A Critique of the Definitions of Climate and Environmental Migration: Toward a Political Ecology of Migration

Uma crítica das definições de migração climática e ambiental: rumo a uma ecologia política da migração

Abstract

This article analyses the concept of environmental and climate migrations, uncovering inherent complexities and contradictions within their official definitions. The analysis traces the historical roots of environmental migration discussions, beginning in the 1980s. Methodologically, the study scrutinizes the definitions provided by international organizations and advocates for a political ecology framework inspired by Sayad's sociology of migrations. It challenges prevailing concepts such as "environmental refugees" and "climate refugees," highlighting the contentious nature of these terms. The article emphasizes the need to move away from an emergency-oriented approach and instead adopt a political ecology perspective that explores human mobility within socio-ecological contexts. It critiques the predominant focus on climate-induced displacement, arguing for a more comprehensive understanding grounded in political and historical dimensions. By transcending epistemological reductions, the study contributes to ongoing debates on current migration issues, urging a more nuanced and inclusive approach to addressing the intricate challenges posed by environmental changes and human mobility.

Keywords:
socioecological transformation; primitive accumulation; world-ecology; epistemological critique; Abdelmalek Sayad

Resumo

Este artigo analisa o conceito de migrações ambientais e climáticas, revelando complexidades e contradições inerentes às suas definições oficiais. A análise traça as raízes históricas das discussões sobre migração ambiental, começando na década de 1980. Metodologicamente, o estudo examina as definições fornecidas por organizações internacionais e defende uma estrutura de ecologia política inspirada na sociologia das migrações de Sayad, desafiando conceitos predominantes, como “refugiados ambientais” e “refugiados climáticos”, e destacando a natureza controversa desses termos. O artigo enfatiza a necessidade de se afastar de uma abordagem orientada para a emergência e, em vez disso, adotar uma perspectiva de ecologia política, que explore a mobilidade humana em contextos socioecológicos. Critica-se o foco predominante no deslocamento induzido por fatores climáticos, defendendo uma compreensão mais abrangente baseada em dimensões políticas e históricas. Ao transcender reduções epistemológicas, o estudo contribui para debates em andamento sobre questões atuais de migração, promovendo uma abordagem mais matizada e inclusiva para enfrentar os desafios intrincados impostos pelas mudanças ambientais e mobilidade humana.

Palavras-chave:
transformação socioecológica; acumulação primitiva; ecologia mundial; crítica epistemológica; Abdelmalek Sayad

1. Introduction

In a world facing unprecedented environmental changes and escalating climate shifts, the predicament of displaced populations has emerged as a paramount global concern. As discussions around climate migration intensify, the field reveals a complex nature, characterized by divergent perspectives and definitions that contribute to a nuanced yet often contradictory discourse. This article navigates the intricate landscape of climate migration, closely examining its conceptual foundations and probing the epistemological implications that shape our understanding.

By critically assessing the inherent contradictions within the field and scrutinizing reductionist tendencies in defining climate migration, this article aims to contribute to a broader understanding firmly rooted in political ecology. Following the discussion of methodological aspects in Paragraph 2, the article explores the dimensions of internal and international displacement in Paragraph 3, unravels the complexities within the climate migration discourse in Paragraph 4, and critiques its epistemological reductions in Paragraph 5. In Paragraph 6, the article advocates for a paradigm shift toward a political ecology framework, aiming for a more comprehensive understanding of migration in the context of socio-environmental changes. Through these discussions, the article seeks to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on the challenges and opportunities posed by climate-induced migration, ultimately advocating for a more inclusive approach to addressing the complexities of a world marked by increasing human mobility.

2. Methodology

This study examines definitions of climate and environmental migration as articulated by international organizations such as the IOM and UNHCR. It critically evaluates these definitions, highlighting their contradictions and perceived shortcomings. By exploring the epistemological limitations inherent in these definitions, the article seeks to reveal their oversight of the historical dimension in both internal and international displacement processes. The study calls for a heightened awareness of the political nature intrinsic to migratory processes, advocating for a theoretical framework inspired by Sayad’s (2004) sociology of migrations. This approach aims to deepen the understanding of spatial mobility by situating it within a broader socioecological context. Moving beyond the narrow confines of climate-centric or environmental paradigms is crucial for a comprehensive grasp of the subject.

To enhance the analysis, the study draws parallels with the field of political ecology, integrating displacement processes into a broader socioecological framework. This deliberate politicization of migratory phenomena enriches the understanding, fostering a more holistic perspective.

3. A World of Displaced Persons

Since the mid-1980s, an extensive debate has unfolded within social sciences, mass media, and international organizations to define environmental migration, which has since been relabeled as climate migration. This ongoing dialogue aims to distinguish this form of migration from economic and forced mobility.

Key agencies, including the United Nations and its affiliates - particularly the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) - have played a significant role in shaping terminology such as environmental migrants, environmental refugees, and climate refugees to clarify this nuanced landscape. These definitions have evolved in response to the accelerating impacts of climate change, which have created vulnerable living environments and influenced the spatial mobility of human populations.

