Research: Weathering the Waves - Perceptions of Vulnerability and Resilience to Global Climate Change in Tuvalu

By Heather Lazrus

Abstract

While climate change is a global phenomenon, its effects are being felt initially and most acutely in smaller social arenas and fragile environments, such as the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu (10°S, 170°E). In my dissertation research I investigate culturally specific understandings of weather, climate, and disasters associated with atmospheric hazards on Nanumea, the northernmost atoll in the Tuvaluan archipelago, and in the nation’s capital, on Funafuti. This broad investigation was narrowed to two specific case studies focusing on weather, climate, and disaster impacts on 1) freshwater and 2) marine resources. My objective has been to employ an actor-oriented model to examine local understandings of vulnerability and resilience – understood to be functions of cultural, social, economic, and political variables. In doing so I analyze how traditional knowledge and resource management systems of freshwater and marine resources as well as political action (such as infrastructure and policy development) may be seen to build or reduce coping and adaptive capacities at household, community, and national levels in the face of ecological change. The importance of impacts and analysis at different scales is emphasized; from individuals in local villages on a single islet in an atoll, to sovereign nations, to oceans, on up to the planet including its oceans and atmosphere.

Analysis will be conducted of archival material, fieldnotes, interviews, surveys, focus group material, and participatory maps that employed satellite imagery and GPS. In particular, consensus analysis will be used to reveal patterns of agreement and the views that are most representative of the culture. I apply a theoretical framework that brings together resilience theory grounded in disaster research, traditional environmental knowledge theory from anthropology, and political ecology’s insistence on bringing politics and ecosystem dynamics into a single analytical frame.

Research results indicate that traditional environmental knowledge and resource management, the products and politics of international development, and the legitimacy of political leaders, are each important to people’s sense of agency in relation to their perceived vulnerability and resilience to environmental changes and hazards. This dissertation: 1) advances research in disaster and environmental anthropology at a time when livelihoods around the world are being rendered increasingly vulnerable by providing local perspectives on vulnerability and resilience, and by focusing on governance of these issues; 2) provides downscaled climate knowledge from local environmental observations that is specific to an impacted culture and place, and; 3) establishes and tests an ethnographic research model that prioritizes local specificities as opposed to regional and global factors and that can be adapted to research on the effects of climate change across cultures and contexts.

Publications:

Lazrus, H. 2004. "Global Climate Change and the National Sovereignty of Tuvalu". Presentation at the Challenges of a Transboundary World Conference, Beckman Center of the National Academy of Sciences, University of California, Irvine, California, 28-30 October 28-30 2004.

Lazrus, H. 2004. "Buoyant Sovereignties: Global Climate Change and Tuvaluan Sovereignty". Presentation at the Society for Cultural Anthropology Biannual Meeting, Portland, Oregon, 1 May 2004.

Lazrus, H. 2005. "Anthropology at the Intersection of Traditional Environmental Knowledge and Climate Change Research". Presentation at the Society for Applied Anthropology Annual Meeting, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 5-10 April 2005.

Lazrus, H. 2005. "The Role of Knowledge in Global Climate Change Governance: Modes of Legitimation in Tuvalu". Paper 10 at the University of California International and Area Studies' Breslauer Symposium, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1 December 2005.

Lazrus, H. 2006. "Traditional Environmental Knowledge, Local Observations, and Resources Management". Presentation at the Nanumea Resource Management Awareness and Planning Workshop, Nanumea, Tuvalu, 17 May 2006.

Lazrus, H. 2006. "Traditional Knowledge, Community Resilience and Disaster Preparedness among Tuvaluans in Living in Wellington, New Zealand". Presentation at the Pacific Community Relocation Workshop, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand, 23 November 2006.

Lazrus, H. 2006. "Water Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Adaptation Policy in Nanumea, Tuvalu". Presentation at the American Anthropological Association Annual Conference, San Jose, California, 15-19 November 2006.

Preparing to roast a pig.
(Copyright Peter McQuarrie 2004.)

Commentaries

Commentary by Marc Kofler on 3 November 2004:

This island nation, whose airline baggage tags read FUN (short for Funafuti), has attracted an increasing amount of media coverage recently. Tuvalu is expected to be one of the first islands to be covered by rising sea-levels and this has prompted the Prime Minister, Koleo Talake, to speak out and publicise the doomed fate of his nation.

Over the next century, sea levels are predicted to rise by more than 80 cm. Half of Tuvalu's population lives below 3 m above sea level. Over the past decade, sea levels around Tuvalu have risen three times faster than the world average, yielding sea levels which are now 5 cm higher than in 1993. This encroachment onto coastal areas has already resulted in a loss of agricultural land, human settlements, and valuable eco-systems. The prospect of the island becoming completely inundated and uninhabitable is fast becoming a reality.

