Climate change, land grabbing & human mobility:
Insights from Senegal and Cambodia
Sara VIGIL FNRS Research Fellow
The Hugo Observatory: Environment, Migration, Politics. University of Liège International Institute of Social Studies Erasmus University Rotterdam
LANDac Annual Conference Utrecht, 30/06/2016.
Outline
Climate change, land grabbing, and migration: links and gaps
Research project Insights from the field
Exploring the linkages Indirect impacts of climate change on property rights
Policy advances and gaps
Climate Change
-Food (in)security -« green » energy ‘flex’ crops. - carbon offsets
Land grabs
-Environmental pressures
-Land use change • Deforestation • CO2 absorption • Fall in rainfall (local) • Rise in temperature
(global)
Source: Author- adapted from Seo & Rodriguez 2012 and Tilman et al. 2011
(Im)Mobility
Research project
Research questions: How do climate change, land grabs, and migration shape each other?
How do large-scale land acquisitions influence migration dynamics differently in Senegal and Cambodia, and why?
Methods: Qualitative multi-case in two very different socio-political contexts
So far: More than 150 participants in semi-structured interview and focus groups.
Methodological challenges: Lack of reliable migration data. Migration used to convey a political message of disconformity.
Exploring the linkages across areas
Land laws, human rights, and freedom: Politics at play Close and complex relationship between land rights and human rights
Implementation not signature Types of land laws
(Re)distributive or (non)redistributive and (re)concentration? (Borras and Franco 2010)
Who invests? What market are they exporting to? Capabilities to protest and mobilise.
Implications: the voluntary or forced nature of the movement.
Climate change or access to natural resources? Climate change not only as a justification (local & global levels), but also as a result: far
reaching externalities. Climate change will modify the value of natural resources in unexpected ways.
The 2°c target (Paris agreement): needs BECCS (bio-energy with carbon capture and storage) A growing phenomenon? Critical discourse analysis backed up by empirical evidence.
Consequences on mobility
Differentiated (im)mobility outcomes:
Nature of the project and employment opportunities Different access and rights recognised Ethnic origins & attachment to land Socio-economic & demographic variables
Class but w/enormous differentiation
Development or the ‘development of underdevelopment’? (Frank 1976)
Migration transitions models (Rostow 1960, Zelinsky 1971) or ‘surplus labour’/ ‘in situ displacement’ (Li 2011, Feldman & Geisler 2011, Davis 2006, Sassen, Harvey 2007)? It depends! Yet, in Senegal and Cambodia: ‘Relative Surplus Populations’ the
land is needed but the labour is not (Li 2009, 2011). Contributing to the ‘Planet of Slums’ (Davis 2006)
Outcomes of migration are related to the land and capital assets of the migrants family.
The dispossesed or ‘adversely’ incorporated are not the winners.
First insights from the field: Senegal & Cambodia
LSLA Induced
(im)mobility
Politics History Development & agricultural policies Climate change mitigation policies Trade agreements Migration policies
Social Networks, Mobilisation, Attachment to land, off farm employment opportunities,
Demographic characteristic (Age, gender, ethnicity),Class Socio-economic status, Education Sectorial differentiation Distance from activities
Macro
Meso
Micro
Voluntary
Forced
Policy advances and gaps Codes of Conduct? Responsible Agricultural Investment (RAI) principles? (World Bank, UNCTAD,
FAO and IFAD) Transparency in negotiations, respect for existing land rights, sharing of benefits, environmental
sustainability, and adherence to national trade policies: ‘win-win’ outcomes? Jurisdiction of national governments when they are one of the key players? Implementation gap. Should the international community step in?
Externalities approach and Global Public Goods? (climate change, security, humabn rights)
Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Forests and Fisheries Human Rights have a prominent role. No clear definition of ‘development’
Development for whom? Fails to question agro-industrial development per se
Land tenure ‘security’ for whom? Participatory approaches.
Who holds power in the negotiation processes?
Conclusions
Access to natural resources need to be at the center of the climate change and ‘environmental migration’ debates.
Need to focus on the ‘bundle of powers’, not the ‘bundle of rights’ (Ribot and Peluso 2003).
Climate change will impact property rights directly, but also indirectly through land grabs that use climate narratives and that have further socio-environmental impacts impacts. Assuring property rights will not be enough anticipate further mouvements in
a warmer planet making sure migration is an adaptation strategy.
Assure policy coherence: not in the name of climate change mitigation/adaptation!
BECCS to save the planet? Agro-industry to feed humanity? Migration as a path out of poverty?
Or, ‘Green-grabbing induced displacement’ and increased vulnerabilities in both rural and urban areas?
Next steps
Empirically grounded typology construction Projects: Access to land Employment creation Socio-economic and environmental impacts
Socio-economic profiles (migrants and non-migrants) Profiles according to the differentiation of the peasantry (rural farmers,
small scale farmers, middle farmers, rich peasants). Remaining fieldwork
Cambodia (August-September) Senegal (December)
Snapshot of research findings: Senegal Context
SENHUILE A “bio” fuel project gone wrong
A natural reserve declassified. Flex cropping. 20,000ha to the company. Completely overlooked customary land rights. Complicated pastoralism and immobility From transhumance to out-migration From exclusive pastoralism to diversification of livelihoods. Strong environmental impacts
WEST AFRICA FARMS A model worth duplicating?
200ha for the company and 200ha for the populations. Fixes local populations Return of women from Mauritania Attracts migrants from more environmentally vulnerable areas. Serves as a model for the World Bank PDIDAS.
One of the most stable democracies in West Africa. 1964: National Domain Act 1964: 95% of land under state regulation. “Convenient use”. LOASP 2004: Land becomes an economic asset. Customary arrangements continue to govern in most of the country. Nearly 20% of arable land acquired through large-scale land acquisitions in recent years -Land reform is underway.
Snapshot of research findings: Cambodia
KOH KONG SUGAR: loss of livelihoods, forced relocation &
exponential out migration 2006: 19,100ha Violence & intimidation (1 activist killed) At least 700 families affected Mostly agricultural land but 10 families relocated. Exponential out-migration: inability to send remittances
TAN BIEN RUBBER: eternal mobility linked to land confiscation: massive
forced relocation and migration.
2007: 8100ha granted Forced relocation of 1200 families. Agricultural land: more than 30km away Exponential out and in migration.
Dramatic recent history Officially a multipart democracy. In reality: a one-party state Since 2002, more than 2 million ha of ELC’s have been granted: more than 50% of arable land in the country Human Rights violations & forced evictions: a very common picture
Theoretical framework
Combining NELM/livelihoods with relational political economy Political Economy
Vulnerability studies ( Bohle et al. 1994; Adger 1999, Wisner et al. 2004) What are the socio-political causes of pre-existing vulnerability?
Political ecology (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987; Robbins 2012) Who profits from changes in control over resources?
Class analysis versus methodological individualism Differentiation of the peasantry. Agrarian Politics How are people included and excluded of migration processes? Development and adaptation for whom?
Concern with (in)direct impacts of climate and environmental change on (im)mobility
Livelihoods trajectories (de Haan, Zoomers 2005)
Capabilities framework (Sen): ‘migration as a function of people’s capabilities and aspirations to migrate within a given set of opportunity framewoks (de Haas 2014)
Land: a Global Public Good?
Climate stability: the GPG per excellence: non-rival, non-excludable, benefits that go beyond the nation state to all population groups and generations Who holds the resources in the first place matters! Not a question of national
sovereignty any longer. Depend on property relations.
Land: Intermediate global public good Far reaching externalities:
Human rights Environmental degradation
Land-use change Security (terrorism in Senegal/ war in Cambodia?).
Where is the security of those displaced? Will land rights be enough?
