A great many publications deal with migration and its causes; many now deal with migration in relation to climate change. As in all fields of research, there is room for even more publications, because the complexity of the phenomena is revealed as investigations increase. Our project, however, is different: it involves analysing how the results of research relate to the making of public policy, particularly at European level. In other words, the aim is to understand climate migration in its various states, from what it is for researchers to what it is becoming for public players, and therefore to find out how what the former produce supports or does not support the action of the latter.
Public policies are intended to be close to scientific findings. This positivisation of social engineering has continued to develop since the nineteenth century. By subjecting public action to considerations informed by ‘objective’ knowledge, by which is meant knowledge guaranteed by objectification procedures, contemporary societies can claim to escape arbitrariness by using an alternative means to democracy. However, at the same time as recourse to science has intensified, the deference it once enjoyed has weakened. The heart of this phenomenon lies in the fact that public policy aims to produce practical effects based on the unambiguous identification of a problem and its solution, whereas science only produces stabilised conjectures that are not, in themselves, solutions.
We will therefore be interested in the path taken by the scientific determination of a public problem, from the work devoted to it to the solutions brought to bear on it. This is of twofold interest: firstly, to gain a better understanding of the relationship that the publics concerned (public players, members of civil society, etc. Secondly, in the case of migration linked to climate change, to formulate a state of consensus on what is involved, including by designating the areas of ignorance (undone science) requiring specific investigations, which are key areas for taking proper account of the phenomenon.
Two major problems of climate change-related migration
Two problems are immediately apparent. What do we call the people leaving their place of residence as a result of a considerable change in environmental conditions? This question has far-reaching consequences, because migration from south to north comes up against major obstacles and, in particular, security fears. Differentiating between migrants, depending on the reasons for their migration, leads to the implementation of contrasting migration policies. By virtue of its a priori imperative and forced nature, does climate-related migration give rise to rights unlike economic migration and, if so, should and could it be regulated specifically?
This categorical issue has very different consequences depending on how the effect of the climate on migration is measured, including, possibly, a duty to welcome and an obligation to make reparation. Since Africa is responsible for only 4% of CO2 emissions, climate migrants would be the victims of a situation for which neither they nor their countries are responsible. They could thus become ‘climate refugees’. You can imagine the consequences of such a re-categorisation.
Here, the second problem is linked to the first: what part does climate change play in the decision to migrate? For migrants to be ‘climate’ migrants, climate change and its environmental consequences must be a major factor in the decision to migrate. The extent to which this is the case will determine what is at stake for each category. This second problem cannot, however, be resolved simply by means of correlations between changes in the climate and changes in the number of migrants. It requires an interdisciplinary approach based on detailed, ongoing knowledge of socio-ecosystems and the relationships that populations maintain with them. In particular, we need to know how climate change is affecting specific areas in practice, and what their inhabitants’ objective capacities are for adapting to the situation. Secondly, we need to take account of the subjectivity of prospective migrants, both in terms of their own situation and in terms of the difficulties involved.
Finally, the linkage of two problems – (1) that of the right name and (2) that of the actual contribution of climate change to migration – will enable us to help elucidate a recurring problem of public policy in its relationship with scientific research: how and to what extent do the former have the capacity to produce the latter? Is it true that the virtue lies in the verbatim transfer of scientific findings to public policy? Is this transfer in extenso even possible, insofar as it assumes that the conclusions are self-evident and unambiguous?
The question of transfer
We know from experience that what can be transferred from scientific communities to the communities of decision-makers and public policy entrepreneurs is generally sorted out and reformulated, the more important it is when the societal issues are pressing and divisive. It is only by immersing oneself in this research that we can get an idea of the density and practicality of the data produced by research, particularly from a public policy perspective. It is on the basis of this insider knowledge that it is possible to form an accurate idea of what can pass the test of reformulation inherent in transfer.
In contrast to many other studies, the aim is not to consider data from scientific communities as independent of their materiality and validity (in other words, as simple narratives), but to follow how this materiality and validity are imposed or not imposed in public debates and choices, and why. Nor will it be a question of considering the filters and reformulations that appear in the course of these choices as devoid of validity. Firstly, because they are rooted in actual materialities and repertoires of validity; and secondly, because they are often based on scientific findings. For example, it could be argued that climate change is increasing migration, but that the impact of this change stems from local practices that can be revised under certain conditions.
Understanding climate migration properly, i.e. understanding it in its ‘two forms’, as a phenomenon and as a public problem, therefore implies a conceptual investigation that takes the whole sequence seriously: local conditions, population adaptation, the spectrum of motivations for migration (including expectations), the scientific measurement of things and its link with public policies, and finally the contextual feasibility of these policies. Categorising migration as ‘climatic’ is therefore not a convenient and self-evident label. Taking this difficulty into account and analysing it can only help us to better understand what is at stake when we apply the predicate ‘climate’ to the phenomena and to the public policies that refer to them. Rather than taking it for granted ex ante, we need to see it as the result of what the German sociologist Thomas Scheffer calls a process of ‘realisation’
