 welcome everyone in this room and also anyone watching the live stream. I'm really pleased to welcome today Nina Hall who is spending a few days here in Stockholm working with me on a project on global governance of climate adaptation which is funded by FORMAS and it's a quite a long term project that I'll be working on for a few years more. Nina has previously been also working on climate finance that's how we met originally at the workshop earlier this year and then we realized we had this common interests in global governance and climate adaptation. So we are now trying to map out this regime from a kind of political science and international relations perspective. There's a lot of literature on the mitigation regime but less on adaptation. But today Nina will talk about some earlier work she's been doing over the last few years. The nexus of climate change, migration, displacement, development which is very topical of course and we hear people making claims about the current refugee crisis in Syria and climate change as a cause and it's hotly debated. But today we will hear more about some actual empirical work that Nina has been doing on looking at how international institutions have for migration, development and refugees have responded to climate change. So this will be, the presentation is based on a forthcoming book, it's coming out next year and to present Nina a bit more she's as I said international relations scholar, got her PhD from Oxford University and is now based in Berlin at the Herty School of Governance. And we agreed Nina will talk for about 30 minutes and then we hope to have some time for questions of course. So yeah with that let's get started. Over to you Nina. Thanks. Well it's wonderful to have you all here today those of you who are joining both in person and online. Great to be in Stockholm it's been fantastic couple of days working at the Stockholm Environment Institute and exploring the wonderful city. So I as I mentioned want to talk to you a bit about my research which is coming out in a book next year with Routledge and elements of this work have already been published in Global Environmental Politics, Journal of International Organization Studies. So if you're interested I am happy to give you the links to that or share more of that I think some of it's online. Just to get a show of the baseline knowledge in the room I'd be interested how many of you have worked on or researched climate change migration or refugee issues just raise your hand if it's something you've done some work on okay. No it's good to know sort of how many of you sort of are familiar or how many of you think climate change causes migration at a basic level do you think climate change leads to migration right so we've got like three four sort of maybes in the room and how many of you are skeptical of that linkage yeah sort of a half half hand okay great well there is a contested causal link in the relationship between climate change and and displacement and by way of example to kind of get us into what I want to talk about today I'll give you the example of what's happened in the last few weeks in New Zealand so I'm originally a New Zealander and recently a Kiribati man Ione Teota appealed for refugee status in New Zealand and he did this because Kiribati is a small low-lying atoll in the Pacific it's one of the the atolls like Tuvalu which at its highest is roughly one meter above sea level so very threatened by climate change and sea level rise and if it had been granted which it wasn't it would have been the first case of of someone being granted refugee status because of climate change however the New Zealand courts rejected this they they did not grant him refugee status because the refugee convention and existing refugee law does not grant somebody refugee status based on being displaced by a natural disaster or climate change so there's been a lot of debate and those of you who have sort of followed it about sort of climate refugees as a consequence of climate change the idea that people will be displaced from islands like like this man but in fact if we look at the original refugee convention which was signed by states in 1951 in Europe in Geneva after World War two and this is important in this context because it was written at a period in time the refugee convention when it was thinking about what was happening in Europe after the outbreak of World War two so this convention to find a refugee is someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution based for reasons of race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion so five grounds and they had to be outside his country or her country of nationality and is unable or owing to such fear unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country so what does that mean how do we unpack that it means that you have to be fleeing persecution not fleeing a natural disaster not fleeing climate change to be considered a refugee you have to be outside across an international border and you don't want to return because your life is threatened now that's important because often in the debates about refugee climate refugees that are used in the popular discourse we have this idea that they should be covered and should be helped but in fact our existing definitions that's come out at a particular point in time and existing institutions don't cover them so that's one starting point for my research and the second is that even the sort of link between climate change and migration is somewhat problematic if you look into the literature many of you I understand work on on climate change some of you on sort of indirect impacts and we'll be familiar with how difficult it is to prove first of all that climate change causes a particular natural disaster obviously we understand climate change is going to increase the frequency of flood storms but showing that causal linkage to a particular natural disaster is very difficult and perhaps even more importantly and it certainly in terms of my work showing the indirect impact that that particular flood or particular storm cause somebody to move is also