Santa Monica College History of Human Interaction with Water Sources Paper

My professor said,
“

• Due Friday by 11:59pm

This is an open-book long essays. Although there are no minimum or maximum words count or length, you must write multi-paragraph well-structured, well-thought essays that are analytical, directly answer the questions and deliver the message(s) that you are asked to deliver. Read the uploaded rubric carefully. It’s in the Files section on Canvas site. Besides from the textbook and class presentation, you must provide supporting information from the articles as well as from the films.

To avoid plagiarism read the academic integrity section in the syllabus carefully. All the answers will be evaluated by the Turnitin app for plagiarism.

Attention: in each paper you must quote from or make a reference to at least one film and one article, in addition to the textbook and class lectures. It is totally up to you, which movies or article you chose. This is part of your grade.

Late Assignment Policy: Assignments must be submitted on time. Late works will not be accepted. Canvas timestamp is the criterion to decide whether or not an assignment is turned in late. Technical difficulties, being in a different time zone, and other excuses are not accepted since you have enough time during the week to take the assignments. No exception! Pacific Standard Time zone is Santa Monica College time zone is the only accepted one.

Essay Question: Describe human interaction with water sources in history and how they mutually affected each other.

class notes are in the attached files

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Film 1 : Invasive Species_transcript

[MUSIC PLAYING]

This is the Saint Lawrence River in Montreal. It’s the gateway to the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem– the Great Lakes. You wouldn’t know it, but right beneath these waters, there’s an ecological battle?eld. Wars are being fought, wars for space, wars for resources, wars between exotic and native species. And we’re not sure who’s winning.

Biological invasion is an ancient process. It’s been around throughout the entire history of life on the planet. Species have always changed their ranges. They’ve always spread into new regions. But what’s happening now is fundamentally different in terms of rate and spatial scale.

When ships cross the high seas, they have to carry weight so as to avoid bobbing like a cork, and this weight is provided in the ballast tanks. At any given moment, it’s been estimated that between 5,000 and 10,000 species are in motion in ship ballast tanks around the world. These species are taken up in the water at the home port when the ship is taking on ballast water and are discharged at the new port of call.

One helpful way to think about it is to start big, sort of think globally, and realize that every port on Earth is connected by shipping, maybe directly if a ship goes from point A to B, maybe indirectly if a ship has gone to other ports in between. So the potential exists for a species in any port on Earth to be delivered to the Great Lakes region. So the study of these species combines understanding trade and human movement of species with the ecology of these species.

Today we’re in the Soulanges Canal. It just west of Montreal about 45 minutes. The Soulanges Canal is just off of the Saint Lawrence River. And today we’re going to be jumping into water, sampling the wall to look at the composition of the zebra and quagga mussel along the wall here.

Zebra mussel is an exotic mussel that was introduced in the late 1980s into the Great Lakes through ballast water. They have since spread up into the Saint Lawrence River area along with the quagga mussel. They are both invasive species. They’ve come from the Black and Caspian Seas. And although they are closely related, there are subtle differences between the two species. And one of the things is looking at who comes in and colonizes ?rst, looking at differences in species like history traits that can help to predict which species are going to be more successful.

So right now we’re processing the samples that were taken from the Soulanges Canal. We have about a 12-year data set, so we’re documenting the change of the mussel composition in that area. There used to be a high abundance of native mussels. And now oftentimes, what you’ll see is just a whole bunch of empty native mussel shells littering the bottom where they once used to be.

So if a native mussel is sitting in the sediment from here, we have an exposed, hard substrate to which zebra mussels and quagga mussels can attach themselves onto the hard substrates of the native mussels. The problem with this is that you get enough zebra and quagga mussels attached to the native muscle, therefore suturing the two valves together. This mussel can no longer ?lter feed. And sometimes even due to the sheer weight of the other exotic mussels on it, it topples into the substrate and can no longer feed, and thus it dies.

Essentially what we’re seeing here is an ecological take For the past two centuries, nearly 200 species that we know about have become established in the Great Lakes. These species have replaced native species, have become pests economically and ecologically, have fouled industrial water

supply systems and fouled municipal water supply systems, have posed a threat to ?sheries. Unless shipping is very well controlled, unless we have a more effective way at keeping species that are delivered through ballast water or keeping them out, then we can assume that invasions will continue.

Many of the species we’re concerned about do come from other continents, but many of them also come from other parts of North America. All right. I got it. What do we got?

We got plenty of rusty– Surprise, surprise.

–cray?sh, it looks like. We haven’t seen any native cray?sh yet. Probably won’t.

It’s useful to think about these invasions just like we think about a ?u virus or any other infectious disease moving across the country. When there’s a lake close to your lake that’s infected, that means that you’re now much more likely to be infected.

Rusty cray?sh are actually native to the Ohio River area of Ohio and parts of Kentucky, some parts of Indiana. And they were moved up to this area and the upper Midwest most likely by anglers who would use them as bait for ?shing. A lot of times, when species are transported just a few hundred miles, they can have very signi?cant impacts.

Rusty cray?sh essentially clear cut the whole bottom. That’s very important because vegetation serves as the food base for lots of other organisms and also as habitat for small ?shes. So when rusty cray?sh come out, all you are left with is pretty much a lake with lots of rusty cray?sh and not much else.

What we’re working on now is a technique in which we could combine intensive trapping with increasing the numbers of predatory ?sh that would make the reduction in cray?sh sustainable.

Got some?

Oh, yeah.

Awesome.

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

Today we are collecting ?shes using fyke netting. And we’re going to perform gastric lavage, a non-lethal method of examining the stomach contents of the ?sh.

Jody, the next one is a smallmouth bass. All right.

296 grams.

We’re most interested in knowing which ?sh species and what sizes of ?sh species are eating what sizes of cray?sh. Now you can see a little cray?sh claw.

Oh, yeah. That’s de?nitely a cray?sh. Yep, he’s clear.

And with that information, we will be able to determine what ?sh community will be most effective at controlling rusty cray?sh.

We invest so much effort and resources in studying invasive species because they are one of the top ?ve causes of changes in ecosystems globally. In fact, the changes that invasive species are causing proceed much more rapidly than climate change. With the increased scienti?c understanding that’s come from recent research, we are helping to guide legislation that would address the ballast water pathway and other pathways that bring species that will be harmful to these natural ecosystems.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Article: Mence, Victoria and Alex Parrinder. “Environmentally Related International Migration: Policy Challenges.” (2017)

hapter Title: Environmentally related international migration: Policy challenges Chapter Author(s): Victoria Mence and Alex Parrinder

Book Title: A Long Way to Go

Book Subtitle: Irregular Migration Patterns, Processes, Drivers and Decision-making Book Editor(s): MARIE MCAULIFFE, KHALID KOSER

Published by: ANU Press. (2017)

12

Environmentally related international migration: Policy challenges

Victoria Mence and Alex Parrinder

Policy deliberations on environmentally related migration1 have encountered a number of substantial challenges. The potential scale of environmentally related migration across borders both currently and in the future is unknown. Further research is required on the relationship between environmental factors and international migration to better understand what lies ahead and the implications this might have for Australia’s policies to manage both regular and irregular migration. Challenges at the international, regional and national levels for policymakers involve understanding environmental impacts on human movement and the possible increase in the volume of international migration, including irregular migration, that may follow. In addition, the potential for environmental and climate change displacement to impact on states’ viability (or parts thereof) and the ability of migrants to return is very difficult to quantify. From an Australian perspective, there is a perception that many of the challenges relate to the issues faced by Pacific Island nations, although there are implications for environmentally related movement in the broader Asia–Pacific region.

In this chapter the term ‘environmentally related migration’ is used to refer to the range of issues relevant to the relationship between the environment, climate change and migration.

A LoNG WAy To Go

It is widely recognised that there have been significant problems relating to historical research on environmentally related migration including because of the contentious and politicised context in which the knowledge base has developed. One effect of this schism is a dearth of empirical research and robust evidence on key concerns and a lack of clarity around international and national normative frameworks regarding environmentally related migration. The difficulties involved in conceptualising and defining the complexities of environmentally related migration are central to the challenge of increasing the knowledge base and engaging in effective policy deliberations and the formulation of policy responses.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide background on the key issues relating to environmentally related migration, including the debate on connections between migration and environmental stress; the development of global, regional and national-level policy responses (including policy considerations relevant to Australia); and priorities for further research. The second section below summarises the literature on this topic. The third section briefly discusses some of the key challenges for policymakers. The fourth section summarises potential future policy responses, noting examples of relevant measures that have been implemented in Australia and internationally.

While highlighting the challenges for policymakers that arise from the contested body of empirical research on environmentally related migration, it is beyond the scope of this chapter to draw conclusions on the evidence on the migration impacts of environmental factors.

Literature overview

One of the most striking features of the literature on the environment– migration nexus is that the issues have ignited intense interest and controversy across a range of academic disciplines. There is also keen interest among the public and the media, which is often characterised by heated debate. This is not surprising given that issues around migration, such as asylum seekers, refugees, forced migrants and irregular migration are all highly contested, as are the issues of environmental degradation and climate change.

318

12 . eNVIroNMeNTALLy reLATeD INTerNATIoNAL MIGrATIoN

Another feature of the literature is the enormous volume of information available from a diverse research community. In addition to numerous academic papers, there is an abundant array of reports and papers by governments, international agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (Gemenne, 2011).

Current thinking and research on the environment–migration nexus is to a large extent a product of the historical controversies that have characterised the development of research over the past two decades. Dun and Gemenne provide a useful analysis of the disciplinary divide within academia that has shaped the contested nature of much of the research. Prior to the focus on the interconnections between the environment and migration, the fields of study relating to migration and the environment evolved within very different branches of learning. Research on the environment was located in the natural sciences, and migration within the domain of the humanities and social sciences. ‘Just as most classical theories on migration tend[ed] to ignore the environment as a driver of migration, most theories on environmental governance ignore[d] migration flows’ (Dun & Gemenne, 2008). Both areas of research are relatively new and both have evolved in the context of growing economic, political and social tensions.

The polemic nature of the debate has its origins in the response to initial research by environmental scholars in the 1980s that linked environmental stress and migration in the context of a limited understanding of refugee and migration epistemological frameworks. From these beginnings, research and theories on environmentally related migration evolved within two distinctive clusters of disciplinary approaches. One group included authors who based their research approaches primarily from an environmental, disaster or conflict disciplinary perspective. The other group included scholars primarily from refugee and migration disciplinary backgrounds who challenged the definitional and theoretical assumptions that underpinned this research.

Until recently much of the literature relating to the environment– migration nexus concentrated on a number of controversial themes that surfaced in the 1980s. The most prominent included:

the way migrants, thought to be migrating in response to environmental pressures, were described and defined;

319

A LoNG WAy To Go

the strength of the evidence used to support estimates of existing examples of environmentally related migration, and the speculative nature of the predictions made about future migration flows;

whether a direct link can be made between environmental factors and migration or more complex causalities apply.

Definitions, terminology and typologies

One of the most important and determinative debates in the literature has been about definitions and terminology. As Castles noted, poorly conceived definitions have implications beyond the research community as ‘definitions are crucial in guiding policies of governments and international agencies’ (Castles, 2002, p. 9).

‘Environmental refugee’ was a term commonly used in the context of environmentally related migration research and, in spite of some serious problems identified relating to its use, the term is still widely used. ‘Environmental refugee’ as a term first gained currency in the 1980s. A number of mainly environmental researchers and commentators maintained that a significant proportion of the forced migrant population were migrating because of environmental factors. Further, it was suggested that this category of forced migrants was a hidden problem and involved people who needed protection and should be referred to as ‘environmental refugees’ (El-Hinnawi, 1985; Jacobson, 1988).

Without further definition, linking concepts relating to the ‘environment’ and ‘refugees’ to describe a particular group of forced migrants was regarded by many scholars as conceptually misleading and legally meaningless (Kibreab, 1997; McGregor, 1993). As Zetter and others noted, the concept of ‘refugee’ has a clear legal meaning and historical weight anchored in the Refugee Convention, which remains confined to the criteria outlined in its original formulation (Castles, 2002; Suhrke, 1992; Zetter, 2007).

Attempting to expand the definition to define a particular category of forced migrant, a concept that in itself is still evolving, risked undermining refugee protection by inflating the numbers and thus providing states with further reasons to step away from asylum obligations (Black, 2001; Dun & Gemenne, 2008; Kibreab, 1997). Further, the term ‘environmental refugee’ also invoked some inherent assumptions about environmentally related migration, including the idea that the

320

12 . eNVIroNMeNTALLy reLATeD INTerNATIoNAL MIGrATIoN

environment was the principal factor driving forced migration, and that the migration was cross-border, neither of which had been verified or supported by sound empirical evidence (Castles, 2002; Findlay & Geddes, 2011; Kibreab, 1997; McGregor, 1993).

The challenge of identifying meaningful definitions and categorisations for migrants, especially those in crisis, was central to discussions at the recent 2013 United Nations High-Level Dialogue on Migration and Development. The term ‘migrants in crisis’ was used in an attempt to ‘straddle traditional categories and distinctions’. The aim was to capture the complexity of mixed migration populations that can include workers, as well as asylum seekers and refugees, migrating because of political, conflict related crises and/or natural disasters (Koser, 2013).

Estimates and predictions

The use of the term ‘environmental refugee’ in the context of forced migration received widespread attention and prompted further research in the 1990s that made some ominous predictions about future environmentally related migration flows. These predictions have had an ongoing influence in the discussion.

One of the most prominent and prolific writers on this theme was Myers (Morrissey, 2012). In 1993, while acknowledging that some of the analysis was ‘speculative’ and ‘essentially exploratory’, Myers claimed that, based on the most conservative calculations of what he called ‘this refugee problem’, the movement of people ‘would …be of an altogether unprecedented scale’ with an estimated 150 million environmental refugees by 2050 (Myers, 2001; Myers, 1997; Myers & Kent, 1995; Myers, 1993, p. 752). In subsequent papers this figure rose to 200 million, a figure Myers was still predicting in 2005 (Myers, 2005). Some advocacy publications went much further with one predicting up to one billion people displaced by the end of the 21st century (Christian Aid, 2007). In 1993, a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) stated that ‘it is entirely possible that the impact of environmental degradation and resource depletion on population movement may be even more important than these authors suggest’ (UNHCR, 1993, p. 5). The predictions were widely accepted and were central to a body of literature that used the predictions to highlight the risks and the dangers of not acting on climate change.

321

A LoNG WAy To Go

Early critical responses to the scale of migration predicted were highly sceptical of the way the figures had been calculated. Critics argued that the figures did not take account of the role of personal agency in decisions to migrate, the ability of populations to adapt to changing conditions, nor the range of other political, economic and social factors at play (Lonergan, 1998; McGregor, 1993; Surhke, 1992).

A number of authors have suggested that there has been little appetite for reassessing the validity of the high estimates and predictions because the sheer scale of the migration predicted has successfully raised the profile of climate change and its potential consequences (Black, 2001; Castles, 2011; Crisp, 1999; Morrissey, 2009). The uncritical use of Myers’ figures by international organisations, advocate groups and the media has also reinforced and influenced political and public discourse on the issues (Morrissey, 2009). However, in 2008, UNHCR warned that inflated figures were not helpful, rather they ‘evoked fantasies of uncontrollable waves of migration that risk stoking xenophobic reactions’ (A question of climate refugees, 2011, para. 7).

Estimates are important, but need to be based on more robust and rigorous empirical evidence. Further, research needs to be location and context specific and to take account of the multiple responses going on (Leighton, 2011). ‘Mapping and monitoring potential environmental “hotspots” and changing regional conditions, and tracking migration trends, offer a more fruitful and evidence-based route for policy development’ (Boano, Zetter, & Morris, 2008).