Tuvalu's isolation, small size, and atoll foundations make it particularly susceptible to seasonal hurricanes, tidal waves, and storm surges. The Tuvaluan government has publicly accepted inundation and forced resettlement in the future.

Tuvalu faces this predicament due to a combination of three factors. First, global warming, associated with the burning of fossil fuels, has meant that sea levels have been rising by roughly 3.5 mm per year since 1973. Whilst the causes behind this mechanism are yet to be completely confirmed, sea levels are rising. Second, Tuvalu is severely affected by the El Niño phenomenon which causes sea levels in the region to rise. Third, rising sea levels in Tuvalu may result from human action.

Connell (2003) argues that the construction of new roads between islands, the sealing of an airport runway, removing vegetation, land reclamation, and a sea wall construction are responsible for flooding. He also suggests that mining for sand used in construction is responsible for beach erosion and rising seas, as is construction in areas previously considered too hazardous for development. Thus, the case for anthropogenic hazards causing local sea-level rise is relevant.

Further complicating the resettlement process, displaced Tuvaluans will not only lose their land, but also their country, their history, their culture, and their way of life. A country must adopt Tuvaluans in terms of finding land suitable for resettlement and in terms of political representation and public provision of services. It would be unfair to resettle Tuvaluans in environments other than tropical climates that they are accustomed too. Thus, the debate as to who is responsible for resettling the Tuvaluans faces political and sociological problems.

One solution is for the international community to do nothing. This would be premised on the argument that the problems experienced by the Tuvaluans are a result of their own environmental mismanagement. This option seems unfair and politically unacceptable as Tuvaluans will argue that global warming, a problem created by foreign influences which they cannot control, is to blame for their loss of homeland. The cost to industrialised countries of resettling the Tuvaluan people would be relatively small compared to the social costs of doing nothing.

Furthermore, if it is accepted that the Tuvaluans' predicament is a result of global warming and the burning of fossil fuels, then the international community as a whole is responsible for the resettlement process. Tuvalu's disappearance could thus be viewed as a result of the "rich world's experiment with the global atmosphere" (Simms, 2001). Countries enjoying cheap fuel such as the USA would owe Tuvaluan climate change refugees or "canoe people" (Connell, 2003) an "ecological debt".

In 2002, the Tuvaluan government investigated the possibility of legal action against the worst emitters of greenhouse gases, namely the USA and Australia. This solution would require a global feeling that everyone should bear responsibility for anthropogenic environmental changes that affect the planet. This response is likely to divert attention away from the Tuvaluan people towards an international political squabble over individual climate change responsibilities, such as what happened with the Kyoto Protocol.

At a less abstract, more realistic level, it appears that the plight of the Tuvaluans might be taken on by New Zealand. Tuvalu's Prime Minister has already appealed to New Zealand for citizenship within the next 5-10 years. Existing economic ties, relative proximity, and relocation programmes, as well as the fact that over 1,000 Tuvaluans already live in New Zealand, make that country a likely recipient of these environmental refugees. However, if historical linkages are to play a part in the resettlement process, the UK should also be responsible in some form for resettling some of the environmental refugees in neighbouring Commonwealth nations.

Australia is another possible refuge for Tuvaluans, although as yet has rebuffed all resettlement appeals. This has angered some Australian church workers who argue that Australia has an abundance of uninhabited islands off the northern end of the Great Barrier Reef that would be ideal for resettling the Tuvaluans.

The USA also has significant power in the South Pacific and resettlement could occur on several American-affiliated islands such as American Samoa. This solution would also resolve the ecological debt argument; however, it would require a consensus amongst the international community to pressure the American government into accepting it.

The Tuvaluan government has considered resolving their predicament themselves by buying land from nearby nations such as Fiji. This would seem to be the most appropriate solution as it would not place any extra burden on other nations, other than requiring international support in donating funds for the purchase of new territory. This would permit the Tuvaluans to continue governing themselves and enable them to retain a large proportion of their customs and way of life.

Whatever is decided in terms of responsibility for resettling the Tuvaluans, action is unlikely to be taken until a storm causes widespread damage and several fatalities. Fickling (2003) argues that inertia on behalf of the global community in tackling these issues prevents action occurring before a mass loss of life occurs. He emphasises this point by stating that certain authors and environmentalists have been talking about this issue for 20 years, yet little action has occurred in the policy realm.

