CLIMATE CHANGE: Redefining the push factors of forced migration

by Mary-Sanyu Osire

Climate change means different things to different people.

To 26 year old Ben Namakin, an environmental activist from the small island nation of Micronesia, it means this: “Climate change for me is a matter of life and death for my people.”

If predictions from scientists who study climate change are to come true, Ben Namakin’s could be the first island nation to be swallowed up by waters.

The term climate change refers to long-term alterations in the weather patterns of a given area. It can take thousands and even millions of years to change the climate of an area.

In this regard, around the world, owing to a long-term increase in human activities that produce gases that destroy the earth’s natural abilities to moderate its own climate, many negative changes in weather conditions are starting to be seen (IE: Climate Change). Experts predict that the situation is likely to get worse if nothing is done to urgently reverse the trend of these non-sustainable, non-environmentally friendly human activities.

Small island states like Ben Namakin’s often do the least to propagate climate change yet end up bearing its brunt.

The Federal States of Micronesia may be the first island nation(s) to be submerged by waters. PHOTO/Google Images

On islands like Ben’s, the primary reason for displacement of people is environmental changes that culminate in typhoons, mudslides, wave surges, flooding or even severe droughts. When these climate-induced disasters occur, it often leads to the mass exodus of communities.

Amongst migration experts, this imposed movement is referred to as “forced migration”. It is also called “deracination” which is originally a French word that means ‘to uproot’.

Today, tens of millions of forced migrants live around the world. The factors that lead to forced migration vary greatly and could include: repressive regimes, conflict, developmental policies and changes in the environment.

Working closely with the government and other regional and international stakeholders, humanitarian organizations that are concerned with the safe movement of the forced migrants on island's like Ben's offer the inhabitants intervention services, emergency relief and reconstruction assistance. The kind of support that these organizations offer could range from building of dams to reconstruction of public and private infrastructure.

As the humanitarian organizations continue to develop intervention strategies for these most-at-risk communities, I would like to urge the scholars of this day to give some serious thought to what impact climate change is having on the migration trends of our generation. In my humble opinion, this phenomenon is being given much less "credit" than it deserves.


The author is a humanitarian analyst and she writes on migration. Email her on: msanyu@yahoo.com

Human Trafficking vs. Human Smuggling: The A’s, B’s and C’s

by Mary-Sanyu Osire

A quick scan through the local dailies raises concern about the degree of confusion that surrounds the meaning of these two terms. There is a clear need for conceptual clarity of these terms, in line with recognized international definitions.

The United Nations (UN) Palermo Protocols are two protocols that all journalists who report on human trafficking and human smuggling should be well acquainted with. They are sometimes erroneously referred to individually as “the Palermo Protocol”. Following a high-level political conference that was convened on 15 November 2000 in Palermo (Southern Italy), these protocols were born.

The two Palermo Protocols are:
• the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children; and
• the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air;

These protocols were adopted alongside the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which is a UN-sponsored multilateral treaty against transnational organized crime.

Defining human trafficking

According to the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children:

“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs; The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used; The recruitment, transportation, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purposes of exploitation shall be considered “trafficking in persons” even if this does not involve any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article; “Child” shall mean any persons under 18 years of age.

The three key elements to note in this definition are i) the Action, ii) the Means and iii) the Purpose. These three elements must be working in tandem for trafficking in persons to have occurred. The only exception to this rule is when children are the victims of human trafficking – in their case, only the action and the purpose need be present for it to be recognized as human trafficking.

Defining human smuggling

In this picture, victims of human smuggling are intercepted along the Southern border of the United States of America. Photo credit/Wordpress

According to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, human smuggling can be defined as:

 “The procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a State Party of which the person is not a national or a permanent resident”;

 “Crossing borders without complying with the necessary requirements for legal entry into the receiving State”.

Conclusion

There are many distinct differences between these two terms. Take for example, whereas human trafficking is a crime against individuals, human smuggling is a crime against states. Furthermore, whereas trafficking often involves coercion and deception, smuggling is often voluntary.

In some instances, some cases are more complicated than others, and owing to the factors at play, an individual could easily move from being a victim of smuggling to being a victim of trafficking. We ought to pay specific attention to these nitty-gritties as we report on human trafficking and human smuggling.

In as much the Palermo Protocols have been criticized for among other things not having provisions for intra-state trafficking, they can still prove a very useful reference tool for journalists who report on human trafficking and human smuggling. For the purpose of drawing comparisons, it may also interest one to study other frameworks like the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (Optional Protocol).



The author is a humanitarian analyst and she writes on migration. Email her on: msanyu@yahoo.com

South Sudan’s out-of-country registration and voting process: Food for thought

by Mary-Sanyu Osire

Recently, The Sudan had a referendum to vote on South Sudan’s separation from the North.

Of particular interest to me was the 8 out-of-country registration and voting centers that the South Sudan Referendum Commission established in Kenya, Uganda, Australia, Ethiopia, United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom and Egypt. These countries were selected owing to the large number of South Sudanese living there.

ABOVE: South Sudanese queue at one of the voting stations during the recently concluded referendum on cessation. Photo credit/Google images

I am a strong proponent of migrants being actively (not passively!) engaged in contributing towards the political, social and economic direction of their countries of origin. To this end, I believe that governments should go out of their way to foster relations with their citizenry in the Diaspora in a bid to propel national development efforts.

Statistics from 2009 showed that formal and informal remittances to developing countries are said to have been as much as three times the size of official development aid. In 2009, the estimated amount of remittances sent by migrants was $414 billion. In the same year, more than US $316 billion in remittances went to developing countries, a figure that represents 76 per cent of total remittances in 2009.

And this figure is set to grow. According to the International Organization for Migration’s recently launched World Migration Report, the international migrants could number 405 million by 2050 if migration continues to grow at the same pace as during the last 20 years.

