide to Effective Practices for RCM Member

Countries22

Both

OCHA 2015 International Humanitarian Assistance Mechanism

(MIAH)

Both CEPREDENAC/SICA 2014–2019 Regional Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction

(PRRD)

Costa Rica

SICA 2010 Central American Regional Strategy on Climate Change

(RSCC)

Both

SICA 2010 Central American Policy on Comprehensive Disaster

Risk Management (PCGIR)

Both

CEPREDENAC 2001 Central American Regional Mechanism for Mutual

Assistance and Coordination (MecReg)

Costa Rica

UNHCR 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951

CSR)23

Both

18 The GCM includes 23 objectives concerning the causes and consequences of contemporary migration. It is the first ever global agreement to better manage international migration, address its challenges, strengthen migrant rights and contribute to sustainable development. The text contains multiple references to environmental migration. Although the framework is not legally binding, all countries in CA voted for the agreement and it is thus relevant in the wider context of policy (Ionesco and Traore Chazalnoël, 2020).

19 Contains first ever agreed-upon text on migration, displacement, and planned relocation in the UNFCCC climate negotiations process. Migration, displacement, and planned relocations are considered technical cooperation issues (Warner, 2012).

20 The regional Cartagena Declaration expands the concept of refugee regionally to include ‘persons who have fled their country because their lives, safety or freedom have been threatened by generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order’. Several CA countries (including Mexico, excluding Costa Rica) have incorporated similar versions of this expanded refugee concept in their domestic law (Cantor, 2015, p. 17f).

21 Developed by the SICA, the RSCC recognizes that climate change can lead to population movements and, as a result, aims to develop national strategies to address these movements (Pușcaș, 2018, p. 7f).

22 The issue of migration and displacement in the context of disasters came up on RCM’s agenda several times, including after Hurricane Mitch in 1998, and more recently to develop and adopt the Guide to Effective Practices for RCM Member Countries (RCM, 2016a).

(24)

24 National policy frameworks

Costa Rica 2010 General Law on Migration and Aliens (Law 8764) 2012 5 Decreto No. 37112‐G: Reglamento de Extranjería Costa Rica Bilateral agreements, all CA countries except Nicaragua24

Mexico 2011 Refugees and Complementary Protection Law

Mexico 2012 General Law on Climate Change

Mexico 2011 Migrant Law

Five source criteria have been used relation to the selection of sources (Teorell and Svensson, 2007, p. 104ff). In considering whether the material is trustworthy, it’s possible tendency, centrality, concurrency, authenticity and independence has been considered. The tendency of the material is, naturally, in favour of the states considered due to its official character. However, since this study focuses on deconstructing given representations, this aspect is addressed in the analysis. Neither is it considering local policy frameworks, thus demonstrating a tendency towards the state and above level governing of migration. The material is considered to have a high centrality, authenticity and is independent from other material. The only concern regards secondary sources on the contents of Costa Rica’s bilateral agreement, due to lack to access. Lastly, since this is not a field study, neither concurrency nor ex post rationalization is of great concern.

3.3.3. Validity and reliability

The validity can be understood as the absence of systematic errors so that the theoretical definition matches the operational definition and the reliability lack of unsystematic errors (Teorell and Svensson, 2007, p. 54ff). In this study, reliability concerns include the unavoidable impact of interpretation, prior knowledge and assumptions of the author. Adding to this, own as well as official translations of policy documents potentially result in under or overestimates. The reliability concern is particularly true when analysing ‘what is left unproblematized’ – which is why the logic of this analysis both follows the logic of the argument and the theory presented. In this context, the GCM has acted as a guide on what has been left unproblematized. By grounding the interpretative part in the theory presented, it also reflects previous research on migration.

Nonetheless, qualitative studies and particularly discourse analysis are often criticized for not producing generalizable knowledge due to studies of a small number of sources limiting validity and reliability (Winther Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002, p. 120). Conversely, when aiming to study discursive patterns within a material discourse analysis allow for in-depth exploration of a

(25)

(26)

26

4. Analysis

Divided into two separate parts, this section aims to first describe the findings through the conceptual framework, followed by a further analysis via the WPR questions.

4.1. Conceptual framework analysis: Defining the policy

In Costa Rica, environmental migration is not directly mentioned in the national framework on migration in force, the General Law on Migration and Aliens (Law 8764). Paragraph 5 however statues that the state, through Law 8764 and international treaties and conventions ratified in force, determine the state's immigration policy. In a similar manner, Mexico’s 2011 Migratory Act, references the ‘shared responsibility’ with governments of certain other countries and international institutions in the context of EMP. This Mexican law, in Article 7, further affirms all individual’s right to ‘remain, enter, transit, depart from’ recognized in the international treaties to which Mexico is a party. Thus, in answering these questions, the ratified multilateral agreement25 of respective

countries referred to have also been assessed in this analysis.