International migration data reveal a trend of increasing numbers of individuals relocating across borders for various reasons. Notably, the estimated number of international migrants worldwide, as reported by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA), surged from 101,983,149 in 1980 (2.3% of the world population) to 271,642,105 in 2019 (3.5% of the world population) (IOM, 2019a). Within the broader migration phenomenon, the number of individuals officially recognized by international organizations, particularly the UNHCR, as refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons, or internally displaced persons, has steadily increased over the past two decades, with a significant surge since 2011. In 2001, this array of conditions, grouped by UNHCR under the label of global forced displacement, included 42.1 million people. This figure rose to 43.7 million in 2010 and reaching 100 million in 2022, with approximately 60% being internally displaced persons (UNHCR, 2010, 2022).

The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (2023) reports that in 2022, although the total number of internally displaced people reached 71.1 million - with 62.5 million displaced due to conflict and violence, and 8.7 million displaced due to disasters - the number of people forced to move internally due to climate and environmental causes surpassed those displaced by armed conflicts. Specifically, there were 28.3 million internal movements caused by conflict and violence, compared to 32.6 million caused by disasters. Since 2009, weather-related events have triggered an average of 21.5 million new displacements each year - more than twice the number of displacements caused by conflict and violence (UNHCR, 2020). Moreover, the spatial distribution of these events is highly unequal across the globe. For example, Mustak (2022) highlighted that the Global South experienced approximately 89% of all displacements occurring globally between 2008 and 2019.

4. The contradictory field of the environmental/climate migration

The origins of international studies on the migration-environment nexus can be traced back to the mid-1970s, with a publication coordinated by Lester Brown et al. (1976, p. 39), discussing the growing issue of "ecological refugees", especially in sub-Saharan African countries. This phenomenon was attributed to desert expansion linked to excessive grazing, leading to soil erosion and rapid population growth. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) later sponsored a study conducted by Essam El-Hinnawi (1985) on environmental refugees, that were defined as a special category of persons “who have been forced to leave their traditional habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of a marked environmental disruption (natural and/or triggered by people) that jeopardized their existence and/or seriously affected the quality of their life” (El-Hinnawi, 1985, p. 5). In this definition, "environmental disruption" refers to any physical, chemical, and/or biological changes in the ecosystem (or fundamental resource) that make it temporarily or permanently unsuitable to support human life. According to this definition, "people displaced for political reasons or by civil strife and migrants seeking better jobs purely on economic grounds are not considered environmental refugees" (El-Hinnawi, 1985, p. 5). The text referred to various situations, such as those of Ethiopians in Sudan or refugees in Chad, where the primary reason for migration was the deterioration of fundamental resources to a level incompatible with the basic needs. This report, along with subsequent studies in the following years, played a significant role in advancing discussions surrounding the migration-environment crisis, particularly within international organizations (Veronis, Boyd, Obokata, Main, 2018).

It sparked extensive dialogues across various research disciplines, with legal studies gaining prominence. Legal inquiries delved into the implications of considering environmental crises as factors in international protection procedures. Concurrently, legal studies evolved in tandem with elucidations provided by international organizations, notably the United Nations, on the interconnection between migration and the environment. These agencies introduced further definitions, with specific emphasis on the terms "environmental refugees" and "environmental migrants," despite these lacking legal standing in international protection law, as underscored by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in its Glossary on Migration and the UNHCR.

IOM (2019b, p. 64) defines an environmental migrant as “a person or group(s) of persons who, predominantly for reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment that adversely affect their lives or living conditions, are forced to leave their places of habitual residence, or choose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, and who move within or outside their country of origin or habitual residence”. IOM identifies climate migration as a subcategory of environmental migration. This classification applies to situations where environmental changes are attributed to climate change, whether these changes are associated with forced mobility or recognized as a form of adaptation to environmental stressors. The definition of climate migration proposed by IOM (2019b, p. 31) is the following one: “the movement of a person or groups of persons who, predominantly for reasons of sudden or progressive change in the environment due to climate change, are obliged to leave their habitual place of residence, or choose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, within a State or across an international border”.

Nevertheless, IOM (2019b, p. 32) advocates for the adoption of the terminology ‘environmental migrants’ or ‘internally displaced persons due to environmental factors’ when addressing forced mobility associated with environmental influences. It explicitly discourages the use of terms like ‘environmental refugees’ or 'climate refugees,' considering them “misleading”. These latter designations lack recognition in international law and do not fully capture the complex interplay between climate, socio-environmental changes, and human mobility. Despite their widespread use in public discourse, these terms have not received formal acknowledgment. Notably, institutions such as the European Parliament continue to delve into the subject, with the aim of formulating a potentially accurate definition (European Parliament, 2019).

