Search

Climate change is progressing fast and is undeniably a man-made disaster. Its impacts - heatwaves, floods, sea-level rise, melting ice caps, erratic rainfall, desertification, and similar - are likely to worsen in intensity and increase in frequency for many years to come. While the question of why measures to halt climate change are not fully implemented is not easily answered, it is necessary to reflect meanwhile on the strategies employed by governing actors to legitimise such inaction. One such strategy is the attempt to ignore the "human" aspects of natural disasters, like bad governance and mismanagement, a process called "ecologisation." Climate change lends itself easily to this. By presenting drought, floods, and other extreme weather events as "natural" and thus "beyond our control," governing actors can deflect responsibility for their mismanagement and bad governance regarding natural resources. This has happened in Syria, for example, following the prolonged drought occurring in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Political Ecology provides key knowledge on how these problems can be constructed as "environmental" or "natural," how such "environmental" situations can be positioned as unprecedented and disastrous, and how framings like these may support ulterior political goals. Somewhat counterintuitively, it may be necessary to "de-naturalise" phenomena that have been attributed to climate change to uncover the broader sociopolitical impetuses behind them. With the fight over a possible trade-off between climate action and human rights already ongoing, policymakers need to learn how to both identify and address "ecologising moves." One way of doing this is by strengthening civil society actors who are identifying and calling out such moves, often under existential threat.

Fleeing war, repression, and economic breakdown in their home country, Syrians have become the largest group of refugees in the Middle East. Relative to their own populations, neighboring Jordan and Lebanon have hosted the most Syrians per capita. While both are small, middle-income, and resource-poor countries, the perception of their respective governance of Syrian refugees has been diametrically different: While the 2016 Jordan Compact has been hailed as a success story of innovative refugee governance, the Lebanon Compact has never achieved similar recognition. Instead, Lebanon has been criticized for applying a largely laissez-faire, non-policy approach to the Syrian crisis. The main objective of this short intervention is to evaluate both compacts 5 years after their signing and to outline a more reflective potential EU policy approach.

Wasser ist eine existenzielle Ressource. Sie ist essenziell für die sozioökonomische Entwicklung, gesunde Ökosysteme und das menschliche Überleben im Allgemeinen. Industrialisierung, wachsende Nachfrage, Übernutzung und Degradation (Verschlechterung) von Böden sowie die Folgen des Klimawandels setzen die Süßwasserressourcen jedoch zunehmend unter Druck. So ist der weltweite Wasserverbrauch laut UN-Water, einer Unterorganisation der Vereinten Nationen, seit den 1980er Jahren um etwa ein Prozent pro Jahr gestiegen, und ein Ende ist nicht in Sicht. Daher wird die Liste der Regionen, die unter unzureichender Wasserversorgung leiden, immer länger. Weltweit leben derzeit über zwei Milliarden Menschen in Staaten, die unter starkem Wasserstress leiden, und vier Milliarden leiden an mindestens 30 Tagen im Jahr unter schwerer Wasserknappheit.

As hydro-meteorological hazards are predicted to become more frequent and intense in the future, scholars and policymakers are increasingly concerned about their security implications, especially in the context of ongoing climate change. Our study contributes to this debate by analysing the pathways to water-related conflict onset under drought conditions in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region between 1996 and 2009. It is also the first such analysis that focuses on small-scale conflicts involving little or no physical violence, such as protests or demonstrations. These nonviolent conflicts are politically relevant, yet understudied in the literature on climate change and conflict, environmental security, and political instability. We employ the method of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to integrate quantitative and qualitative data at various scales (national, regional, local) for a sample of 34 cases (17 of which experienced conflict onset). Our findings show that pre-existing cleavages and either autocratic political systems or cuts of the public water supply are relevant predictors of nonviolent, water-related conflict onset during droughts. Grievances deeply embedded into socio-economic structures in combination with a triggering event like a drought or water cuts are hence driving such water-related conflicts, especially in the absence of proper political institutions. We thus argue that drought-conflict links are highly context-dependent even for nonviolent, local conflicts, hence challenging determinist narratives that claim direct interlinkages between climate change, hydro-meteorological disasters and conflict.

So-called "climate migration", i. e. human mobility following prolonged drought periods, floods, or other climate-related environmental changes, has been singled out as an important factor connecting climate change effects and (violent) conflict. However, the existing studies on this relationship do not offer a clear picture. Nevertheless, Syria has evolved into a "show case study" for this assumed linear causality: A "century drought" and ensuing internal migration are seen as an untold prequel of the Syrian uprising. This alarmist, determinist, and simplifying image is questioned and reviewed in order to answer the following questions: Was the Syrian drought related to or caused by climate change? Which role, if any, did it play for internal migration in pre-revolutionary Syria? What do we know about "drought migrants" and their role in the Syrian uprising? The article summarizes available research and adds to it by way of interviews with Syrian refugees.

Research on security-related aspects of climate change is an important element of climate change impact assessments. Hamburg has become a globally recognized center of pertinent analysis of the climate-conflict-nexus. The essays in this collection present a sample of the research conducted from 2009 to 2018 within an interdisciplinary cooperation of experts from Universität Hamburg and other institutions in Hamburg related to the research group “Climate Change and Security” (CLISEC). This collection of critical assessments covers a broad understanding of security, ranging from the question of climate change as a cause of violent conflict to conditions of human security in the Anthropocene. The in-depth analyses utilize a wide array of methodological approaches, from agent-based modeling to discourse analysis.

Predictions of mass climate migration make for attention-grabbing headlines. For more than two decades, commentators have predicted "waves" and "rising tides" of people forced to move by climate change. Recently, a think-tank report warned the climate crisis could displace 1.2 billion people by 2050. Some commentators now even argue that, as the New York Times noted in a recent headline "The Great Climate Migration Has Begun", and that the climate refugees we've been warned about are, in fact, already here. These alarming statements are often well-intentioned. Their aim is to raise awareness of the plight of people vulnerable to climate change and motivate humanitarian action on their behalf. But such headlines aren't always accurate - and rarely achieve their intended effect. Our main concern is that alarming headlines about mass climate migrations risk leading to more walls, not fewer. Indeed, many on the right and far right are now setting aside their climate denialism and linking climate action to ideas of territory and ethnic purity. In this context of growing climate nationalism, even the most well-intentioned narratives risk feeding fear-based stories of invasion when they present climate migration as unprecedented and massive, urgent and destabilising. The risk is only made worse when headlines point to racialised populations from the global south as on their way to the European Union, the US or Australia: places already in the grips of moral panics about migration.

Between normative aspirations and national interests, forced migrants often become pawns in host states' negotiations with internal and external actors. Focusing on North Africa, the Middle East, and the Horn of Africa, this paper offers an analytical framework to better understand forced migration governance across space and time from a more global, pluralist perspective in a logic of iterative theory-building. We hypothesise that some drivers of forced migration governance are distinct from drivers of migration governance - for example, global policy and conceptions of humanitarian norms and principles play a larger role in the former. We hypothesise that while forced migration governance is negotiated around humanitarian principles, in which international actors, externalisation, and civil society play a crucial role, it also functions as a regime strategy and is driven by certain characteristics of forced migrant groups, including size and perceived identity proximity. Finally, forced migration governance is characterised by strong path dependency.

Research on security-related aspects of climate change is an important element of climate change impact assessments. Hamburg has become a globally recognized center of pertinent analysis of the climate-conflict-nexus. The essays in this collection present a sample of the research conducted from 2009 to 2018 within an interdisciplinary cooperation of experts from Universität Hamburg and other institutions in Hamburg related to the research group “Climate Change and Security” (CLISEC). This collection of critical assessments covers a broad understanding of security, ranging from the question of climate change as a cause of violent conflict to conditions of human security in the Anthropocene. The in-depth analyses utilize a wide array of methodological approaches, from agent-based modeling to discourse analysis.

For a long time now, "crisis" has been the dominant trope in European discourses on migration. This perception is extremely Eurocentric, as migration to the European Union is minimal compared to other world regions. How do non-EU states such as Tunisia and Turkey, which are bound to the EU through neighbourhood policies and agreements, view not only migration movements perceived as "critical" within the EU but also the ensuing migration agreements? Tunisian media discourses on the EU migration deal of June 2018 show that Tunisian political analysts are aware that the "migration crisis" is actively constructed by political actors in the EU for the latter's own political gain. In Tunisia itself, no such "crisis" was diagnosed - at least in media discourse -despite the high and rising number of forced migrants entering the country. Instead, political reporting focused on local domestic crises and on Tunisia's mediating role within the neighbouring conflict in Libya. Similarly, the reporting in Turkey on the negotiations leading up to the joint EU-Turkey statement of March 2016 shows an acute awareness of European constructions of a "migration crisis." Despite Turkey's rapid development from a migrant-sending state to one of the most important host states for forced migrants in the world, Turkish media reporting focused on local issues and conflicts and on Turkey's strategic interests in the Syrian conflict. EU perceptions of migration as a crisis and discrepancies between a rhetorical commitment to humanitarian values and real-life actions are carefully received and critically evaluated in neigbouring states, highlighting the need to better understand perceptions of the EU, as this can be expected to impact future cooperation. The EU should build knowledge on local and national discourses on migration in (potential) partner states; reflect upon who gains from the narrative of forced migration as a "crisis" both within and outside of the EU; and address severe protection gaps for refugees and migrants in partner states when negotiating cooperative migration governance.