4.1.1. How is environmental migration represented in policy?

Costa Rica’s bilateral agreements with other CA countries (except Nicaragua) are ‘regular’ and allow entry without a visa often granted on grounds of seasonal work, also facilitating trans-border displacement during natural disasters. Additionally, the national framework allows for entry by applying the ‘exceptional’ category humanitarian visa concerning ‘individual vulnerabilities’, on broadly defined grounds of human rights (2012 Reglamento de Extranjería, Arts 2, 135 and 136). EMP in Costa Rica is thus represented through both ‘regular’ and ‘exceptional’ categories.

Mexico has no official ‘regular category’ to accept environmental migrants, as stated in the 2011 Migrant Law, Articles 134-136 and 155. However, the ‘frontier worker visitor’ card is a mechanism for Guatemalans to enter in the context of direct effects of climate change. Furthermore, the ‘regular’ framework benefits migrants with family ties26 to Mexico – a principal

criteria for the admission and stay of foreigners for temporary or permanent Mexican residency, alongside humanitarian causes. In addition, Mexico has an ‘exceptional category’ humanitarian visa for distant relatives overseas of Mexican citizens, which requires that a person is a victim of a disaster or that the person’s life or integrity is in danger owing to a disaster. EMP in Mexico is thus also represented through both ‘regular’ and ‘exceptional’ categories.

25 See section 3.3.2.

(27)

27

4.1.2. How is human and state security represented in EMP?

In Costa Rica, when it comes to the level of security in the context of environmental migration, Law 8764 (Article 3) states that the control of all migrants, including those migrating due to climatic factors, is regulated through general principles of respect for human life, cultural and personal diversity, solidarity, equity, gender, as well as human rights. This is line with the human security perspective, as it references individual characteristics such as gender and culture. Costa Rica’s policies opens for ratified international and regional instruments to regulate people whose lives are at risk, and for binational or multinational actions with the expeller countries of the migrant population. Costa Rica’s Law 8764 also emphasises the protection of human rights of migrants in general, in line with human security thinking.

Mexico also references individual characteristics in the 2011 Migrant Law, Article 2:

‘migrants, citizens, and foreigners of any place, nationality, gender, ethnicity, age, and migratory status, with a special focus on vulnerable groups, such as minors, women, indigenous individuals, adolescents, elderly individuals, and crime victims’ and emphasizes human rights of migrants in general. This is in line with the definition

provided in the Cartagena refugee declaration, but it is not clear whether disasters engage the element of ‘other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order’. As such, it indeed exhibits human security elements, but not necessarily in the context of disasters – leaving environmental migrants having to rely on family and business ties to the country and indicating a grey zone with some state security influences.

Both countries reference larger unit frameworks (bilateral or multilateral), in line with human security thinking.

In the context of how EMP relates different policy frameworks, with human security recommending its spread over different policy frameworks (economic, political, environmental or social) while state security proposes defence-related frameworks, both Costa Rica and Mexico are in line with the human security perspective; Costa Rica’s policy framework also targets migration in the National Development Plan, as well as in sectoral policies related to key areas such as health, education and labour, while in Mexico, the EMP also references the importance of other types of policy frameworks related to migration.

4.1.3. What reasons for environmental migration are represented?

(28)

28 Costa Rica as it, on the one hand, recognizes natural disasters as legitimate and involuntary reasons to migrate and, on the other hand, implicitly considers all other types of environmental migration as illegitimate and voluntary within its national framework.

There are no direct references to indirect effects of climate change on human health (e.g. hunger due to drought) in neither Costa Rica or Mexico’s main policy frameworks on migration but mentions of direct effects (e.g. due to natural disasters) in the case of Costa Rica and Mexico. Although not mentioned, several of Costa Rica’s bilateral agreements (such as in the case of Panama) open for seasonal workers to enter – thus creating a mechanism which could be seen as addressing causes of indirect effects of climate change. As this is not directly recognized, however, indirect effects of climate change are considered to not be assessed in the case of Costa Rica.

4.2. WPR analysis: Policy in a wider context

This section analyses the answers to Bacchi’s questions, building on the findings presented in the previous section, which demonstrate both similarities and differences with regards to policies and problem representations.