Further complications occur. First, the evidence suggesting Tuvalu will be inundated by the ocean is inconclusive, at least in the short-term. Morgan (2002) argues that despite global warming, Tuvalu has not yet experienced a rise in sea level. In fact, Morgan (2002) argues that sea levels are falling, citing evidence of local fishers having trouble crossing reefs. The Tuvalu Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Entertainment has publicly confirmed that environmentalists have exaggerated the case of Tuvalu so as to add weight to their political cause. The Australian National Tidal Facility in Adelaide comments that there has been no significant rise in sea level in Tuvalu over the past 22 years. These do not refute the long-term effects of sea-level rise and inundation in Tuvalu; however, the urgency of action could be questioned.

Second, if or when Tuvalu does become inundated, the issue of ownership over the new territorial waters created will have to be addressed. New international legislation could be required and this issue is certain to become entangled in a web of politics and controversy.

Third, the implications of the decisions taken regarding Tuvalu are profound and long lasting. Greenpeace argues that Tuvalu is an early warning to the global community of forthcoming debates and issues concerning sea-level rise and resettlement at a much larger scale. For example, the populations of other low-lying islands and at least 20 million Bangladeshis (Simms, 2001) could become climate change refugees.

Regarding resettlement of Tuvaluans, much remains to be resolved through fair, open debate and international negotiation. The words of Simms (2001) conclude with the notion that Tuvalu is "going down in history".

Commentary by Lizzy Gabriel on 13 January 2005:

Tuvalu is a small country in the Pacific Ocean (10ºS 170ºE). The country consists of 9 coral atolls. An atoll is a coral island comprising a circular belt of coral enclosing a central lagoon. The Tuvalu atolls rest on sinking volcanic rock atop new coral which is growing to replace the coral die-off. Coral is always being replaced as it cannot survive in the deep ocean where it inevitably ends up. Although there is always atoll growth, it is a slow process and it is certainly too slow to keep pace with forecast sea-level rise attributable to global warming. The country's area totals 25 km² and is one of the world's most low-lying countries, with its highest point 5 metres above sea level. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted that Tuvalu will be largely drowned under the rising sea levels within 50 years.

Tuvalu is home to nearly 11,500 people and many environmental activists around the world consider these people to be the world's first refugees of human-made global warming. The Tuvaluan government considers relocation of its population as their only hope, but international borders mean few relocation options are available. There is much debate over who should house this population if the country should succumb to the sea.

The fate of Tuvaluans is largely unknown because of two dilemmas that they face. The first is questions surrounding future global warming and consequent sea-level rise. The second is the disagreements over deciding who should be responsible for rectifying the problem and ultimately resettling the Tuvaluans.

Global warming and attributed sea-level rise are generally accepted phenomena happening today. Why the world is heating up, the rate at which it is happening and the severity of the effects it will have are contested. The IPCC thinks that Tuvalu will not exist above sea level in as little as 50 years due to a predicted sea level rise of up to 88 cm in the next century; however, Australia's national tide facility (NTF) which monitors Pacific Ocean levels concluded in 2002 that there had been no significant changes around Tuvalu in the previous 10 years. They attributed raised sea levels across the Western Pacific to a large El Niño, hence they were assumed to be temporary, and they predicted that rises in the future will not be so spectacular. Some analysts believe that the sea levels could in fact drop temporarily by 30 cm during future El Niños. Other evidence suggests that Tuvalu's sea levels have risen nearly three times as fast as the world average over the past decade and were 5 cm higher in 2003 than in 1993.

Areas which were once land on Tuvalu are now submerged in water. For example, 3 metres of beachfront have disappeared over the past decade on the island of Vaitupu. The Tuvaluan government blames global warming. Others suggest that Tuvalu's fate may be much more to do with local issues such as pollution, over-population, and construction during World War II. Sand is also mined for building material on Tuvalu thereby eroding the beaches and giving the impression of a rising sea.

With the different proposals for the rising sea levels, including the question of whether or not this phenomenon is happening, disagreements result when deciding who should be responsible for rectifying the problem and ultimately resettling the Tuvaluans. I think that there are four key players: the Tuvaluan government, neighbouring countries (Australia and New Zealand), the Church, and the main perpetrators of greenhouse gases emissions into the atmosphere.

The Tuvaluan government are convinced that Tuvalu will be submerged in water in the next 50 years and think that the only solution is to evacuate its people off the islands. Retreat or resettlement involves no effort to protect the land from the sea. The choice to relocate its population rather than to accommodate and protect against the new sea levels is likely made because protection strategies are too costly and perhaps have negative impacts on the environment. I would suggest the economic factor is the more pressing issue. The government has been criticised as opportunists angling for foreign handouts and special recognition for would-be 'environmental refugees' who some say are exploiting the crisis to gain entry to New Zealand and Australia.