The previous set of concepts and definitions has been received controversially across various scientific fields. For example, according to Agustoni and Maretti (2019, p. 127), the concept of ‘environmental migrant’ is considered inadequate because “the word ‘migrant’ indicates that the decision to move elsewhere is, to some extent, voluntary”. Meanwhile, the term ‘climate refugee’ as implying a constraint on mobility related to climate that is "too broad and too indeterminate” (Agustoni, Maretti, 2019, p. 127). Hein de Haas (2020) highlighted that climate migration, especially if linked to the threat of mass migration, serves four main interests: political agendas both on the left and right; fundraising purposes for researchers and international organizations; generating media attention; and depoliticizing the migration of vulnerable persons. Additionally, a systematic review of climate-induced migration studies has revealed “a critical need to establish a universally agreed definition of ‘climate-induced migrants’ and ‘climate-induced migration,’ which remains unclear to date” (Ghosh, Orchiston, 2022, p. 47).

In conclusion, from both legal and migration studies perspectives, the conceptual issue remains unresolved. Given the current state of the debate, a shift toward adopting a different epistemological approach to displacement in the contemporary era is needed (Pérez, 2019; Gimeno, 2020; Bruno, Palombino, Rossi, 2017).

5. Climate migration as an epistemological reduction

The discourse on environmental or climate migration gained traction in the 1980s, as highlighted by scholars such as Klepp (2017) and Gemenne (2011). This discourse aims to distinguish emigrants, refugees, and displaced individuals affected by significant environmental degradation or severe weather events that render specific areas uninhabitable. The analysis primarily focuses on the nexus between migration and environmental crises, emphasizing climate migration and the concept of climate refugees in public communication. This approach narrows the examination to the relationship between the climate crisis and forced migration in recent decades, emphasizing environmental degradation and crises resulting from climate change as key determinants of forced migrations (Hunter, Nawrotzki, 2016; Piguet, 2013; IOM, 2021). This perspective is supported by studies conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which hypothesize the emergence of 31-72 million and 90-143 million new internally displaced persons by 2050 in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America due to water stress, sea-level rise, and crop failure (IPCC, 2022, p. 619; Rigaud et al., 2018). However, the IPCC acknowledges significant uncertainties in projecting future migration changes, particularly those driven by climate-induced hydrological shifts (IPCC, 2022, p. 619).

Research on the migration-environment-climate nexus has predominantly focused on countries in the Global South, even though it has primarily been conducted by researchers and institutions in the Global North (Ghosh, Orchiston, 2022). States in the Global North often view these issues through the lens of security concerns, as highlighted by Molinero (2022) and Myers (2005). Notably, the White House in the United States (2021) publicly frames migration associated with climate change as a potential threat to both national and international security. This security-oriented perspective is further exacerbated by editorial choices in mass media, which contribute to the dissemination of moral panic and foster sentiments of xenophobia or racism, as discussed by Tong and Zuo (2019).

The approach of emphasizing forced environmental migration through categories like environmental refugees and climate refugees highlights only one facet of the complex relationship between human mobility and environmental crises, as noted by Nail (2019). This particular focus often results in an emergency-oriented approach, characterized by catastrophic and alarmist tones, predicting scenarios of hundreds of millions of displaced individuals due to climate change and implicitly evoking notions of invasion. For example, in addition to the IPCC estimates, the World Bank predicted that by 2050, climate change could lead to the internal displacement of 44 to 216 million people (Clement et al., 2021). Similarly, the IOM (2008) previously endorsed the hypothesis of 200 million climate migrants by 2050. Such projections contribute to an urgent tone, framed in a securitized way, in discussions about environmental migration, presenting the issue as an impending crisis.

This prevalent viewpoint suggests that environmental migration is primarily driven by processes or factors arising from severe ecological crises. In this narrative, individuals are compelled to flee when such crises occur, raising security concerns even in areas designated for immigration. This perspective aligns with the push and pull approach in migration theory, which emphasizes specific factors that either propel or attract individuals in migration processes. Rooted in a longstanding dominance within migration studies and persisting as a central theme in public and institutional discourse (Massey et al., 1993), this approach often relegates subjective and relational factors, as well as the historical and political underpinnings of migration, to a secondary or neglected role in understanding and addressing migration processes and human mobility.

In contrast, the political ecology of migration takes a different stance. Starting with an acknowledgment of migrants' perspectives, it explores both human mobility and immobility, seeking to understand the conditions, decisions, mechanisms, and policies that constrain individuals within specific boundaries. This theoretical perspective also examines how people respond when living in ecologically degraded, dispossessed, or devastated contexts (Stevens, 2017; Zickgraf, 2018; Wiegel, Boas, Warner, 2019). It incorporates into studies on human mobility and immobility the policies and actions undertaken by state, supra-state, and private actors to control and/or select human mobility, as well as the social and political resistances to processes of appropriation, degradation, or socio-ecological devastation (Federici, 2004; Muñoz, Villarreal, 2019; Benegiamo, 2021; Vigil, 2022), including policies that spatially trap populations.