very difficult proving those causal links and another step that's really important to consider in the debate is whether or not even framing it in terms of climate change migration is useful because sometimes the worst affected by climate change are left behind so if we think of the case of Hurricane Katrina which happened in New Orleans 10 years ago this year the people that were moved were people with social capital the people that didn't move were predominantly black Americans who didn't have social capital so if we're focusing on climate migrants we don't see those people so there's a lot of debates to unpack around climate change migration and the question that is left open from a sort of international relations or institutional perspective is I think twofold one do we need new institutions do we need new legal frameworks to assist those who are worst affected by climate change so some scholars like Frank Bearman who some of you may be familiar with have argued we need new institutions we need a new refugee convention the existing one doesn't help people so what we have to do is create a new one and some states as well are making these sorts of arguments in fact just in the last couple of weeks those of you are following what's happening in the South Pacific and the UNFCCC, Fiji, Kiribati Tuvalu and Tokalau have called for a new special displacement center to help people being displaced by sea level rise and they actually had got it into as I understand an early draft text of the UNFCCC but the Australian government pushed back just a week ago and said we're not going to include this in the text so this idea of a special displacement center as far as I understand is no longer in the text so that's one argument we need these new institutions because they're the people who are affected by climate change if we if we can if we can prove some kind of linkage are not being assisted now the question the way that I came to in my research is saying can we use our existing institutions to assist people who are affected by climate change however that may be whether it be because they're staying in a country that they currently live in where there's been a natural disaster whether it means that climate changes had some kind of impact and has in amongst other factors led them to move or to be displaced so why look to existing institutions well we have so many existing institutions already out there we have as I will talk about today institutions at the global level so I am looking at at global governance migration humanitarian refugees and do we want to add new ones to the mix what can these existing institutions do so that's the starting point now there is a bit of a catch so this is actually a photo from my research in northern Kenya and I'll speak to this a bit more but the catch is that if you are the United Nations High Commission for refugees and you are set up after World War two to deal with a particular group of people you didn't have a mandate to work or think about climate change you weren't set up as an institution and that's true of many of our global institutions today they were set up at a very particular point in time so the question that we face as global governance scholars is and this is some of the work that we've been us or and I collaborating on the last few days how do these institutions that were set up with one specific issue area whether it be WHO and health UNHR and refugees IOM and migration United Nations development program and development how is it that they evolve to deal in a 21st century where problems are so interrelated and there are so many interconnections between climate change and development and climate change and migration and what are the nature of those linkages how should they navigate between some of the complexities of those those causal connections so I in my work and what I'm going to talk about today I'm going to focus on three institutions the High Commission for refugees the international organization for migrations and the United Nations development program and how they've responded to climate change and the book the core argument in my book is that existing institutions are moving beyond their original mandates they're mandates that were set in the 1950s and this is important because what it means is that not just environmental institutions are involved in the climate change regime so often when we think about climate change we think about the UNFCCC we might think about the spillovers with other environmental treaties like the Convention on Biological Diversity but we don't necessarily think about how it links to to non-environmental institutions and then the sort of theoretical argument that's speaking into the international relations literature is how these institutions change how do they evolve depends on the perception of staff of the issue linkage so the linkage between the core mandate of the organization and climate change and that's where I try and unpack some of these these complexities so I want to talk you quickly through sort of the methods that that underpin the the book the key findings and these are this is actually the the sort of chapter structure of the book I have a chapter on looking unpacking the issue linkages UNHCR IOM and UNDP the three case studies and then talk a bit about the conclusion and and the next steps for this work so methods I studied as I mentioned three organizations I look at their changes and how they engage with climate climate change between 2000 and 2015 focusing on adaptation not talking so much about about mitigation and it's a comparative case study analysis of as I said UNHCR IOM and UNDP why these three they were all created around the same time in the 1950s with very specific mandates that didn't include environment and they're important for our global governance of migration refugee and development areas and the research involved a lot of interviews over 140 with international organizations NGOs states and it was multi-sided so I went to the Copenhagen summit in 2009 and started researching there I spent time at the headquarters of this is the United Nations headquarters and