Clare Francis (NYU GSAS) | Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law | Sydney, Australia
As I near the end of my ten weeks at the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, I have been reflecting on a concept which is central to the Centre’s work but remains peripheral in most conversations about climate migration: voluntary immobility. ‘Voluntary immobility’ is a complex term for a simple idea. In the context of climate change, it means that some people may choose to stay where they are—even in situations where extreme environmental change makes adaptation very difficult.
The geographer Carol Farbotko argues that sensationalistic tropes about climate change in the Pacific—which portend floods of ‘climate refugees’ fleeing sinking islands—have contributed to the neglect of voluntary immobility. As Farbotko writes, ‘some households and communities may choose not to leave, even if in-situ adaptation options no longer exist. Factors influencing this decision include cultural, historical, and spiritual attachments to place, and political considerations such as self-determination.’
What does it mean to reckon with the possibility that people may choose to stay? We could add ‘voluntary immobility’ to a long list of policy considerations. But recognition of the desire to stay could also reframe mainstream understandings of the relationship between climate change and migration. The researcher Taukiei Kitara captured this perspective at a recent parliamentary committee hearing on the Falepili Union—a bilateral climate mobility agreement between Australia and Tuvalu—where the Kaldor Centre’s Professor Jane McAdam also gave evidence.
As Kitara said, ‘The Falepili Union Treaty should not be understood as a one-way exit strategy for vulnerable climate migrants, and Tuvaluans find the term ‘climate refugee’ really offensive…Australia should assist Tuvalu in developing policies to ensure that migration to Australia does not result in a brain drain or depopulation, which in a country of roughly 11,000 or more is a real risk.’
Recognizing the desire to stay means understanding that solutions to climate displacement are no act of charity, to be bestowed upon the Global South by the North. They are inextricable from the root causes of global warming, and from the structural barriers determining who is sheltered from its impacts—and who is not. I am integrating these themes into my paper on the idea of a ‘right to stay in place’ in the context of climate displacement.
Alongside this, I have been contributing to the Kaldor Centre’s blog, including with a piece marking the eleventh anniversary of Australia’s decision to exclude refugees who arrive by boat from ever settling here. This draws upon the Centre’s larger body of work interrogating the legacy of Australia’s offshore detention regime. For me, it has been eye-opening to see the symbiotic relationship between research and policy advocacy, particularly on issues where the political climate makes reform slow and hard-fought.