Abstract
Policy experts play an important role in coping with the climate change–human migration nexus. They offer expert solutions to decision makers, and thus, they contribute to de-politicizing the issue. The aim of this paper is to find out how different policy experts envision the climate change–human migration nexus. The Netherlands has been nominated as the seat of a Global Center of Excellence for climate Adaptation and aims to become a Global Center of Excellence in the water safety and security domain. Policy experts were selected based on a structured nominee process. We conducted semistructured interviews with policy experts and analyzed policy expert documentation. Interview transcripts and documents were examined via a coding frame. Unlike policymakers who link climate change and conflict, policy experts stress the economic and political factors of migration in which climate change issues happen. The major difference between the view of policymakers and policy experts on the link between climate change and human migration emerges from the frame of the climate refugee. In the context of the climate change–human migration nexus, policy experts act as a countervailing power that prevents the political exploitation of the nexus into a security issue.
Highlights
The climate change–human migration nexus has been widely discussed
The common case among policymakers is that there is a link between climate change and human must be treated as a security issue with limited concern for the human rights of migrants (Bettini et migration and that this link is a source of conflict and, the climate change–migration nexus al. 2016; Burrows and Kinney 2016)
If climate change does turn out to be a major driver of conflict and must be treated as a security issue with limited concern for the human rights of migrants
Summary
Policymakers have discussed the potential link between climate change and migration as a matter of conflict and security (Bettini et al 2016; Burrows and Kinney 2016; Nash 2018). The climate refugee is addressed as problematic in ‘receiving areas’, and they focus on security and stability (Morrissey 2012; Bettini et al 2016; Keohane 2019). The users of this concept put the blame on nature rather than on the social causes of climate-induced migration
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.