the United Nations development program is based in New York I also spent time in Geneva the High Commission for refugees and the international organization for migration headquarters and then spent time as I mentioned in the previous slide as well in northern Kenya which is why Kenya I wanted to look at organizational change on the ground as well as at headquarters and Kenya was a useful place because all three organizations are operating there and at the time the largest refugee camp in the world was there which is the Dadaab camp this is actually some refugees dealing with a bit of water that had flooded because the although the camp is very close to Somalia which faces in the Horn of Africa extreme drought because of climate change they also have occasional flooding so and I'm happy to speak obviously in the question answer to any of of this in more depth how did I look at change obviously trying to unpack organizational change as multifaceted I chose these dimensions of change I looked at the rhetoric so how do we understand when an organization starts to think about climate change one way of doing so is look at the discourse look at what they're actually saying so I traced all of the speeches of the heads of each organization to see when they started talking about climate change and how they were talking about it then I looked at policy changes did they have specific policy reports coming out on climate change what were they saying and then what was the substance how did these evolve I looked at the structure of the organization did they create new teams departments did they hire staff that's really important for telling us we're not just putting a two-pager on our website but we're actually investing over the long term in working on climate change and then tried to look at the operations on the ground and this was obviously challenging to do at an international level to look at all operations which is why I just focused on Kenya as one because I wanted to actually see what was going on often organizations have a lot on their websites and tell you they're doing all these things and then you go and you find actually not as much as happening as you expected and then I looked at changes and mandates so how did they negotiate with their member states about this work that they were doing on climate change because if we recall they weren't set up with a mandate to work on climate change so for me one of the puzzles to unpack as an international relations scholar is how did they convince member states that they needed to be working on this and for some it took more convincing than others so the first substantive chapter of the book unpacks what I started to talk about at the introduction the nature of these issue linkages now we take it for granted when we say climate change we think obviously it relates to health obviously there's a link to migrational displacement we kind of we know that it's some generic level but actually trying to unpack that link is interesting and so what I do in this chapter is try and look at how the UNFCCC negotiations have evolved and broadened I argue in the 2000s from a focus that was explicitly mitigation to one that was also adaptation and you see that coming out through agreements that were made and also the kinds of organizations that were involved in the negotiations and I argue that this understanding this trajectory of the negotiations is important because it opens the way for new organizations to get involved so if the climate change negotiations if we rewind back and think in the early 90s is about how do we cut emissions why should a humanitarian organization be involved they are trying to think about how do we save lives they're not thinking about how do we cut emissions but if the discussion as it has unfolded is also about how do we assist and prepare the most vulnerable countries to deal with climate change and its impacts then there's a rationale for humanitarian organizations to be involved and then there starts to be space for a linkage to be forged between climate change adaptation and and migration and development so this first chapter and I should say this is an image at um carp Copenhagen which was a round table debate with a number of people talking about the links between climate change migration and displacement so you've got the head of the Norwegian refugee council you've got the head of the international organization for migration and the head of the High Commissioner Antonio Gutierrez of the High Commissioner for refugees so that was one issue linkage that I unpack in this chapter how is it that climate change impacts on migration and mapping out how complex that linkage is that there are academics and research that's showing that there's a link so there's work probably the most well-sighted is Maya's work sort of saying we're going to see 250 million people displaced by climate change and then other academics pushing back work of black saying no actually that linkage isn't isn't as as clear-cut as you often assume and then I look at the sort of adaptation and development link which is where I've built on work of Asa Pearson and Richard Klein a lot trying to understand how adaptation has evolved also as a concept from being a very narrow technical term to being a much broader term that also encompasses development so this chapter provides the basis for trying to understand why it is that these organizations might be engaging so then the next chapter looks at UNHCR and as I've said it was established with a very narrow mandate its mandate was to supervise the refugee convention set out in 1951 and it was set up we've got to remember at a time just after Europe had been at war and in fact what's interesting about UNHCR is it had a very small office of about 34 people in fact at their first Christmas all of the staff could fit around a piano there's a great quote they were all sitting there singing Christmas carols together and they were lawyers predominantly lawyers sitting in Geneva assessing refugee claims and obviously it's evolved considerably in the last 60 to 70 years now when we think of UNHCR we think of