4.2.1. What is the ‘problem’ represented to be?

The problem of environmental migration is largely posed as a human security issue in both Costa Rica and Mexico’s policies, emphasizing individual security characteristics, human rights and multi-level governing of the environmental migration issue. The central role of multilateral organizations in the region in formulating environmental policy is evident as human security characteristics generally are present within policy concerning environmental migration. A potential use of both regular and exceptional categories in EMP show that the problem of environmental migration indeed is multifaceted.

Conversely, there are certain aspects of state security evident at the core of the formulated policy. For example, although Mexico has an ‘exceptional’ category humanitarian visa reserved for those fleeing the effects of natural disasters, it needs to be affirmed by a Mexican national. In Costa Rica, the bilateral agreements on migration which may be used in the context of climate change have the purpose of allowing for migrant workers to enter. Thus, the problem is also represented as a potential national security issue.

(29)

29

4.2.2. What is implicit concerning the ‘problem’ representation?

Implicit from the human security influence is that individual characteristics and vulnerable groups are relevant within EMP, which shift focus to the individual. Further implicit is that climate change affects different groups in different ways, and that a personal-oriented approach is needed to address the issue. The reference to environmental migration in other policy frameworks – both other themes and on a larger level of governing – implies that the problem is multifaceted and complex. That EMP is represented as an issue dealt with in both ‘regular’ and ‘exceptional’ instruments, implies that climate-induced migration may result in different types of in-flows of migrants – both at a regular basis and to face sudden-onset disasters, for example.

Further implicit from these problem representations is that although environmental migrant’s ‘human’ security is highlighted, it appears secondary to the security of the state – indicating a ‘window dressed’ human security image. In the case of Mexico, this is exemplified by the ‘humanitarian visa’ with entry reserved only for migrants with family or business ties to the country and in Costa Rica it’s the bilateral ‘regular’ category seasonal workers who can enter on the premises that they contribute to the economy. In the case of Costa Rica, the prospect of granting humanitarian visas can be seen as discretionary. A broad definition leaves discretion to the authorities who are responsible for issuing the visa, allowing for flexibility, but at the same time limiting the possibility of judicial review, making the mechanism unpredictable.

When it comes to the problems concerning reasons for migrating, the different dealing with effects of natural disasters and other indirect effects, indirectly imply that natural disasters are seen as involuntary and legitimate in the context of migration while other effects of climate change are considered voluntary and illegitimate. This implies a great discrepancy between the view of the two different types of effects – or perhaps a greater difficulty determining the indirect-effect-causes for migrating.

4.2.3. Which effects does the ‘problem’ representation have?

(30)

30 Mexico – more in line with state security thinking. The different dimensions of environmental migrants portrayed here, although implicit, are indeed not fully coherent with the working definition accounted for in section 1.3. This fragmented view may also create confusion on which frameworks work when and may give border management authorities greater freedom in dealing with cases – farcifying an uneven approach based on the individual preferences or views of government officers.

Following this line of thought, the beneficiaries of the problem representation are ultimately the state, the border management and some environmental migrants which also fulfil other criteria necessary to enter. The international community and humanitarian values benefit from the general definition of human rights and from the promise to comply with international treaties sign, but what this means in practice is another question.

4.2.4. What is left unproblematized?

Following this reasoning and the logic of the human and state security discourse, several aspects are left unproblematized. First of all, the vague promise to comply with human rights which is reserved for certain types of environmental migrants in particular in the case of Mexico, echoes a fragmented image of who is subject to those rights. In a similar manner, when addressing the vulnerable groups, Costa Rica opens for ratified multilateral agreements such as GCM and the Cancun Accord while Mexico lists the vulnerable groups of ‘minors, women, indigenous individuals, adolescents, elderly individuals, and crime victims’ in the 2011 Migrant Law. Meanwhile, the mechanisms for entry may not be equally available for all – leaving the area of enforcing particular respect for the rights of vulnerable groups unproblematized.

Another key area left unproblematized is the ‘extreme conditions’ mentioned in policy. A lack of a clear definition of these also shift more of the determining responsibility of policy onto the border security, giving these greater room to decide themselves. Moreover, the distinction between natural disasters and other effects of climate change remains unproblematized. The lack of policy concerning indirect effects of climate change is a noteworthy area of improvement.