6. Toward a political ecology of migration

The definitions put forth by international organizations do not enjoy unanimous consensus, a fact that these agencies themselves acknowledge, as evidenced by the notes in the IOM's Glossary on Migration. The proposed definitions are considered working tools within the organization and do not possess any legal standing. The IOM (2019b, p. 65) explicitly states, “there is no international agreement on a term to describe persons or groups of persons that move for environment-related reasons. This definition of environmental migrant is not meant to create any new legal categories. It is a working definition aimed at describing all the various situations in which people move in the context of environmental factors”.

In the scientific debate, the lack of consensus on these definitions is attributed to at least two fundamental reasons. Firstly, it is linked to the conceptual and empirical crisis surrounding the seemingly well-established distinction between economic migrations and forced migrations, which is becoming increasingly blurred globally (Carling, 2014). This blurring is especially evident considering how processes of environmental degradation, climate change, and rising temperatures are transforming various parts of the planet into areas increasingly inhospitable for both human and non-human life (Park et al., 2018). The second reason is associated with what scholars, particularly those in the field of political ecology, identify as the lack of analytical depth in the proposals put forth by international organizations. According to Kothari et al. (2019), the official analyses of the UN and governments have not included an in-depth critique of the structural forces underlying ecological degradation.

These critiques suggest the politicization of the environmental migration issue and would underscore the need to acknowledge the inherently political nature of migration in general, along with the intricate connection between human mobility and socio-environmental transformations (Sayad, 1984).

Political ecology begins with the recognition of the political dimension inherent in socio-ecological relationships. Consequently, it challenges approaches that promote non-political interpretations, which may be grounded in morality, individual responsibility, or a form of fatalism tied to the goodwill of institutional actors, depending on the theoretical framework. The recognition of the political underpinnings is crucial for a comprehending the complexities of the interplay between human migration and environmental changes.

The field of political ecology of migration seeks to understand how the reciprocal influence of power relations and socio-ecological dynamics manifests through the lens of human mobility and migration. In concise terms, the political ecology of migration politicizes the discourse on migrations within the context of socio-environmental changes. It adopts a theoretical orientation that views migration as an inherently and constitutively political phenomena, as argued, for example, by Klepp (2017). This perspective challenges the prevailing tendency among governments and public opinion to view migration solely as either economic (in the case of workers) or moral (in the context of forced mobility). Following the epistemological perspective of Abdelmalek Sayad (2004), it posits that emigrating is fundamentally a political act. Consequently, this recognition inherently questions the foundational separation upon which the nation-state is built: the separation between citizens, who are constitutively political subjects, and non-citizens, who are defined and governed as outside the realm of politics.

Methodologically, the political ecology approach involves adopting a dual perspective of study. On one hand, it necessitates delving into the historical depths of migration and socio-ecological changes to identify both recurrences and discontinuities over time, as well as the active structural factors and processes. On the other hand, this approach combines action and structure, distancing itself from methodological individualism - the idea that everything can be explained by individual behaviors and attitudes - and from any form of determinism. This involves defining structure as a historical and socio-ecological phenomenon characterized by long-term operating logics, as well as by contingent changes and socio-ecological (not just social) power relationships that evolve over time. Additionally, it involves observing not only how individual migrants move and those who, in the same territorial contexts, decide not to migrate or cannot do so, but also the strategies and actions of states and other public and private agencies involved in the governance and control of borders and migrations, active in the "migration industry" ( López-Sala, Godenau, 2020).

The nexus between human mobility and socio-ecological changes demands an initial recognition of the theme's significance, transcending mere historical contingency and positioning it within a broader temporal perspective. In simpler terms, the correlation between migration and socio-ecological transformations can be analyzed at various levels and across different historical periods. To fully grasp the importance of this theme, one can delve into both a series of long-term processes, intricately linked to those defining the capitalist world-ecology (Moore, 2015), and the conditions and processes of historical actuality.

The first set of processes concerns the history of migrations and human mobility, which, since the origins of modernity in the 15th-16th century, have been marked by processes and power relations that have modified, even upheaved, living environments, fostering phenomena - sometimes violent - of both mobility and spatial immobility (Saito 2021; Smith 2021). Numerous examples highlight the relationship between land ownership, agriculture, and the survival possibilities of populations. This connection lies at the heart of what is known in Marxist studies as the phase of primitive accumulation (Marx, 1976, Part Eight). It has also been central to other moments in the long primitive accumulation within the capitalist mode of production and organization of living environments, such as those related to the Conquest of America, with the opening and expansion of the sugar (and then other spices) frontier (Moore 2000, 2009; Mintz, 1996), and the establishment of the triangular trade of slaves, lands, and markets during the 16th and 17th centuries (Williams, 1944).