people working in Turkey we think of people working in Jordan coping with with with Syrian refugees we think of people in in Kenya they've got over 9,000 staff and their scope has also increased dramatically in terms of geography originally UNHCR only dealt with European European refugees and now deals with with refugees all over the world and it's also added new persons of concern so UNHCR's mandate has grown to include people who were displaced internally it can offer humanitarian assistance and that's also an important element of how it's evolved the story that I pick up on I give that context in the book but the story I really focus in on is how they then thought about engaging with debates over climate refugees when this debate emerged in the media in the 2000s in a big way and what's interesting is that UNHCR staff were very reluctant initially to even engage in my interviews I found with debates over climate refugee because they were concerned that it would undermine the unique status of convention refugees and UNHCR staff are very loyal to this definition of refugees that I that I mentioned at the beginning because they have such a special protected status if you're a refugee and you're granted asylum you you get a refugee claim then you can't be returned to your country states it's the principle of non-reformant have to host you now as you can imagine in a world in which we're seeing right now in Europe a lot of states are trying to push back and not accept refugees and or other migrants this is a really important thing that UNHCR wants to protect and they were concerned that opening up debate to another new concept of climate refugees would dilute and water down the convention so UNHCR staff were actually just critical at all of the concept and very wary of being involved in the debate however the high commissioner for refugees Antonio Gutierrez had a more expansionist vision and he has pushed and advocated for UNHCR to work in in new places and with new persons of concern and in a number of speeches that I analyzed he talked about these five new megatrends climate change was one of them driving displacement now UNHCR isn't an organization with a mandate for displacement we might think about that way in popular terms but it has a much narrow mandate so he was essentially trying to push out their mandate and this happened probably most interestingly at 2011 at a meeting with a ministerial meeting with with various states and he said he asked will you give us an expanded protection mandate essentially he didn't single out climate change but that was the implication for people who are being displaced by climate change across borders and states did not grant this so in this case we saw staff being resistant and the high commission are pushing and obviously you know some staff were supportive it's it's more complex than I'm painting it in this short presentation and states pushing back however what's interesting is that UNHCR has continued to work on on climate change and it's found other mechanisms to do that so one is through an initiative called the Nansen initiative with Norway Germany and some other countries looking at what can be done to help those people displaced across borders and secondly and perhaps more importantly for our story is that UNHCR is and has been working with people displaced internally by climate change for some time and so it has a lot of humanitarian operations it's worked in Pakistan and the after the earthquake in 2005 after Cyclone Nargis and Myanmar and the Philippines floods in 2009 the Pakistan floods in 2010 the Haitian earthquake in 2010 and in fact in total between 2005 and 2010 UNHCR had an operation involvement in 13 out of 58 natural disasters and supported provided support in another five now why is that important it's important because most of the research suggests that the majority of people affected by climate change are going to be affected and displaced internally not necessarily across a border so if UNHCR can provide assistance to people who are affected by climate change in one way or another internally that's really important and UNHCR is doing that so what about IOM international organization for migration is a less known organization it was also established at the same time as UNHCR and interestingly it was basically a logistics transport agency to move migrants from Europe to Australasia and the Americas so a lot of Greeks Italians who ended up in Australia and Melbourne if any of you've been to Melbourne there's a big Italian population there also to the Americas would may have come on on IOM's boats and like UNHCR its mandate has evolved quite considerably from from that 1950s mandate I should also mention it was set up outside the UN by the US it's always had an American head and what's also interesting is it never had and still to this day doesn't have any convention like the refugee convention to protect migrants there's no equivalent sort of legal convention or authority that IOM has it operates more as implementing projects states give it funding and it implements a particular project so this organization has expanded into a number of different areas and and worked in fact in the 90s as my work unpacks on issues around environmental migration so staff had started to see this connection between environment and migration and in the 2000s as well they they again picked up on this work that they had been doing exploring how climate change might impact on migration and they initiated a lot of workshops conferences research and reports elaborating this linkage and you'll see that if you go on to the IOM website they've done a lot of work however states were very reluctant initially to finance and discuss climate change and migration at the international organization for migration and what I show on the research is the relationship it as IOM officials tried to lobby and encourage states to see this as an issue and what do they do they yeah continue to research write reports and they also did something interesting they advocated for an interagency standing committee task force on climate change migration displacement so IOM UNHCR and a number of other humanitarian agencies based in Geneva have an interagency coordinating function they have a space where they come together and meet on a regular basis to discuss common humanitarian issues and within that IOM lobbied to create a task force in the lead up to Copenhagen so that they could collectively lobby and provide submissions to the UNFCCC on how climate change was going to impact on on migration and displacement and in addition to all of this work IOM also did a number of projects so in terms of operations on the ground IOM initiated 500 new climate change projects and they have this big compendium which they actually they presented back at Copenhagen of all of the different projects they were doing and what I argue on this work is that essentially the story is that they didn't see if we come back to the side matter issue linkages it was very easy for IOM to link climate change to migration mandate because migration was much broader and there wasn't the same narrow definition like in the refugee convention and essentially they were also aware of new financing opportunities and actively pursued these new financing opportunities to get and establish more more climate change migration projects even though I would argue they didn't have a lot of expertise in working in this area and I can talk about this more in the question and answers I actually when I was in Kenya found that some of the work they were doing seemed to step beyond the boundaries of their mandate and actually mean that they were working on things like developing poultry projects with pastoralists in northern Kenya and that as some of you may be aware is incredibly challenging area to work on is working with pastoralists around livelihoods and whether or not they should become more sedentary and particularly in northern Kenya context where where pastoralists have for some time been isolated from from the Kenyan state. I can unpack that a little bit more in question and answer because I think it's a really important thing to think about how much organization should change and adapt and work on new issues if it means they end up working beyond their expertise and doing things like you know growing crops when really they were set up to move people then this is UNDP and climate change this is the head Helen Clark at Copenhagen when I was doing research I'm assuming most of you are familiar with the United Nations Development Program the largest development agency within the UN system again it wasn't established to work on climate change or environment I've got to thank you know in terms of the UN development the first major UN conference on the environment was Stockholm 1972 UNDBU was established in the 50s what's interesting is we I think now we see UNDP as kind of an advocate of sustainable human development sustainable development but this is something that didn't happen in a linear process there was a period in the 80s where they got engaged in environmental issues because before that they were doing a lot of infrastructure you know capacity building as well but also mining supporting mining and it was really I argue in the 90s that UNDP started to the late 80s and early 90s started to get more involved in thinking about environment and climate change and that also came partly because of the shift in policy focus with the World Earth Summit in Rio also with the global environment facility being set up in 1992 UNDP was one of the main implementing agents so it had financing opportunities to work on climate change mitigation not adaptation and basically what I do in this chapter is I sort of unpack how UNDP became more active in climate change and in the mid-2000s it became one of the main agencies in the UN system developing climate change adaptation policies and operations had a very large portfolio backed by a substantial grant of over US 90 million from the Japanese government as well as a lot of multilateral financing and there were a lot when I looked through and I don't go into this now in the presentation but in the work I sort of look at the rhetoric how the Helen Clark spoke out about climate change very frequently the policies they were very very active in developing a lot of climate change adaptation thinking and policies and also in terms of structure of the three organizations if we were to compare them UNDP made the most changes in terms of structure they created new departments new divisions to focus on on climate change whereas in the other two cases which I didn't go into in any depth there was like one or two new positions created to focus on climate change and what I should also say is that UNDP administrators played quite a central role in convincing states that climate change adaptation was a top priority for the organization and staff didn't see any conflict with linking UNDP's development mandate to work also on climate adaptation so that even though it was set up as a development organization it could work on on adaptation but it was only in the late 2000s that member states actually granted UNDP an explicit mandate to work on on climate adaptation so the kind of key take home messages I guess one that I've been highlighting here now is is kind of exploring the role of staff the high commissioner in driving changes how was it that these organizations engage with climate change as it became a more important global issue and the book is making an argument that the way that staff internally understood climate change and the link to their mandate shaped the way that they engaged and that's a theoretical argument that's contributing back to debates and international relations theories about who has the most power is it states that drive mandate change the one conventional explanation is that states are the ones driving whether or not an organization will change and evolve and others are saying well staff and bureaucrats also have a role in that and in this space I think one of the really interesting questions to explore that Asa and I are working on is is the the kind of questions around the implications for the global governance of climate change adaptation so I would argue this book is an important addition to the scholarship on on global environment and climate change governance because it suggests that global climate change governance is not just about you know the core institutions or the mitigation institutions it's also about institutions we don't think of is of as environment institutions and that they are also trying to conceptualize and think about how they should be working on on climate change so the book also encourages us though to think about what are some of the perils or the disadvantages of of organizational change generally we go you know you and institutions are very slow bureaucracies they risk a verse they don't adapt and evolve and this is a problem but maybe it's also a problem if organizations adapt and shift too quickly to work on issues that are new when they don't actually have the expertise and the staff on board that's another issue I think that this this throws up. In terms of taking this work forward the questions I think that we're looking Asa and I to explore now is are questions like what does it mean to be part of the adaptation regime we're arguing that there would argue there is an adaptation regime and we want to explore what is being governed in the adaptation regime by whom and how is it being governed so I'd be equally interested to explore those questions with you in the question and answer time and I'm open to unpacking anything more from the presentation that you're interested to hear about and thanks very much for having me. Okay thanks a lot Nina so we have some time now for questions and answers and maybe also someone watching the live stream let's see if Ian waves but first just thanks for a very clear presentation and I thought it was interesting how I mean issue linkages when is it a good thing that an issue like climate change is mainstreamed kind of effectively and these organizations do take it up and when is it a case of actual bandwagoning and other political or economic incentives playing in for example to expand budgets or just pursue other organizational interests but maybe I have some questions maybe more also on relating well the issue of climate migration and how it relates to negotiations now and ahead of Paris you sort of mentioned at the beginning how some Pacific island states are trying pushing for it but first I just wanted to check if there are any questions from Fran please just briefly introduce yourself and use this mic so it gets captured. Thanks so much very interesting I'm Jacob Granit working here at the center I missed a little bit in the introduction unfortunately but I I catch up in the rest but my question was more related to UN organizations versus states and then the role of regional organizations when it comes to dealing with with climate change and particularly the challenge we are seeing in terms now of migration which might partly be because of climate but many other underlying issues so the role of regional organizations like the EU in Africa we have the EU and its regional commissions and others how are they are they also in your view picking up on this message and sort of preparing mitigation adaptation strategies for how to deal with this at the regional level because we see some form of tensions right now one can put it on one hand of more organization at the regional level and less at the global level because of the you know probably saying poor performance in one degree so more work is shifted to the regions and I just wondered if you that's part of your research or if you have any comments on that topic thanks thank you um my question that was running through my head I think you kind of answered it in your in your conclusions is about agency and about what is driving this mandate expansion and what I got when you were talking is you put a lot of emphasis on the heads of these organizations whereas many of us as you just said at the end conventionally think about these being the sum of their states and this being the states that are driving mandates and those of us who follow the UNFCCC process also look very much about the at the role of civil society organizations and other actors other organizations for example which lobby each other other international organizations do you through your interviews have you developed a sense of is there one actor that drives this mandate change or is it really individual to each of these organizations and then have you thought at all about the implications of that because if we think of the climate regime there's a lot of NGOs lobbying states but maybe should they actually be putting their efforts into who is elected as the head of these organizations the next time I'm just curious about that type of interaction I'm Aaron also here in Stockholm and just raise it because it's exactly linked to Clarice's point I mean you've taken a very liberalist IP or international relations approach studying the way that institutions have agency and take that agency or how it's created as opposed to states and I'm wondering if you also discuss why I mean you've so the method you've empirically demonstrated the agency of the institutions and the way that they've actively pursued a mandate change and operational change but have you also looked at why they've been doing that what's their motivation what's their kind of end the game yeah great set of questions thanks for those um on the first question about the role of regions and thinking through migration governance yes I think what's in fact quite interesting about migration governance is that we have very weak international frameworks for migration like I outlined at the beginning the IOM doesn't have a convention on migrants and in fact a lot of the thinking happens at the regional level also because a lot of migration is is regional so in the Pacific there's there's regional forums and European context and in terms of how they at that level are thinking about climate change it's not something that I've researched or looked on explicitly for this work but from from my understanding it would vary across the region so in the Pacific region I think