(31)

31

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, environmental migration is constructed as both a human and state security problem in policy in Central American destination countries. Both Costa Rica and Mexico’s policy concerning environmental migration mainly reflects a human security perspective, referencing individual characteristics, human rights, larger units and frameworks concerning other issues. Both countries use both regular and exceptional categories to address environmental migration. Although the countries govern environmental migrants on different levels – Costa Rica predominantly through bilateral agreements and Mexico mainly through its national migrant law – the frameworks exhibit several similarities. The similarities are not counterintuitive when considering that human rights of migrants and human security largely has been promoted by multilateral organizations.

The reasons for migrating are undefined in terms of how they reflect human and state security characteristics, as migrants fleeing other effects of climate change than disasters are not regarded in the same way as those who do. In a further step, this is considered to reflect the legitimacy and involuntariness assigned to migrants affected by natural disasters, and the illegitimacy and voluntariness assigned other types of environmental migrants.

Furthermore, the problem is considered to reflect both human and state insecurity within these frameworks; being preoccupied with both the individuals fleeing disasters but also reserving tights to enter for people with family, business ties or are seasonal workers. The ones who benefit from the policy is migrants with family ties or seasonal workers – potentially disadvantaging the most vulnerable migrants. Following the logic of the argument and the theories, a key area left unproblematized is that the environmental framework to a large extent relies on human security logic, but at the same time on state security bases. Although policies like this may be practical, their logic often does not go together. This calls for further research on how to effectively integrate policies reflecting a human security perspective within existing – often state security – policies to avoid discrepancies and ineffective environmental migration policies.

In addition, further empirical research on the extent to which the policies are used and lead to admission in relation to both natural disasters and other climate change-related reasons for migrating, is recommended.

(32)

32

Bibliography

Adger, W.N., Pulhin, J.M., Barnett, J., Dabelko, G.D., Hovelsrud, G.K., Levy, M., Spring, Ú.O., Vogel, C.H., Adams, H., Hodbod, J., Kent, S., Tarazona, M., Aldunce, P., Leichenko, R., 2014. Human security, in: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 755–791. Altamirano, T., 2014. Refugiados ambientales: cambio climático y migración forzada, Primera

edición. ed. Fondo Editorial, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Perú.

Bacchi, C., Goodwin, S., 2016. Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Baez, J., Caruso, G., Mueller, V., Niu, C., 2017. Droughts augment youth migration in Northern Latin America and the Caribbean. Climatic Change 140, 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1863-2

Cantor, D.J., 2016. Migrants and natural disasters: National law, policy and practice in the Americas. Migration, Environment and Climate Change: Policy Brief Series 2.

Cantor, D.J., 2015. Law, policy and practice concerning the humanitarian protection of aliens on a temporary basis in the context of disasters (Background paper), States of the Regional Conference on Migration and Others in the Americas Regional Workshop on Temporary Protection Status and/or Humanitarian Visas in Situations of Disaster. The Nansen Initiative, San José, Costa Rica.

CHS (Ed.), 2003. Human security now: protecting and empowering people. New York.

Churruca Muguruza, C., 2007. Human security as a policy framework: Critics and challenges (No. 4), Yearbook on Humanitarian Action and Human Rights. Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao. Dun, O.V., Gemenne, F., 2008. Defining “environmental migration” 4.

Ebi, K.L., Boyer, C., Bowen, K.J., Frumkin, H., Hess, J., 2018. Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for Climate Change-Related Health Impacts, Risks, Adaptation, and Resilience. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15.

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 2018. Atlas of migration in Northern Central America. Santiago, Chile.

El-Hinnawi, E., 1985. Environmental refugees. Nairobi.

Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Oscarsson, H., Towns, A., Wängnerud, L., 2017. Metodpraktikan: konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad. Studentlitteratur, Lund.

Gasper, D., Sinatti, G., 2016. Investigating Migration within a Human Security Framework. Revista de Migración y Desarrollo / Migration and Development 14.

Gemenne, F., 2011. Why the numbers don’t add up: A review of estimates and predictions of people displaced by environmental changes. Global Environmental Change. Part A, Human and Policy Dimensions 21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.005 Hammerstadt, A., 2014. The Securitization of Forced Migration, in: Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E.,

Loescher, G., Long, K., Sigona, N. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced

Migration Studies. Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.013.0033

Harari, Y.N., 2018. Anti-immigration, like pro-immigration, is a legitimate political position. The Economist.

Harari, Y.N., 2015. Sapiens: a brief history of humankind, 1st ed. Harper, New York.

IASFM, 2020. IASFM Mission. Mission of the IASFM. URL http://www.efms.uni-bamberg.de/iasfm/mission.htm (accessed 5.10.20).

Security Representations in Environmental Migration Policy