The second set of processes refers to the continuous revitalization of mechanisms of primitive accumulation, as identified by several Marxist scholars, including Rosa Luxemburg (1913), David Harvey (2003), Massimo De Angelis (2004), and Silvia Federici (2018). This trend has historically taken renewed forms, particularly since the 1980s, evident in the proliferation of privatization processes of public goods and services and new enclosures (such as the fencing of commons like land or water) associated with structural adjustment policies supported by major international organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (Midnight Notes Collective, 1990; Chossudovsky, 1997; Tomba, 2013), as well as the opening of new commodity frontiers (Tsing, 2005; Moore, 2000).

Historically, these processes - primitive accumulation in Europe, primitive accumulation through transatlantic slavery post-1492, and the ongoing and current tendency toward the return of mechanisms of primitive accumulation - have had consequences on the mobility of populations. They have profoundly altered their living environments, making them either uninhabitable or habitable only under conditions of severe social and political subalternity and widespread poverty.

A classic example of this outcome is illustrated by Marx (1976, p. 878) in The Capital, Chapter “The Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the Land”, where he writes:

the prelude to the revolution that laid the foundation of the capitalist mode of production was played out in the last third of the fifteenth century and the first few decades of the sixteenth. A mass of 'free' and unattached proletarians was hurled onto the labour-market by the dissolution of the bands of feudal retainers, […]. the great feudal lords, in their defiant opposition to the king and Parliament, created an incomparably larger proletariat by forcibly driving the peasantry from the land, to which the latter had the same feudal title as the lords themselves, and by usurpation of the common lands”. Men and women, forcibly driven from their lands through violent dispossession, did not readily conform to the demands of their new circumstances. Instead, they became wandering paupers en masse, compelled to abandon their homelands.

In the subsequent centuries, this process has deepened, continuing to fuel the pair of dispossession and displacement, confirming that “accumulation requires the attenuation of the peasantry, which, in turn, requires the dispossession of peasants. Those peasants, displaced, become a floating population, with uncertain prospects” (Smith, 2021, p. 154).

The profound and rapid alteration of living environments due to processes of enclosure and private appropriation of commons during the endless primitive accumulation transformed a portion of peasants and shepherds - from relatively autonomous subjects in their social reproduction, into internally and, in some case, internationally displaced persons. These individuals became entirely dependent on charity or public benevolence, including that of the police to avoid internment in emerging prisons and workhouses (Bauman, 1982). In summary, historically speaking, “proletarianization is not inevitable. Only one outcome is certain when farmers are expelled from the land: migration and precarity” (Smith, 2021, p. 152-153).

Similar phenomenon of mass internal migrations occurred with the processes of primitive accumulation in the colonies, where large nembers of small producers, expropriated and impoverished, remained in poverty. Unlike in Europe, many of these individuals did not become proletarians due to the limited development of capitalist enterprises in these territories-regions primarily focused on extraction activities within the capitalist world-ecology (Moore, 2015). Furthermore, they did not migrate to industrialized areas, as partially seen in the historical case of colonial Algeria (Bourdieu, Sayad, 1964). The link between migration (both internal and international) and socio-ecological transformations, driven by the domination and violence characteristic of the colonial period, is fundamental to understanding mass poverty in the contemporary world (Patnaik, 2012; Raychaudhuri, 1985). This link also underpins the migratory systems that subsequently developed between former colonies and colonizing countries (Sassen, 1996; Sayad, 2004).

In more recent times, other scholars have identified similar processes, linked to the crisis of community and peasant agriculture resulting from land expropriation and enclosure for the porpuse of export production, reforestation for emission credit acquisition, or mineral extraction (Muñoz, Villareal, 2019). For example, Silvia Federici (2018) noted how the continued growth of international and internal migration is driven both by the ease with which capital can move, destroying local economies and resistance, and by the entrepreneurs’ will to exploit every resource, including oil and all minerals territories contain. Saskia Sassen (2014, p. 81-82) recognized that “the scale of land acquisitions […] is marked by a vast number of microexpulsions of small farmers and villages […]. There are growing numbers of displaced people, rural migrants moving to slums in cities, destroyed villages and smallholder economies, and, in the long run, much dead land. […] Let me emphasize that this trajectory has become the norm, regardless of who is purchasing land and where”. Finally, Chowdhory and Mohanty (2023) have highlighted that

the logic of dispossession includes loss of humanity as well as loss of materiality. Dispossession appears to be the irreducible “indivisible remainder” in a refugee's everyday life, for instance. […] Dispossession, to a large extent, incorporates refugeeness, migrancy and subjectivity within a state of exception. The study of migration, refugeehood, and displacement is about polymorphous dispossession and disruption that spiral across time and space. Being dispossessed means that the subjects are disowned and degraded by various normalizing powers active in society”.

In recent decades, these processes have gained momentum within the overarching framework of spatio-temporal compression, which has left an indelible mark on the capitalist mode of production and the organization of commodities and nature (Harvey, 1989). However, their roots extend far beyond this temporal horizon, intertwining with the reproduction of the conditions of primitive accumulation: “the long 1492”, paraphrasing Moore (2023)’s analysis of the main capitalist world-ecology’s logic. Essentially, the literature within the realm of political ecology and its adjacent fields reveals that the nexus between spatial mobility and the creation of inhospitable living environments is neither incidental nor natural. This connection is not confined to the distant past or the present but emerges as a recurring political reality in the history of the capitalist world-ecology. This recurrent theme is intricately linked with the collective strategies of its dominant actors, who continually seek to re-actualize the conditions of primitive accumulation, thereby influencing its impact on socio-spatial displacement.

7. Conclusions

The connection between the violence of socioecological relations in the recurrent primitive accumulation and the creation of uninhabitable or hostile living environments is a central focus in the political ecology approach to understanding migration and population displacement, including decisions not to migrate.

Political ecology examines the migration-environment nexus beyond immediate concerns of climate change or environmental emergencies. Its goal is to trace the historical and structural processes shaping this relationship, recognizing that it is continuously moulded by human decisions and actions within specific structures of inequality and power relations, as well as by other components of life on Earth

Epistemologically, this approach aligns with Abdelmalek Sayad's insight, which emphasizes that understanding migratory processes requires an inseparable study of both emigration and immigration, as they constitute interconnected aspects of a single reality (Sayad, 2004).

By exploring various perspectives and their conflicts, the political ecology perspective opens a gateway to understanding migration in the context of climate change and global warming. It also addresses the deepening processes of private or State appropriation of commons and lands, which challenge the foundations of social reproduction across the planet. These challenges manifest through land dispossession, the increasing disintegration of peasant agriculture, and the global proliferation of extractive practices.

This research perspective critically engages with the emerging categories in the international debate on climate and environmental migration. It challenges the conventional separation of the environment from humanity, which is often treated as an isolated object and reality (Moore, 2015). This critique offers an opportunity to address the historical fact that all population movements are inherently socio-ecological, influenced by forces that evolve both historically and geographically. Within the context of capitalist world-ecology, these forces align with imperialist and state-driven efforts for private land appropriation and the dispossession of its inhabitants.