it is it's very very important has come up in regional forums like some of the things I was just mentioning that had come from a regional forum in the Pacific at the EU level I'm less aware of people talking about it in intergovernmental conversations the impact of climate change on migration how to deal with that it's not as high level of priority at least I would I would assume as as the current crisis but yes regions are important on what is driving organizational change yeah and these sort of questions actually get more to the theoretical part which I didn't unpack as much here partly because I wanted to focus on our adaptation governments but it's great that you're bringing bringing them out because I did I spent a lot of time trying to unpack how do we understand international organizations and as I said the kind of conventional view is yeah a status view that they're driven by states and that therefore we would expect mandate change to at a simplistic level occur when states think oh okay development and climate change are linked climate change are migration are linked let's tell this organization let's delegate to it to also do this work but in reality we know that it's you know those delegation relationships are more complicated that that the agent the international organization also has a degree of autonomy it's specialized it has expert authority and states look to those organizations to to try and you know perform particular tasks and figure out how to navigate new issues when they emerge because states don't necessarily have the expertise to think through the complexities of the linkage between climate change and migration so yes the short answer is I I I see the international organizations here as taking a leading role that is I'm talking about the bureaucrats and the heads and pushing forward this agenda that's one of the key messages where I think it gets a little bit more complicated and depends on each case study is the exact role of the leader versus the bureaucracy and obviously you can unpack the bureaucracy even more so in the case of Helen Clark she was leading on it the high commissioner was leading on it the director general William Lacey swing who is the director general for most of the period he was less proactive at least initially he did I mean he speaks on it on on climate change now but in the in using this kind of rhetoric policy structure operations analysis tool what I found is that some of them actually followed that rhetoric came first then policy then structural change then operational change it's almost as if the the leader takes it up and then it kind of cascades through the organization and some didn't work that well some we saw sort of policy reports coming out first this was the iom case and then the high commissioner or the sorry the director general speaking about it so the answer of who was driving the change depended on on the different organization and then what's their motivation yeah this was the fun bit to try and unpack so initially and I didn't mention this when I started I was like well obviously if I want to study organizational change I should follow the money right I should say there's a whole lot of new financing available as we know in this room for climate change particularly mitigation but also adaptation and these are organizations that are operating in a competitive environment and they want to survive so there's a there's an argument out there that they are bandwagoning that they are looking and this is actually one of the things I explore in my global environmental politics article you know are they are they are they pursuing the money or are they more driven I argue by their own mandate and their own concern over a core issue like UNHCR and in that global environmental politics I sort of contrast these different types of organizations and I and I argue that some organizations have been really driven by the financing opportunities so I put IOM into that into that basket that IOM is being interested in exploring how it can get access to various adaptation funds and others like UNHCR haven't so UNHCR is a normative organization I argue that has had a real interest in protecting refugees and actually even when there were opportunities to to get financing hasn't actively explored them and I think one of the interesting things that I've tried to pick up in other work that I just mentioned here is that how difficult it was for me to actually track the financing so imagine if I'd had you know rhetoric policy structure operations I'll go back to that slide and mandate and financing would have been great like to show to graph how much these organizations were spending on adaptation but it was difficult they when I started the research in 2009 2010 didn't know themselves and as I've written other work it's actually really hard to distinguish what is adaptation from what other projects are so I think picking up on the questions about how funding is actually driving these changes is something I'm I'm I'm interested if others are doing it and if they've if they've solved this conundrum so okay so we have one actually I'll post that now and then hand over to Elise one question from a viewer it's Toby Gardner who is also a SCI colleague of ours in Stockholm who says thanks for a really interesting presentation Nina given the concerns you raise about possible institutional mission creep and slippage in priorities versus competencies for example this this example you gave with the Kenyan pastoralists is there a need for independent institutional oversight on how agencies are dealing with overlapping agendas and if so who can deliver this independent institutional oversight and let's also have you have a question so my name is Elise I work at Södertown University I was gonna pick up on Jacob's question and also what you said about sort of regional agenda setting I think the Pacific is a really interesting case here because very early we could see that Kiribati for example was a very for a forerunner when it came to putting climate migration and refugees on the agenda whereas other states such as Tuvalu for example would