For survival of environmental refugees
Taking refuge for survival.
Are we not a privileged generation to live at a time when we have opportunity to save both our Earth and our world? No generation in the past has enjoyed such an opportunity, since the problems were not there. No generation in the future will enjoy the same opportunity, because if we do not get on top of the problems before they get on top of us, our descendants will have nothing left to do…” The above quote is from Dr. Norman Myers who received the international “Blue Planet Prize” in 2001. The statement is the concluding part of his commemorating lecture delivered at the award-giving ceremony. The problem Dr. Myers referred here is, obviously, the much talked about global warming and climate change. Dr. Myers termed this competition with changing climate 'a super-sized challenge' and if only we can succeed, the numerous coming generations will be saved. On the other hand, if the current biotic crisis is allowed to run its course, that will not only precipitate a mass extinction of species; it will largely destroy several major 'powerhouses' of evolution, notably tropical forests and wetlands, these being the principal sites of new species after mass extinctions in the prehistoric past. Basic evolutionary processes will be depleted for millions of years hence. The 'Perverse Subsidies'This Blue Planet Prize winner scientist used a term 'perverse subsidies' for funding the unsustainable livelihood patterns like our over-productive agriculture, using too much fossil fuels for the dependence on road transportation (in place of water transport and trains), misuse and over-use of water, over-harvesting of fisheries and over-logging of forests. His calculation reached about $ 2000 billion for such subsidies every year in contrast to the Rio Earth Summit budget for sustainable development of $600 billion a year. The world cannot spend $600 billion for sustainable living but can spend more than three times of that for 'collective suicide'! As a result of our suicidal development initiatives, a huge population of the warmer and heavily populated countries of the world is at risk just now. A calculation says, major population at risk in the globally warmed world are 77 million in China, 28 million in Bangladesh, 23 million in India and 15 million in Egypt. The Sidr havoc
Who knows if the last 15th November's devastating hurricane (named Sidr) attack on the south and south-west of Bangladesh is not at least partially caused by the recent environmental changes that are largely a product of human actions? This single havoc killed about five thousand people (very conservative estimate in contrast to Red Crescent's estimate of 10 thousand deaths), millions of trees, thousands of wild animals and millions of cultured chickens and prawns. I am not speaking of human dwellings or social institutions. Why so many people live in the coastal area and in many thatched houses prone to destruction even by a strong wind, let alone such tidal and stormy surge? They are over users of the fisheries and forests there. So there are many funding agencies to 'help them with loans', though in payment of high (one said 16% in a BBC interview) rate of interest. Besides, they have no other way; they have been driven away from their parental/self-made homes by river erosion, construction of dam or embankment, or industrialization and urbanisation in certain areas of the country. These people can perfectly be called 'environmental refugees' a term popularised by Andrew Simms since 2003. These people live in the coastal areas taking their souls in hand ready to be taken away anytime by storm, tidal surge or the monsoon flood. That is why they don't fear much in returning to their death-trap houses even after coming to the cyclone shelter once for survival. They don't have enough time to spare they need to catch more fish to repay the loan with high interest! More calamities await us
Dr. Myers predicted in 2001 and expressed that through drawing land-water demarcation line in the map of Bangladesh showing how much of the country would be submerged if the sea-level rises only by 50 cm. He did not show the line for 1 meter rise of the sea-level that others predict would result at the end of this century. Let us see the level in the figure for only 50 cm rise because many of the present generation may see this happen in their own life-time. The map shows almost entire Barisal Division, half of Khulna Division and the districts of Lakkhipur, Noakhali, Feni, Cox's Bazaar and parts of Chittagong would then be under water. So what to do? We have enough prepared reports like “Bangladesh: State of the Environment” (2001) and “National Adaptation Programme of Action” (NAPA, 2005). These reports contain so many very plausible recommendations that acting according to just half of them would remarkably elevate the status of our people and the ecosystem. Unfortunately, this poor country cannot afford to act accordingly and more unfortunate thing is that we don't do even what we are able to do. We simply don't care! Badly required national action
It is obvious that if these environmental refugees could somehow have 'buildings' as their dwelling houses, most of them would not be perished this way. But who will do that? The government cannot afford to build 'buildings' for several million people of the cyclone-prone area. But question arises: why there is still lack of sufficient number of cyclone shelters? If there were more cyclone shelters nearby they all would have rushed there to save themselves. It should be remembered that the area is not only poor people's 'dens', this is our economic zone where the million dollar business attracts many moneyed men to invest. The fishermen's wards surely deserve education that can be given in the cyclone shelter-cum-schools built preferably at just one km distance from each other. The government can consecrate the money deliberately drained by few to foreign banks and utilise that in this purpose. International efforts needed for 'their' survival
We know Geneva Treaty defined refugees as “persons forced to flee across an international border because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of particular social group” (UNHCR 1951). But it is also true that Geneva Treaty was first applied only to the Europeans, and especially the victims of World War II. Later such persons all over the world have been included under 'protection' by Geneva Convention expanding the definition applying the term 'refugee' also to “someone who is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable, or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”. The people whom we call 'environmental refugees' have been 'persecuted by the environment' and these mostly 'internally displaced peoples' have been driven away or made to flee away by natural, social, economic or the combination of these forces from their homes. These people actually take their homes as their states, because political state-boundaries have no significant meaning to these poorest of the poor people. So why not further extend the definition of refugees to include these stranded people? The UNHCR (2002) raised a so-called ethical question, “Is it right that while some states are far more responsible for creating problems like climate change, all states should bear equal responsibility for dealing with its displaced people?” The question falls to the ground just because the socio-politically defined refugees may be products of repression by even a single person (e.g., head of state). Then why all the countries directly or indirectly pay for such refugees instead of trying that single culprit? If the international community fails to try a few culprit individuals, then how they can try a host of culprit states for non-conformity to environmental conventions? The pragmatic question lies somewhere else. Number of environmental refugees will surpass the political ones by many folds and it may prove unmanageable by any single international body. So, preventive measures are far better. That is, we need to compete with environmental changes through every means and we must “get on top of the problems before they get on top of us” as Dr. Myers suggested. However, the people who are already 'refugees' environmentally, deserve 'obliged subsidies' (not perverse ones) from the international communities. For example, the Sidr-victims of Bangladesh, just after emergency relief, deserve to have houses that usual cyclones cannot destroy. Bangladesh government can at best prepare cyclone shelters, cannot afford to build livable homes for every family. UNHCR's argument “People displaced through environmental degradation will be able to move within their home country” is right. People surely can move from one place to another but they are at risk because sometimes they 'are moved by' both natural and social forces. Abdus Sattar Molla is a biologist and at present a PhD researcher, NIE, Singapore.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments