By Steve Mark
This paper is the final part in a three part series, which explores the impact of rising sea levels, as a result of climate change, on the security of communities in vulnerable areas such as river deltas and low-lying islands. Forced migration is identified as one of the most significant security challenges which arise from rising sea levels, as it threatens people’s identity, culture and community.
The first part of the series considered the necessity of redefining traditional conceptions of security to address twenty-first century challenges, such as climate change. The second part highlighted the scope of security challenges that arise, through the case study of Tuvalu.
This third part will conclude by examining potential solutions and implications for Australian security professionals.
THE INCLUSION SOLUTION
The problem of forced migration, particularly from rising ocean levels, can presently only be addressed by negotiated agreements, not by recourse to existing international conventions. Despite the popular term, ‘climate refugees’ do not fit within the concept of refugee under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees which refers to a person who is unable to be returned to their home state due to fear of persecution. People displaced by climate change simply have no home to return to. Similarly, international law in relation to stateless persons creates no mechanism for large-scale movements of people caused by climate change.
Over the past decade there has been considerable effort by the international community to address countries affected by rising sea and river levels. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has, for example, supported the development of National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPA), which are aimed at helping developing countries identify ways to adapt to climate change and access funds with which to implement their plans. In 2009 the Copenhagen Accord was negotiated, which recognised the need for greater adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience, especially among developing countries. The accord highlights the responsibility of developed countries to provide financial and technological resources to developing nations so they can build their capacity to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change.
Unfortunately, neither the NAPAs nor the Copenhagen Accord mention migration or displacement as possible adaptation mechanisms or policy responses. The resettlement of communities can be an effective adaptation mechanism where it is planned appropriately. The initial success of the resettlement of the Carteret Islanders in 2007 is evidence of this fact.
CARTERET ISLANDS
The Carteret Islands are situated 86 km northeast of Bougainville, an autonomous province of Papua-New Guinea. Their atoll is only 1.2 meters above sea level. Originally the Carterets were six islands, but Huene was split in half by the sea and so now there are seven. In 1995 a wave ate away most of the shorelines of Piul and Huene islands.
Following the split of Huene due to the rising sea level, it is likely that the island of Piul, another of the small atolls constituting the Carteret Islands, will be the next in line.
Bernard Tubin, a resident of Piul, recounted his experiences of the rising sea level and the impact upon his family and community to the United Nations:
“When the tides rise, this place is shoulder-deep in water…There are stingrays and sharks swimming around, and when the water goes down, the place is wet and stinking and there is rubbish all over the place. Then the mosquitoes breed in the water, and the children get malaria and diarrhoea.”
Displacement due to climate change is not just about the loss of home, but also a ‘matter of losing…culture and [one’s] way of life:’ As Tubin comments:
“Here we move freely, but on the island of Bougainville you have to take your kids everywhere [because it is dangerous]—even then you get attacked…We need land, it must be close to the sea, and close to a reef so that we can fish in our accustomed way.”
The Pacific Small Island Developing States, United Nations Member States project that the Carteret Islands will be fully submerged as early as 2015.
Finding A Solution
In 1984 the government resettled 10 families from the Carterets to Bougainville, but they returned to the atoll in 1989 in flight from what began as a protest by landowners against a mining company and escalated into civil war. This occurred, by and large, because of poor planning. The forced migration of 6000 people in the Carteret, Mortlock, Tasman and Nurigia Islands to Bougainville also faced resistance.
A renewed resettlement process developed in a number of stages. In late 2006 the Carterets Council of Elders formed a non-profit association to organise the voluntary relocation of most of the Carterets’ population. The association was named Tulele Peisa, which means “sailing the waves on our own.” This name choice reflects the elders’ desire to see Carteret Islanders remain strong and self-reliant, not becoming dependent on food handouts for their survival. Tulele Peisa’s plan is for Carteret Islanders to be voluntarily relocated to three locations on Bougainville (Tinputz, Tearouki and Mabiri) over the next 10 years.
Initially, the Council of Elders was mobilised and the plans discussed and approved. The plan was then put before the autonomous government in Bougainville and endorsed. Once the plan was approved, the group then set out to raise awareness of the issues throughout the islands comprising the atoll and developed a Task Force Committee which became the lead body responsible for elements of the resettlement process. Ceremonial preparations were then carried out, followed by the mobilisation of public and private resources.
The Carterets Integrated Relocation Plan involved a well thought out 14 step process that was designed to lead to successful resettlement by those moving to Bougainville. The 14 step process included as follows:
The Taskforce has been very conscious of possible resentment by host communities and has sought to promote inter-marriage between Carteret Islanders and Bougainvillians as one means of developing social cohesion and mutual respect.
The plan recognised that key issues necessary for successful resettlement included appropriate site selection, settlement design which was socially and culturally appropriate rather than being driven merely by economic factors, culturally appropriate housing, and community participation in the planning process.
One of the reasons for the initial success of this plan may be because the plan was culturally sensitive and also because the plan attempted to retain the cultural integrity of the entire community. The plan also adopted used the term ‘resettlement’ rather than ‘displacement’. The use of the term ‘resettlement’ is significant. ‘Resettlement’, unlike other terms such as ‘refugee’ or ‘displaced people’ does not alienate people. The concept of ‘resettlement’ is inclusive.
It remains to be seen over time whether these people can successfully integrate in the Bougainville society whilst still retaining their cultural identity and integrity.
CONCLUSION
Australia is presently engaged in a process of professionalising its security industry. In order to achieve professionalisation, security practitioners will have to recognise that being a professional requires more than just obtaining a specialised body of knowledge and skills. Being a professional also entails adherence to a higher duty to serve the community. That is, being a security professional requires that the knowledge and skills security practitioners possess are exercised, as they are in law, medicine and the priesthood, primarily in the public interest. Professionalisation cannot be achieved if the concept of ‘security’ is only defined in terms of the protection of people and property from intentional attack. Recognition that the concept of ‘security’ also entails the feeling of being secure and having freedom from fear is essential. It is my view therefore that security practitioners seeking professional status must embrace the concept of community building in addition to community protection.
The forced movement of people caused by war, governmental action, the politics of food and now climate change is perhaps the greatest security challenge in the 21st century. People that are forced to move from their own environment to an unfamiliar land may suffer psychologically, physically and emotionally. This is because often when such people are forced to move, they are effectively stripped of their own culture and identity. The loss of culture and identity can potentially result in community disintegration, cultural stress, increased crime and violence.
As the case studies in this paper have shown, the forced migration of people as a result of rising sea levels has created challenges for those forced to relocate and for communities in which they are placed. This is particularly relevant when considering the question of land ownership and occupation, as the western concept of land ownership can be completely alien to traditional societies with customary law. Such societies refer to ‘responsibilities’ to land, not ownership of it. In addition, the concept of ‘vacant land’ is not recognised in traditional societies as it is by the western world. An understanding of these cultural distinctions, which exist in all facets of life, is essential for a resettlement program to be successful. Without such understanding, we run the risk of violence, conflict and general unrest.
Security professionals operating in communities affected by these realities will need to be well informed, educated and sensitive to the issues of culture and identity discussed in this paper. This is particularly so where the security profession is increasingly embracing the concept of community building in addition to community protection as its ethos.