The Syrian crisis continues to kill and uproot. More than six million people have been internally displaced, while well over five million have fled the country - with the majority residing in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Like the spaces of civilian political agency in different parts of the world, ones of humanitarian protection also seem to be shrinking in some of the main refugee-hosting states in the Middle East too. Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey have taken in millions of Syrian refugees since the beginning of the Syrian war. All three countries followed an open-door policy in the first phase of the Syrian conflict, assuming that the uprising would be as short-lived as its precedents in Tunisia and Egypt. All three states have implemented a temporary protection regime, on the one hand providing fast and relatively non-bureaucratic refuge for Syrians fleeing while on the other excluding them from the special protection that comes with official refugee status. All three states have experienced the shocking disinterest of the international community in the Syrian crisis, which became most apparent in the enduring and severe underfunding of aid efforts in the region. All three states have since almost completely reversed their initial policies, with border closings, migrant criminalisations, and refoulement becoming regular practices. The movement out of the region and towards supposedly "safer" areas like the European Union has engendered a vicious circle of migrant deterrence and pressure on transit states, in which the refugees themselves are mere pawns. The continually progressing walling-off policies of the Global North increase the likelihood of Syrians staying in Jordan, Lebanon, or Turkey. Many would like to return home to rebuild their lives. It is, however, unclear how they will fare if Syria - where the war is still ongoing - is reconstructed in cooperation with the old regime and its cronies. Both internal and external actors need to recognise this in their efforts to reconstruct the state.

As of 2017, 65 million people worldwide had been forcibly displaced by war and political violence. Several millions more have fled because of environmental disasters and socio-economic marginalisation. As there is no immediate end in sight to this steadily increasing global trend, forced migration is one of the central challenges in world politics today - and it is very likely to remain so in the near to medium-term future. Only a small (albeit increasing) proportion of forced migrants have managed to come to the Global North. The main flows take place within and between Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. A focus on South–South displacement thus represents not only a more pluralistic, but also a more accurate picture of global forced-migration trends. The most visible drivers of forced migration are war and political violence. While Syria stands out in this regard, the country also shows that conflict-induced displacement is often intertwined with forced migration resulting from environmental disasters and the adverse effects of development projects. Disaster-induced displacement denotes population movements in the wake of global environmental change, including fast-onset events such as floods, storms, or fires, and slow-onset events, such as droughts, land degradation, and sea-level rise. With its low-elevation islands, the Pacific region of Oceania is particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels. Development-induced displacement results from socio-economic exclusion as a result of large-scale infrastructure projects, mining, deforestation, urbanisation, and biosphere projects. The case of India underlines that many development-induced forced migrants are typically internally displaced. As forced migration continues to occur mostly within the Global South, it is necessary to better understand its causes, dynamics, and effects in Africa, Asia, ­Latin America, and the Middle East in their own right - and not primarily or even exclusively in terms of the implications for the Global North. Also, when drafting policy responses to forced migration, a holistic understanding of the complex interlinkages between conflict-, disaster-, and development-induced drivers and dynamics precludes one-size-fits-all approaches.

Der Krieg in Syrien fordert weiterhin Todesopfer und erzeugt Zwangsmigration. Über sechs Millionen Menschen leben als Binnenvertriebene im eigenen Land, während über fünf Millionen ins Ausland geflohen sind - die meisten nach Jordanien, in den Libanon und die Türkei. Ähnlich wie sich in verschiedenen Weltregionen der Handlungsspielraum für zivilgesellschaftliches Handeln verringert, verschlechterte sich in den wichtigsten Aufnahmeländern des Nahen Ostens in den letzten Jahren der humanitäre Schutz für Geflüchtete deutlich. Jordanien, der Libanon und die Türkei nahmen seit Beginn des Syrienkrieges Millionen syrische Geflüchtete auf. In der Hoffnung, dass der Aufstand in Syrien ebenso kurzlebig sein würde wie seine Vorläufer in Tunesien und Ägypten, betrieben alle drei Länder in der ersten Phase des Syrienkonfliktes eine Politik der offenen Tür. Alle drei Staaten führten ein Regelwerk für den vorübergehenden Schutz ein. Damit wird syrischen Geflüchteten einerseits schnell und relativ unbürokratisch Zuflucht gewährt, ihnen aber andererseits der besondere Schutz versagt, der mit einem offiziellen Flüchtlingsstatus verbunden ist. Alle drei Staaten mussten das erschreckende Desinteresse der internationalen Gemeinschaft an der Syrienkrise erleben, welches sich vor allem in der gravierenden Unterfinanzierung von Hilfsmaßnahmen für die Region manifestiert. Seit einiger Zeit haben alle drei Staaten ihre anfängliche Politik fast vollständig revidiert: Grenzschließungen sowie die Kriminalisierung und Zurückweisung (refoulement) von Migranten wurden zur Regel. Die Verlagerung aus der Region in vermeintlich "sicherere" Gebiete wie die Europäische Union hat einen Teufelskreis aus Abschreckung und Druck auf die Transitstaaten in Gang gesetzt, in dem die Geflüchteten lediglich Schachfiguren sind. Durch die fortschreitende Abschottungspolitik des globalen Nordens steigt die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass syrische Geflüchtete in Jordanien, im Libanon oder in der Türkei bleiben müssen. Viele von ihnen würden gern nach Hause zurückkehren, jedoch ist weiterhin unklar, wie es ihnen ergehen wird, wenn in Syrien - wo der Krieg aktuell andauert - beim Wiederaufbau mit dem alten Regime und seinen Verbündeten zusammengearbeitet wird. Inländische wie ausländische Akteure müssen dies bei ihren Bemühungen in Bezug auf den zukünftigen Wiederaufbau Syriens berücksichtigen.