What, by the way, is a climatic migrant? The definition poses a problem at the base

In this regard, they think that at least three variables should be taken into account. “First, migration can be short-term or long-term. Discussions would gain clarity if the distinction made by the UN between temporary displacement (less than three months), short-term migration (three months to one year) and long-term migration (more than one year) were used in a meaningful way. more systematic. Most authors argue that at present, environmental changes mainly lead to temporary migrations, which the media and the public tend to perceive as long lasting, ”they say. He added: “The temporality of migration also has to do with the nature of environmental processes: slowly evolving phenomena such as desertification or sea level rise are likely to be associated with long migrations. Eventually, sudden disasters such as tropical cyclones will trigger temporary displacement. But this typology is far from systematic: droughts have long fueled the dynamics of seasonal migrations, which underlines the importance of differentiating between permanent departures and commuting type mobility ”. Etienne Piguet, Antoine Pécoud, Paul de Guchteneire also believe that the distinction between forced and voluntary migrations must be qualified. “The oft-used notion of ‘environmental refugee’ presupposes that people are forced to leave their homes because of environmental factors. But the more or less constrained nature of migration is open to debate. The causes of migration interact and it is extremely difficult to grasp the decision-making processes among potential migrants and to understand why, how and when people decide to leave ”, they indicate while noting that“ the debate on the issue of whether – as a dominant but implicit point of view maintains – migration results from an inability to adapt and constitutes a last resort or whether migration can have a preventive dimension, notably through seasonal migration or the departure of ‘a family member who allows others to stay through resource transfers. The first view is that migration is the worst-case scenario and policies should aim to curb it. According to the second, it represents an adaptation mechanism to climate change and deserves to be encouraged ”. Climate migrant, a notion to be defined Next, at the level of the very definition of migration linked to harmful effects of the environment, the authors of the said article argue that disagreements persist on the term to be used to designate the individuals who migrate because of environmental factors and popular notions such as “ecological migrants” or “climate refugees” have given rise to both scientific / academic and political controversies. “Many researchers have noted that the juxtaposition of the terms“ environment ”/“ climate ”and“ migrants ”/“ refugees ”implies an exclusive cause and effect relationship between environmental factors and human mobility, thus negating the multicausality mentioned above. on it, ”they note. And to clarify: “As StephenCastles notes,” the term environmental refugee is simplistic, one-sided and misleading. It involves a single cause which very rarely exists in practice [Les facteurs environnementaux] are part of a complex set of multiple causes, in which [ils] are closely linked to factors of an economic, social and political nature ”(Castles, 2002, 5). In this sense, there will never be “environmental migrants” (or “climate refugees”), because it will never be possible to identify a group of people who migrate solely because of environmental variables ”. The authors recall that even the definition of “environmental migrants” provided by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) suffers from the same loophole (“people or groups of people who, for compelling reasons related to a sudden environmental change or progressive negatively influencing their life or living conditions, are forced to leave their usual home or leave it on their own initiative, temporarily or permanently, and who, as a result, move within or out of their country “). For them, the expression “population movements induced by environmental factors” The term environmental refugee is simplistic, one-sided and misleading could offer a more neutral solution, but it remains vague and unattractive to the general public. “Another possibility is the wording ‘people displaced by environmental factors’ (Jäger, 2009). It includes three sub-categories: environmental migrants (who have chosen voluntarily to leave their place of residence mainly for environmental reasons); environmentally displaced people (forced to leave their place of residence because their livelihoods are threatened by environmental events), and people displaced by development projects (who are intentionally displaced or resettled due to ‘a change in land use). The boundaries between these three sub-groups, however, remain blurred, ”they say. On the political level, Etienne Piguet, Antoine Pécoud, Paul de Guchteneire consider that the discussion of the concepts has focused on the use of the notion of “refugee” (Cournil and Mazzega, 2007). “Legally, this concept refers to the status recognized by the Geneva Convention of 1951, which defines a“ refugee ”as a person who leaves his country of residence“ with reason for fear of being persecuted because of his race, his religion, of his nationality, of his membership of a certain social group or of his political opinions ”. Environmental reasons are absent from this definition, which can lead to two opposing positions: one can either plead for an extension of this definition to environmental factors (and therefore for a modification of the Geneva Convention or for a new treaty dealing specifically with the case of “environmental refugees”) (Biermann and Boas, 2010), or reject any reference to the term “refugee” in the context of climate change, mainly for fear of diluting a specific legal category into a broader category and defined ”. This led, they explain, the UNHCR to express “serious reservations concerning the terminology and the concept of environmental refugees and climate refugees”, noting that “these terms have no basis in international refugee law and that the majority people commonly referred to as environmental refugees have not crossed international borders. The use of this terminology could potentially undermine the international legal regime for the protection of refugees and create confusion regarding the link between climate change, environmental degradation and migration ”(United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 2009, 7). Another turning point is possible For the writers of the Groundswell report, these questions are not addressed, despite their importance. In their conclusion, they believe that migration due to environmental factors is not inevitable and that the course of things can take another direction. But, provided that countries start now to reduce greenhouse gases, close development gaps, restore vital ecosystems and help people adapt. The report estimates that internal climatic migrations could be reduced by up to 80% – to 44 million people by 2050. The World Bank finds it necessary to start planning, where necessary, for orderly and well-supervised internal climatic migrations. , as an effective adaptation strategy that would produce positive effects on development. “It is crucial to act now on the triple fronts of climate, development and migration to ensure the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals over the next 10 years and achieve shared prosperity by the middle of the century. present and beyond ”, concludes the report. Hassan bentaleb