have very similar geography and politically we're very reluctant and international organizations but also domestically to pick up on this issue so that was quite interesting but now with this I don't know if what you just mentioned about this new clause that Fiji and other countries want to put in but in 2014 the Nansen initiative and the European Union started a huge project that is supposed to advise Pacific island states to develop policy in relation to migration and that's something that wasn't on the agenda at regional level before as I understand and what's interesting is that Australia and New Zealand were quite reluctant to this new initiative so there's also interesting power plays at regional level that are happening there and then I was wondering if you mentioned that a lot of the migration will most likely help happen at domestic level and especially for example in Kiribati we can see that in the capital there are huge very densely populated areas of the density of Tokyo for example so what happens if we talk about migration always at international level what happens at domestic level is that perhaps even mild adaptive if we talk about it at international level mainly. Thanks for that and I'll hand over to you and I think maybe we end after these questions unless anyone has a really burden question can give me a raise your hand so I know. Thanks and if anyone does have a burning question they can also email me or come speak to it afterwards. Thanks Toby great to have your question I wish I had a simple answer to who would do institutional oversight of global governance architecture because basically this is one of the real big questions of how is it that we manage complex global public policy problems where there are so many interlinkages as we've talked about adaptation and climate change with development with migration with refugees and there's no one institution that can deal with all of this problem and we should also point out overlap isn't necessarily a problem in and of itself sometimes we think every global governance institution should just have like a nice cookie-cut model of the problems it solves and then the next one solves the next set and the next set I mean that I would have a problem with that view of global governance but it's still it still begs the question like how do we think about the evolution of mandates and making sure that institutions aren't stepping too far over outside their expertise and the first answer is that boards have a responsibility that's that's the function of member states who sit on the boards of a of the international organization for migration or UNDP to keep and check those organizations and one of the tricky things is that now what we're seeing and a lot of agencies is that those boards while they may be still be doing that oversight it's being undermined by financing models that are increasingly seeing multilateral institutions becoming bilateralized so what I mean there is that you have a board setting a strategy but then states come up and airmark funding so a lot of these organizations have over 90% of their funding is airmarked and so that they may end up working their mandates are distorted because they work on things that they were not that the board collectively didn't agree to prioritize so the in terms of the big quick question of like how would we do this at a global level I mean I think the attempt of the sustainable development goals are one way to try and say here are some goals but whether or not that relates to how institutions themselves should should portion out responsibility for those goals I think these are all questions very much in the air and I'm very interested in others responses and thoughts on on that then Elise yeah you clearly have a lot of expertise and in the Pacific and have been following this debate at a regional level closer than I have so it's really great to hear to hear those updates in terms of the Nansen initiative that's one thing I can speak to because that was part of the research I actually went to the original Nansen conference in Oslo which was 2011 or 10 and no 2011 and the Nansen initiative evolved out of discussions between the Norwegian government and UNHCR and UNHCR actually took a real leading role in in the conference and developing some of the outputs of it and the conference was hosted in Oslo by the the Norwegian government and they came up with the sort of protocol one of which was to try and advocate for some kind of new protection mechanisms for displaced peoples it didn't elaborate on what those protection mechanisms would be and then as a result in 2011 of the ministerial meeting not coming through at the UNHCR level in the sense that they couldn't get states to pick up on this idea of developing any new protection mechanisms then as I understand the Nansen initiative got set up which was a secretariat based in Geneva and that secretariat is funded by money from from the Norwegians and other countries I think Switzerland and Germany have also been involved and there are a cohort of countries who are now financing as you said and looking for four alternative solutions particularly in the Pacific but I wasn't aware of the Australian New Zealand pushback so that's actually one way that UNHCR has continued to collaborate and think about what are the impacts for people who might be displaced across borders is is exactly through the Nansen initiative and the issue of IDPs yeah I haven't heard it being discussed in the Kitabasi example so that's really interesting to hear often in the literature it's mentioned more in terms of when you think of Bangladesh you know the country is where you've got very very high populations and most of the people there are likely to be to be displaced internally so yeah I guess I'll finish off with saying a big thank you for for hosting me particularly us though it's been great to be here in Stockholm I've really enjoyed meeting you all and the fantastic autumn or weather and I hope we can continue the conversation so feel free to contact me and for those of you who are watching also feel free to contact me great thank you