Mono-causality versus multiple causality

Until recently, one of the most contentious disagreements in the literature related to the assumption that there were direct links between environmental factors and international migration flows. In the view of some critics, predictions were often based on a simple process of subtracting current populations living in problem areas to calculate migration flows (Black, 2001).

Those critical of attempts to draw direct correlations have long argued that the causes of migration are highly complex, involving a range of political, economic and social factors that may influence responses to environmental stress. The strength of family, social, cultural and ethnic networks, the effectiveness of state responses to disasters and the level

322

12 . eNVIroNMeNTALLy reLATeD INTerNATIoNAL MIGrATIoN

of poverty and wealth all appeared to influence coping strategies and migration decisions. Further, all of these variables are likely to vary over time and space (Black, 2001; Castles, 2011).

An additional level of complexity lies in the complicated variations involved in environmentally related migration, including: internal versus cross-border; short- or long-distance; temporary or permanent; rapid- or slow-onset events, that is, forced migration as a result of an environmental catastrophe or migrants who move voluntarily in the context of environmental stress and those who leave as opposed to those who stay (Bates, 2002; Hugo, 1996; Suhrke, 1993).

There has been a growing consensus in recent literature on the environment–migration nexus that multiple causality is a crucial consideration. There is a sense in more recent literature that some of the controversies that have characterised the debate are abating. ‘Although the debate still goes on, the disciplinary divide is gradually being overcome: environmental scientists tend to be more cautious while migration specialists do recognise the role of the natural environment in migration dynamics. On the whole, most scholars now dismiss the apocalyptic predictions that used to influence debates’ (Piguet, 2011,

p. 4). Further, there is recognition in more recent literature by migration theorists that environmentally related migration is an issue that demands greater attention.

It is significant that reference is made many times in recent literature to how much is yet unknown about the interconnections between environmental factors and migration by both migration and environment researchers (Brown, 2008; Castles, 2011; Kniveton, Schmidt-Verkerk, Smith, & Black, 2008; Koser, 1996; Martin, 2010). This is especially true in relation to ‘the circumstances in which international migration may result from climate change’ (Martin, 2010).

It is evident that a more considered approach is starting to inform the discourse at a national and international governance level, as reflected in the more recent global discussions on related issues. There is also a growing recognition that an interdisciplinary approach, based on robust empirical research, is essential to support practical and realistic policy development by governments in particular. An important challenge ahead is to better negotiate the narrative in the public arena. Publications by academics containing apocalyptic themes, especially in relation to security issues, continue to have influence.

323

A LoNG WAy To Go

Challenges for policymakers

There is broad agreement that most environmentally related migration is expected to be internal (International Organization for Migration [IOM], 2013; McAdam, 2012; Martin, 2010; Newland, 2011). Nonetheless, discussions of the implications of environmentally related migration for Australia often focus on the possibility of international migration from Pacific Island nations, and the challenges Australia may face in addressing such flows through its current policy settings. If significant international migration flows do eventuate, Martin (2010, p. 3) has argued that ‘the immigration policies of most destination countries are not conducive to receiving large numbers of environmental migrants, unless they enter through already existing admission categories’. Martin has summarised common parameters of immigration programs, highlighting that labour migration is usually based on the needs of the receiving country and that family migration is usually restricted to immediate relatives, as well as noting that admissions are sometimes based on point systems. Martin (2010) has also noted that humanitarian admissions are generally limited to people who fit the Refugee Convention definition, and that those admitted under resettlement programs are screened overseas.

In addition to migration policy, the complexities of environmentally related migration invoke a range of other policy fields, including international development, humanitarian assistance, the environment and climate change. Government agencies in these areas have particular responsibilities in relation to different stages of environmentally related migration: contributing to global climate change mitigation; supporting adaptation and resilience of affected communities to environmental events; contributing to humanitarian and disaster relief efforts; managing the movement of people across international borders; and supporting return, resettlement and reintegration following events (Martin, 2010). These responsibilities overlap, leading some commentators to argue that existing policy fields can be relied upon to address the challenges of environmentally related migration (Piguet, Pécoud, & de Guchteneire, 2011). Warner (2010), however, has argued that institutional and policy ‘silos’ limit the effectiveness of existing responses, which underscores the need for strong communication and coordination between policymakers in relevant fields if more effective responses are to be developed (Appave, 2012; Boano et al., 2008; Warner, 2010).

324

12 . eNVIroNMeNTALLy reLATeD INTerNATIoNAL MIGrATIoN

Approaches to adaptation (which is usually considered a matter of international development policy) and migration have been discussed in the literature in this context. It has been suggested that not only can adaptation function as a way to reduce migration, but that migration can also function as an adaptation strategy that may significantly increase the resilience of communities to environmental and climate change impacts (Hugo, 2010; Newland, 2011; Transatlantic Study Team on Climate- Induced Migration, 2010). It is also worth noting the increasing role of diasporas in enabling a range of adaptation strategies, including beyond the provision of remittances. Such connections demonstrate the potential for effective coordination between policymakers in relevant fields. In arguing that mobilisation of resources for adaptation may be contentious, White (2011) has suggested that a key challenge lies in balancing the use of reliable research to help mobilise support for adaptation and development strategies without igniting security fears.

Conceptualisation and definition

Definitions are important for policy development, as they allow rights and obligations to be identified. As Dun and Gemenne (2008) have argued, ‘[w]ithout a precise definition, practitioners and policymakers are not easily able to establish plans and make targeted progress’ (p. 10). Many commentators have considered the challenge of defining environmentally- related migration to be complicated by ‘the lack of good information and analysis about the circumstances in which international migration may result from climate change’ (Martin, 2010, p. 2).

In the absence of a clear definition, McAdam (2012) has neatly summarised a range of considerations that responses to environmentally related migration will depend on: ‘(a) whether such movement is perceived as voluntary or involuntary; (b) the nature of the trigger (a rapid-onset disaster versus a slow-onset process); (c) whether international borders are crossed; (d) the extent to which there are political incentives to characterise something as linked to climate change or not; and (e) whether movement is driven or aggravated by human factors, such as discrimination’ (p. 17).

A number of commentators have argued that effective policy responses need to recognise the multiple causality of migrant decision-making processes and take into account the social, economic, cultural and political factors involved (Black, 2001; Castles, 2011; Hugo, 2010; Zetter, 2010). Findlay and Geddes (2011) have emphasised the need for policymakers to

325

A LoNG WAy To Go

appreciate the existing local context and to understand that ‘those affected by environmental change are not simply passive populations onto which externally defined practices need to be imposed to protect them from “risk”’ (p. 153). They have suggested the value of a policy approach that involves local populations as ‘purposive actors’ in addressing the challenges posed by the environment–migration nexus (Findlay & Geddes, 2011).

These considerations apply in cases where migration is perceived as voluntary as well as cases where it is perceived as forced, which Hugo (2010) has described as extremes along a continuum where, in reality, different levels of force operate in different circumstances. The nature of an environmental event—whether it is regarded as a rapid-onset (e.g. tsunami, flooding) or slow-onset (e.g. desertification, ‘sinking islands’) process—and its impact in the particular circumstances also have implications for policy responses.

It has been suggested that ‘climate change impacts’ should be distinguished from other environmental factors. Climate change processes have been argued to be connected to broader issues of human vulnerability that affect populations (e.g. rapid-onset environmental disasters, conflict), acting as a ‘threat multiplier’ that increases the likelihood of migration (Collinson, 2010; Kirsh-Wood, Korrebord, & Linde, 2008). Conversely, others have suggested that vulnerability can be aggravated in a very different way (e.g. reduced livelihoods, increased poverty), and that climate change processes thus act to reduce people’s ability to migrate (Geddes & Somerville, 2013). Nevertheless, Zetter has argued that ‘the interrelatedness of climate change, general changes i