Three thousand Tuvaluans already live abroad, but it is agreed that it is the Tuvaluan government's job to find new countries for the other 11,500 to live in. Is this fair? If the sea-level rise is due to other countries emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases, then the countries causing the biggest effect on the climate should be held responsible for the Tuvaluans. If local conditions are to blame, then the Tuvaluan government should be held responsible. Although, what about if sea-level rise is due to natural variations in the complex relationship between the oceans, the atmosphere and the sun? The responsibility has fallen to the Tuvaluan government and they now have the job of assessing the situation and moving the people as they see fit.

Talake, Tuvalu's former Prime Minister, realises that his government cannot order people off the atolls, but must balance continued development of the country with the evacuation of the most vulnerable. Aid agencies have criticised this spending on development, even though the government has expressed a need to neither discourage nor frighten their population. One huge problem that the government may face in the future is who will have sovereignty over the area and who gets access to Tuvalu's territorial oceans if the land is lost. Will or should Tuvaluans benefit from this distant patch of water?

One overriding influence over who should take the Tuvaluans is economics. In 2000, the Tuvaluan government requested that Australia and New Zealand offer a home for its citizens if they face imminent danger. These are relatively neighbouring countries, meaning easier transport and minimised costs. Australia, in particular, has plenty of uninhabited land. Tuvalu managed to agree on a programme relocating 75 people every year for the next 30 years to New Zealand.

Australia was not as cooperative and refused to let in any Tuvaluans, even with the suggestion of granting permission to the Tuvaluans to live on one of the uninhabited islands at the northern end of Australia's Great Barrier Reef. The Australian government believes that the theory of Tuvalu being submerged is speculation, boosted by their own research which points to falling sea levels. Australian Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock said that his country would be willing to join an international response to any environmental disaster if needed, but the people of Tuvalu are not entitled to special treatment as environmental refugees.

Although last-minute international help is better than nothing, long-term planning would mean that the operation of moving a population of more than 11,500 would be more efficient, disrupt fewer people's lives, and be less disruptive to the environment. Resettled people are not always well-received. If the programme of resettling is carried out over a long period, rather than when it is absolutely necessary, then the problems that the people face--such as language barriers; racial and religious discrimination; difficulties in obtaining employment; and the disruption of families, friendships, communities, and traditions--would be less stressful and more time would be available to adapt.

97% of Tuvaluans claim adherence to the Tuvaluan Christian Church, making it one of the most Christian countries in the world. There is a strong belief in the Noah's Ark story and God's promise that the earth will not be flooded again. It is difficult to communicate the potential danger that the islands face. Even now, many still believe that God will have his own ways of making sure that his people are looked after. Some church leaders are advising people not to move. Others see the need to consider resettlement, but want to stay together so that their culture is not lost in addition to their national sovereignty. The church has a huge influence in Tuvalu and, although the government has means to set up agreements with other nations for resettlement, I think that it will ultimately be up to the Church to support the government and to persuade the people to relocate.

Legal action is another option which Tuvalu has pursued. In 2002, Tuvalu tried to sue the British government for compensation over what it claims were substandard terms imposed at the time of independence. Tuvalu sought international help by asking the Commonwealth to rescue its people from the rising seas. Tuvalu is also trying to obtain funds through blaming developed countries for rising sea levels due to global warming.

In 2003, Tuvalu considered suing the single largest (United States) and largest per capita (Australia) emitters of greenhouse gases who have further failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Tuvalu considered that these two nations' emissions form an unfair restraint of trade on their country as they are, in effect, putting them out of business. Tuvalu would have followed up by suing large American polluters like Exxon Mobil. The court case did not happen because Talake, the Tuvaluan Prime Minister at the time, was not re-elected. Tuvalu now has a mutual agreement with the U.S. that provides for economic, social, and political cooperation in the future.

In conclusion, I suggest that the fate of Tuvaluans is currently unknown with many questions remaining to be answered. Will the sea levels rise? If so, when and why? If so, where will the Tuvaluans resettle, when should the resettling should start, and who should pay? Tuvalu wants reassurance that their population will be safe, but countries able to offer land are reluctant to until they can see that Tuvalu is indeed in deep trouble. I can only see Tuvalu and the world succeeding at a large-scale resettlement programs when the population is suffering terribly.

Children and pulaka (giant swamp taro).
(Copyright Peter McQuarrie 2004.)

Some Resources in English

Allen, L. 2004. "Will Tuvalu Disappear Beneath the Sea?" Smithsonian, 2004, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 44-53.