The World Bank estimates that if countries with declining populations allowed their workforce to grow by only 3 percent by letting in an extra 14 million migrant workers between 2001-2005, the world would be $356 billion a year better off -- with the majority of these funds flowing to developing countries.

The maths is easy:

“Embracing emigrants = Propelling national development efforts”

I congratulate the South Sudan Referendum Commission for engaging their citizenry in the Diaspora and now encourage South Sudan’s policy makers to continue relentlessly engaging their emigrants as their new country works towards establishing its foundation.

Get it right, South Sudan! Then maybe the rest of us could learn from you.

The author is a humanitarian analyst and she writes on migration. Email her on: msanyu@yahoo.com

Sending the migrants home is not the solution

by Mary-Sanyu Osire

The four South Sudanese were relaxing in their room, in anticipation of a long day at work. A few minutes later, they lay dead, their motionless bodies lying in swelling pools of blood on the carpet of their apartment in Northern Israel.

Four more senseless deaths. Four more reasons why hosting communities should be better sensitized about the benefits of migration.

Since 2006, approximately 4,600 refugees from Sudan have entered Israel from Egypt. Enraged by the influx of migrants, the hosting communities have gradually developed resistance to migration, primarily because they feel that their sources of livelihood are being threatened.

This situation is not native to Israel alone. Across the world, communities struggle to wholeheartedly embrace the migrants who live in their midst.

The banner reads: "We are not criminals, give us a chance for a better life!" This was at a public rally that was organized by immigrants residing in the United States of America. Photo credit/Google Images

A point of concern is what would happen if the apprehension at the grassroots eventually translates into hosting governments opting to put in place discriminatory policies that would border on xenophobia?

The easiest way out of this quagmire may seem to send the migrants home, but considering recent demographic and labor migrant trends, the fact of the matter is that the hosting governments need these migrants to advance their countries’ economies.

In a recent press statement by William Lacy Swing, the Director General of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), he outlines the benefits of migration.

According to Swing, a study published earlier this year by University College London showed that newcomers from Eastern Europe paid 37 per cent more in taxes than they received in benefits and from public services in 2008-09. Many more migrants helped to provide critical public services as doctors, nurses or cleaners in the National Health Service. Another recent piece of research highlighted the positive entrepreneurial impact immigrant communities have on the British economies.

He goes on to note that according to the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, in the United States, native-born Americans gain an estimated $ 37 billion a year from immigrants’ participation in the US economy. More than one in 10 self-employed business people in the U.S. is an immigrant.

Says Swing: “Despite the evidence, few issues still elicit stronger reaction than that of migration. From the floors of parliaments to city streets to discussions around dinner tables, there are heated debates about migrants’ impact on national identity, security, employment, health and social welfare systems – all those things that make up the fabric of a society. Unfortunately, many of these discussions are based on emotions and myths and not on social and economic reality. Migration now and in the future will be driven by global economic, social and demographic trends that can no longer be ignored.”

I could not have summed it up any better.

The onus is on governments to embrace the benefits of migration, and to sensitize their citizenry about these benefits.

Sending the migrants home is not the solution.


The author is a humanitarian analyst and she writes on migration. Email her on: msanyu@yahoo.com

Give the irregular migrants information they can use

by Mary-Sanyu Osire

John’s question rooted me to the ground: “What is information, if it is not of value to the recipient? Why give migrants information that is of no value to them?”

I left his office in deep thought.

As part of their outreach activities, organizations that work to deter human smuggling often develop information education materials that are targeted towards curtailing the vice. In many instances, this material will carry heavy undertones of doom, gloom, and certain disaster for anyone who dares to surrender him/herself to the curtails of human smugglers.

Consequently, a lot of money is spent on sharing this information with the sections of the society that are deemed to be most-at-risk because of the high likelihood of their involvement in human smuggling activities.

Yet human smuggling continues. Unabated, more sophisticated, and with an increasing level of reckless boldness.

I live in Kenya. At the end of last year, an article was written that sounded an alarm over the stretched prison facilities in Kenya’s Northern regions of Isiolo and Marsabit, owing to an influx of detainees (victims of human smuggling) who were arrested as they moved from Ethiopia, through Kenya, to South Africa.

Just last week, the Kenyan police raised security concerns over the increasing number of Ethiopians immigrants who are illegally accessing Kenya through the porous border in Moyale, en route to South Africa. Approximately 2,000 Ethiopian immigrants have been arrested in Kenya since this year started. This translates to 200 arrests each day.

Irregular migrants often live in squalid, congested conditions en route to the country of their destination. In this picture, irregular migrants are rounded up shortly after being intercepted by the police in Nairobi, Kenya. Photo credit/Google images

This was John’s argument: It is well known that the dangers of human smuggling are better known to the victims than to some of the communications officers who burn the midnight oil compiling the information education materials for their anti-human smuggling campaigns. The victims are fully aware of what they are getting themselves into. They have measured the pros and cons, and still opt to go through with the perilous journey. If these communications officers are really keen to realize a return-on-investment for their communications materials, would they not rather give the migrants information that would be more useful to them, in order to increase their chances of survival as they make their voyages? For example, an information sheet on “10 things to watch out for when determining the credibility of the individual who has offered to help you get smuggled”?

John’s views sent a shiver up my spine. Would this not be like assisted suicide? Would you hand a loaded gun to your child, simply because she/he won’t stop crying?

Yet, I found myself compelled to give some serious thought to what John said. If the anti-smuggling organizations are not giving the migrants information that would be of practical use to them, are the organizations not failing in their communications strategies?

What is information, if it is of no value to the recipient?


The author is a humanitarian analyst and she writes on migration. Email her on: msanyu@yahoo.com