Migration tensions in Europe continue to grow. To the wars in Libya and Syria that have pushed millions of people into the Schengen area since 2014 is added that led by Russia in Ukraine, which will potentially cause a “historic” humanitarian crisis in Europe, according to the ministers of the ‘Inside the European Union (up to 4 million refugees are expected). The Old Continent is more than ever confronted with reception challenges, but also with endless controversies and xenophobic excesses. But these problems could be just a taste of what awaits us in the future. The reason: global warming.
The forecasts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) leave little doubt: desertification and rising waters will push not millions, but tens, even hundreds of millions of refugees on the roads within a few decades. Should we therefore fear the rise of the extreme right? According to François Gemenne, professor at the Institute of Political Studies (IEP) in Paris, specialist in climate change adaptation policies, it is imperative to tackle solutions today, so as not to fear this crisis. , but to prepare to manage it as best as possible.
L’Express: Global warming is already being felt, but do we know how many refugees are affected by this phenomenon today?
Francois Gemenne: The Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC), the world’s leading international displacement monitoring body, counts between 20 and 40 million refugees every year. In 2020, there are 33.4 million, including 8.5 million linked to wars and conflicts and 24.9 million linked to natural disasters (95% of which are linked to global warming). However, we hear little about them. One of the reasons is that there is no climate refugee status – like that of political refugee – and that these displacements are the sum of several isolated situations. Except that when you combine the numbers, it’s very impressive.
What do the models predict for the next thirty years?
“The World Bank’s Groundswell report predicts 243 million climate refugees by 2050”
There are a lot of projections, but not all of them are relevant. Some are limited to considering that people living in risk areas today will necessarily become future climate refugees. Except it’s more complicated than that. Some will die, others will stay put and adapt, without forgetting that the number of displaced people will depend on the intensity of global warming, but also on the measures previously put in place, such as relocation programs. We must also take into account the fact that most human behavior is based on the perception of reality more than reality itself. Thus, decisions to emigrate will operate more on the perception of climate change than on its real impact. This is an important bias regarding future projections.
That said, there are robust works, including the World Bank’s Groundswell report which predicts 243 million climate refugees by 2050. But the vast majority of these movements will take place within the affected countries, or in neighboring countries. It is also for this reason that the countries of the South are not necessarily in favor of the creation of a status of climate refugees, since they believe that they are the ones who will have to welcome the most of these people. 85% of political refugees are hosted by countries in the South, and we can reasonably hypothesize that the proportion will be even higher with climate refugees. International refugee movements will therefore be the exception and there will not be hundreds of millions of climate refugees on our borders as some think.
If we consider that the migration crises – especially since 2014 – have caused great tension in Europe, should we not expect that future waves of climate refugees will lead to an upsurge in xenophobia?
I’m not sure. What is certain, however, is that the far right is using the plight of refugees to feed its discourse that immigration poses a problem. Numerous studies show that far-right parties use the rhetoric of the imaginary of the crisis because the more people feel they are in a situation of danger, the more they tend to take refuge in them. It is for this reason that the far right always caricatures crises.
So I think brandishing future waves of migration as a threat is far-right rhetoric. The more we have the impression of being faced with this crisis, the more the extremists will push their agenda which aims in particular to close the borders. Moreover, during the Covid pandemic, they were the first to offer this solution. This is hardly surprising since they see immigration as a virus.
Nevertheless, aren’t the future waves of migration worrying the whole political spectrum, including environmentalists?
I am not accusing climate activists of being racist or xenophobic, but insisting on this potential future crisis risks pushing governments to take drastic measures. Moreover, the first EU report on future waves of migration concludes that if there is an influx of climate refugees, borders will have to be reinforced. But that’s not the priority.
What are the solutions to anticipate future crises?
First we must fight the idea that immigration is associated with a crisis, and of course focus on the reduction of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, etc.). We will also have to work on the question of the “habitability” of the planet. It is certain that if temperatures exceed +2°C, certain regions will become uninhabitable, because they are too hot, flooded or because soil degradation will make cultivation impossible. In this case, it will be necessary to be ready to relocate the populations, to have established in advance where the habitable zones are and if it is possible to imagine a redistribution of the populations. This is an important research priority, and it is the goal of the European project Habitable Project, on which I work. Consideration should also be given to the creation of free movement protocols, such as the “mini Schengen” set up three years ago by the East African Community. These bilateral agreements between countries notably allow migration between different seasons, for example for farmers.
There are a multitude of complex solutions, but there are also more prosaic ones, such as the establishment of land cadastres. This may seem basic, but it is very useful, because in some countries farmers tend not to evacuate their plots when droughts approach because they fear that they will not regain ownership when they return. Consideration could also be given to measures that guarantee the right to vote of displaced populations. This right is often associated with the place of residence, but many people risk losing everything because of climatic disasters, and they will have to be granted rights. It would also be necessary to strengthen the establishment of military exercises aimed at facilitating the evacuation of populations confronted with natural disasters, which is not yet part of the training of soldiers.
If researchers are looking at these issues, what about policies?
They like to debate the climate a lot (nuclear, meat, etc.) but in reality, little is done. They mainly seek to please each other. Not daring to dissatisfy is an inherent cowardice in politics, except that with this logic, we will do nothing for the climate. Take Macron’s five-year term: there have been advances in France, but “at the same time”, Total has carried out many new drillings abroad.
Overall, the effects of climate change are widely seen by politicians as future risks that can be avoided simply by reducing greenhouse gases. But what can make future migrations unmanageable is letting the situation rot because we refuse to anticipate. If we were able to say “this is when we are going to organize, this is what we are going to do”, we could consider that the answer to climate refugees is not to worry, but to create a strategy that allows people to avoid dying.
In the meantime, xenophobic speeches are popular, if we stick to the voting intentions for Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour in France. How to fight the fear of future waves of migration?
It is difficult to contrast complicated truths with simple lies. From the moment people are convinced that we are facing a serious crisis, they will tend to vote for the extreme right, without necessarily being racist or fascist, but simply concerned. It’s even worse if you try to present them with figures and facts, since these contribute to generating fear and anxiety.
About 10% of the population is, for example, afraid of flying, but showing them the statistics that prove it is the safest means of transport in the world will not reassure them. . Fear is irrational. Similarly, at least 30% of French people are afraid of the “big replacement”. It is not with figures that you will reassure them. However, it is necessary to approach the questions of asylum and immigration from an angle which is not dramatic, to explain that the population has always changed and that if that had not happened, we would be Gaul, and not France.