Baines, G.B.K., P.J. Beveridge, and J.E. Maragos. 1974 (December). "Storms and Island Building at Funafuti Atoll, Ellice Islands". pp. 485-496 in Proceedings of the Second International Coral Reef Symposium 2, Brisbane, Australia.

Baines, G.B.K. and R.F. McLean. 1976. "Re-Surveys of 1972 Hurricane Rampart of Funafuti Atoll, Ellice Islands". Search, vol. 7, no. 1-2 (Jan.-Feb.), 1976.

Baram, D. 2005. "Real lives: That sinking feeling". The Guardian, 4 March.

Bigg, G (compiler). 2001. "Leaving a Flooding Island". News in Weather, vol. 56, no. 9 (September), p. 286.

Connell, J. 2001. "An atoll state in peril". Tiempo, issue 42.

Connell, J. 2003. "Losing ground? Tuvalu, the greenhouse effect and the garbage can". Asia Pacific Viewpoint, vol. 44, issue 2 (August), p. 89.

Falani, P. c. 1972. Te Alikeni i Funafuti, Tuvalu; The Hurricane in Funafuti, Tuvalu. (Publisher not indicated.)

Fickling, D. 2003. "Islanders Consider Exodus as Sea Level Rises". The Guardian, 19 July.

Finin, G.A. 2002. Small is Viable: The Global Ebbs and Flows of a Pacific Atoll Nation. East-West Center Working Papers No. 15, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawai'i, U.S.A.

Gillett, R. 1988 (September). Tokelau and Tuvalu: An Atoll Fisheries Bibliography. Field Document 88/4, FAO/UNDP Regional Fishery Support Programme, Suva, Fiji.

Howorth, R. 1984. Report on Visit to Funafuti, Tuvalu: 25-27 June 1984. Trip Report No. 14, SOPAC, Suva, Fiji.

Jacobs, R.E. 2005. "Treading Deep Waters: Substantive Law Issues in Tuvalu's Threat to Sue the United States in the International Court of Justice". Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 103-128.

Lewis, J. 1989. "Sea-level Rise: Some Implications for Tuvalu". Ambio, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 458-459; Appropriate Technology, vol. 16, no. 2 (September), pp. 26-28; and The Environmentalist, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 269-275.

Maragos, J.E., G.B.K. Baines, and P.J. Beveridge. 1973. "Tropical Cyclone Bebe Creates a New Land Formation on Funafuti Atoll". Science, vol. 181, no. 4105 (21 September 1973), pp. 1161-1164.

Morgan, M.R. 2002. "Sea-level Rise at Tuvalu". Letter in Weather, vol. 57, no. 6 (June), p. 229.

National Disaster Plan. 1997. National Disaster Preparedness Working Group, Tuvalu.

Radke, B.M. 1984. Visit to Tuvalu. Trip Report No. 13, SOPAC, Suva, Fiji.

Ralston, H., B. Horstmann, and C. Holl. 2004. Climate Change Challenges Tuvalu. Germanwatch, Bonn, Germany.

Reed, R. 2002 "Rising Seas and Disappearing Islands: Can Island Inhabitants Seek Redress Under the Alien Tort Claims Act?" Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 399-430.

Shorten, G., S. Schmall, and S. Oliver. 2005 (June). Building capacity to insure against disaster in Tuvalu. SOPAC Technical Report 380, SOPAC, Suva, Fiji.

Simms, A. 2001. "Farewell Tuvalu". The Guardian, 29 October.

Smith, R.B., D.M. Rearic, E. Saphore, and F. Seneka. 1990 (July). Survey of Nukulaelae and Nukufetau Lagoons, Tuvalu, 3 April - 5 May 1989. SOPAC Technical Report 105, SOPAC, Suva, Fiji and Lands Department, Tuvalu.

SOPAC. c. 2003. Tuvalu: Country Profile. SOPAC, Suva, Fiji.

Taylor, A.J.W. 2000. "Tragedy and Trauma in Tuvalu". The Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, vol. 2000-2, http://www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/2000-2/taylor.htm

Webb, A. 2005 (January). Tuvalu Technical and Country Mission Report - Assessment of Aggregate Supply, Pond and Lagoon Water Quality and Causeway Construction on Funafuti and Vaitapu Atolls: Fieldwork undertaken from 13th to 24th September 2004. EU EDF 8/9 – SOPAC Project Report 36: Reducing Vulnerability of Pacific ACP States, SOPAC, Suva, Fiji.

Standing water. Saltwater instrusion and water pollutants both threaten Tuvalu's scarce water supply.
(Copyright Peter McQuarrie 2004.)