References

• AGUSTONI, Alfredo; MARETTI, Mara. Towards a global ecology of migration: an introduction to climatic-environmental migration. International Review of Sociology, v. XXIX, n. 2, p. 125-141, 2019.
• BAUMAN, Zygmunt. Memories of Class: The Pre-history and After-life of Class. London-Boston: Routledge & Kegan, 1982.
• BENEGIAMO, Maura. La terra dentro il capitale: Conflitti, crisi ecologica e sviluppo nel delta del Senegal. Napoli-Salerno: Orthotes, 2021.
• BOURDIEU, Pierre; SAYAD, Abdelmalek. Le déracinement: La crise de l’agriculture traditionnelle en Algérie. Paris: Led Editions de Minuit, 1964.
• BROWN, Lester Russelle; MCGRATH, Patricia L.; STOKES, Bruce. Twenty-two Dimensions of the Population Problem Washington: Worldwatch Institute, 1976.
• BRUNO, Giovanni Carlo; PALOMBINO, Fulvio Maria; ROSSI, Valentina (eds.). Migration and the Environment: Some Reflections on Current Legal Issues and Possible Ways Forward. Rome: CNR, 2017.
• CARLING, Jørgen. The role of aspirations in migration. In: Determinants of International Migration Oxford: University of Oxford, 23-25 September 2014.
• CHOSSUDOVSKY, Michel. The Globalisation of Poverty: Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms. London and New Jersey: Zed press, 1997.
• CHOWDHORY, Nasreen; MOHANTY, Biswajit. Dispossession, Border and Exception in South Asia: An Introduction. Journal of Borderlands Studies, v. XXXVIII, n. 4, p. 537-547, 2023.
• CLEMENT, Viviane et al Groundswell Part 2: Acting on Internal Climate Migration. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2021.
• De ANGELIS, Massimo. Separating the Doing and the Deed: Capital and the Continuous Character of Enclosures. Historical Materialism, v. 12, n. 2, p. 57-87, 2004.
• DE HAAS, Hein. Categories of Migration. In: DE HAAS, Hein; CASTLES, Stephen; MILLER, Mark J. (eds.). The Age of Migration International Population Movements in the Modern World. New York & London: Guilford Press, 2020, p. 21-40.
• EL-HINNAWI, Essam. Environmental refugees Nairobi: UNEP, 1985.
• European Parliament. The concept of ‘climate refugee’. Towards a possible definition. Europarl.europa.eu, 2019. Available at: Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/621893/EPRS_BRI(2018)621893_EN.pdf Accessed: 18.08.2024.
  » https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/621893/EPRS_BRI(2018)621893_EN.pdf
• FEDERICI, Silvia. Re-enchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Commons. Oakland: Pm Press, 2018.
• ______. Women, Land-Struggles and Globalization: An International Perspective. Journal of Asian and African Studies, v. 39, n. 1-2, p. 47-62, 2004.
• GEMENNE, Francois. How they became the human face of climate change Research and policy interactions in the birth of the ‘environmental migration’ concept. In: PIGUET, Etienne; PECOUD, Antoine; De Guchteneire, Paul (eds.). Migration and Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 226-260.
• GHOSH, Rajan C.; ORCHISTON, Caroline. A systematic review of climate migration research: gaps in existing literature. SN Social Science 2, n. 47, 2022.
• GIMENO, Santiago. La interpretación del concepto de “refugiado” en los litigios derivados de las migraciones climáticas. Ambiente & Derecho: Revista electrónica de derecho ambiental, n. 36, 2020.
• HARVEY, David. The new imperialism Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
• HARVEY, David. The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 1989.
• HUNTER, Lori; Nawrotzki, Raphael J. Migration and the environment. In: WHITE, Michael J. (ed.). Handbook of Migration and Population Distribution Dordrecht: Springer, 2016, p. 465-484.
• KLEPP, Silja. Climate Change and Migration Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, 2017.
• KOTHARI, Ashish et al Introduction. In: KOTHARI, Ashish et al (eds.). Pluriverse A post-development dictionary. New Delhi: Tulika Books, 2019, p. xxi-xl.
• Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. Grid 2023 Internal displacement and food security. 2023. Available at: Available at: https://www.internal-displacement.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/IDMC_GRID_2023_Global_Report_on_Internal_Displacement_LR.pdf. Accessed: 18.08.2024.
  » https://www.internal-displacement.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/IDMC_GRID_2023_Global_Report_on_Internal_Displacement_LR.pdf.
• IOM. Institutional strategy on migration, environment and climate change 2021-2030 For a comprehensive, evidence and rights-based approach to migration in the context of environmental degradation, climate change and disasters, for the benefit of migrants and societies. Geneva: IOM, 2021.
• IOM. World migration: Report 2020 Geneva: IOM, 2019a.
• ______. Glossary on migration Geneva: IOM, 2019b.
• ______. Migration and climate change Geneva: IOM, 2008.
• IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf Accessed: 18.08.2024.
  » https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf
• LÓPEZ-SALA, Ana; GODENAU, Dirk. In Private Hands? The Markets of Migration Control and the Politics of Outsourcing. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, v. 48, n. 7, p. 1610-1628, 2020.
• LUXEMBURG, Rosa. Die Akkumulation des Kapitals Berlin: Buchhandlung Vorwärts Paul Singer, 1913.
• MARX, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Volume One. New York: Penguin, 1976.
• MASSEY, Douglas et al Theories of international migration: a review and appraisal. Population and Development Review, n. 19, p. 431-466, 1993.
• Midnight Notes Collective. Introduction to the new enclosures. Midnight notes, n. 10, p. 1-9, 1990.
• MINTZ, Sídney. Dulzura y poder: El lugar del azúcar en la historia moderna. Ciudad de México: Siglo XXI, 1996.
• MOLINERO, Yoan. El medio ambiente en las relaciones internacionales Madrid: Editorial Síntesis, 2022.
• MOORE, Jason W. On Capitalogenic Climate Crisis: Unthinking Man, Nature and the Anthropocene, and Why It Matters for Planetary Justice. Real-World Economics Review, n. 105, p. 23-34, 2023.
• ______. Capitalism in the web of life London: Verso, 2015.
• ______. Madeira, Sugar, and the Conquest of Nature in the “First” Sixteenth Century: Part I: From “Island of Timber” to Sugar Revolution, 1420-1506. Review, v. 32, n. 4, p. 345-390, 2009.
• ______. Sugar and the Expansion of the Early Modern World-Economy. Review, v. 23, n. 3, p. 409-433, 2000.
• MUSTAK, Sk. Climate Change and Disaster-Induced Displacement in the Global South: A Review. In: SIDDIQUI, Azizur Rahman; SAHAY, Avijit (eds.). Climate Change, Disaster and Adaptations Cham: Springer, 2022, p. 107-120.
• MUÑOZ, Enara; VILLAREAL, María del Carmen. Pacha: defending the land. Extractivism, conflicts, and alternatives in Latin America and the Caribbean. 2019. Available at: Available at: https://justice-project.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Cartilha_Final_Ingles_Web.pdf Accessed: 18.08.2024.
  » https://justice-project.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Cartilha_Final_Ingles_Web.pdf
• MYERS, Norman. Environmental Refugees: An emergent security issue. 13th Economic Forum, Prague, May 2005. Available at: Available at: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/c/3/14851.pdf Accessed: 19.08.2024.
  » https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/c/3/14851.pdf
• NAIL, Thomas. Forum 1: Migrant climate in the Kinocene. Mobilities, v. 14, n. 3, p. 375-380, 2019.
• PARK, Chang Eui et al Keeping global warming within 1.5°C constrains emergence of aridification. Nature Climate Change, v. 8, p. 70-74, 2018.
• PATNAIK, Utsa. Capitalism and the Production of Poverty. Social Scientist, v. 40, n. 1/2, p. 3-20, 2012.
• PÉREZ, Felipe B.; MÁRQUEZ, Iglesias D.; CALZADILLA, Villavicencio P. Migraciones climáticas: el papel de los derechos humanos para superar el persistente vacío jurídico. Revista Latinoamericana de Derechos Humanos, v. 30, n. 1, p. 15-46, 2019.
• PIGUET, Etienne. From “Primitive Migration” to “Climate Refugees”: The Curious Fate of the Natural Environment in Migration Studies. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 103, n. 1, p. 148-162, 2013.
• RAYCHAUDHURI, Tapan. Historical Roots of Mass Poverty in South Asia. A Hypothesis. Economic and Political Weekly, v. 20, n. 18, p. 801-806, 1985.
• RIGAUD, Kanta Kumari et al Groundswell: Preparing for Internal Climate Migration. Washington: World Bank, 2018.
• SAITO, Kohei. Primitive Accumulation as the Cause of Economic and Ecological Disaster. In: MUSTO, Marcello (ed.). Rethinking Alternatives with Marx Marx, Engels, and Marxisms. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021, p. 93-112.
• SASSEN, Saskia. Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014.
• ______. Migranten, Siedler, Flüchtlinge Von der Massenauswanderung zur Festung Europa. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1996.
• SAYAD, Abdelmalek. The Suffering of the Immigrant Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004.
• ______. État, nation et immigration: l’ordre national à l’épreuve de l’immigration. Peuples Méditerranéens-Mediterranean Peoples, n. 27-28, p. 187-205, 1984.
• SMITH, David Norman. Accumulation and Its Discontents: Migration and Nativism in Marx’s Capital and Late Manuscripts. In: MUSTO, Marcello (ed.). Rethinking Alternatives with Marx Marx, Engels, and Marxisms. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021, p. 151-215.
• STEVENS, Bavo. Global Environmental Change Is Creating Immobility “Traps”. Our world, 2017. Available at: Available at: https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/global-environmental-change-is-creating-immobility-traps Accessed: 19.08.2024.
  » https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/global-environmental-change-is-creating-immobility-traps
• TOMBA, Massimiliano. Layered Historiography: Re-Reading the So-Called Primitive Accumulation. In: TOMBA, Massimiliano. Marx’s Temporalities Leiden: Brill, 2013, p. 159-186.
• TONG, Jingrong; ZUO, Landong. Othering the European Union through constructing moral panics over ‘im/migrant(s)’ in the coverage of migration in three British newspapers, 2011-2016. International Communication Gazette, v. 81, n. 5, p. 445-469, 2019.
• TSING, Anna. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connections. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005.
• UNHCR. Global trends: Forced displacement in 2021 2022. Available at: Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/62a9d1494/global-trends-report-2021 Accessed: 19.08.2024.
  » https://www.unhcr.org/62a9d1494/global-trends-report-2021
• ______. Displaced on the frontlines of the climate emergency, 2020 2020. Available at: Available at: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/065d18218b654c798ae9f360a626d903 Accessed: 19.08.2024.
  » https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/065d18218b654c798ae9f360a626d903
• ______. Global trends 2010 2010. Available at: Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/statistics/country/4dfa11499/unhcr-global-trends-2010.html Accessed: 19.08.2024.
  » https://www.unhcr.org/statistics/country/4dfa11499/unhcr-global-trends-2010.html
• VERONIS, Luisa; BOYD, Bonnie; OBOKATA, Reiko; MAIN, Brittany. Environmental change and international migration. In: MCLEMAN, Robert; GEMENNE, François (eds.). Routledge Handbook of Environmental Displacement and Migration London: Routledge, p. 41-70, 2018.
• VIGIL, Sara. Land Grabbing and Migration in a Changing Climate Comparative Perspectives from Senegal and Cambodia London: Routledge, 2022.
• WHITE HOUSE. Report on the impact of climate change on migration, 2021 2021. Available at: Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Report-on-the-Impact-of-Climate-Change-on-Migration.pdf Accessed: 19.08.2024.
  » https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Report-on-the-Impact-of-Climate-Change-on-Migration.pdf
• WIEGEL, Hanne; BOAS, Ingrid; WARNER, Jeroen. A mobilities perspective on migration in the context of environmental change. WIREs Climate Change, n. 10, e610, 2019.
• WILLIAMS, Eric. Capitalism and slavery Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina press, 1944.
• ZICKGRAF, Caroline. Immobility. In: McLEMAN, Robert; GEMENNE, François (eds.). Routledge Handbook of Environmental Displacement and Migration London: Routledge, 2018, p. 71-84.

Dossier editors

Joan Lacomba, Beatriz Felipe

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  11 Nov 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  19 Jan 2024
• Accepted
  18 July 2024