John Connell kindly answered to our questions by mail.
“What makes you think it is disappearing? I don’t believe it is”
Why did you first become interested in studying the impact of sea level rise on Tuvalu?
In 1981, I first went to Tuvalu and was fascinated by the country (and I was then involved in a large project on migration on the Pacific) and simply its economic struggle for existence, and became interested in sea level rise in 1991 when it was becoming an issue in the Pacific and SPREP (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme) were beginning to publish material on it.
What types of analysis/methods did you use in your study of Tuvalu?
I have never done ‘scientific’ analysis in Tuvalu (ie measures of sea level rise, geomorphology, climate etc) but have focused on the economy and migration – and collected just about anything I could find on the country.
In your opinion, why is Tuvalu disappearing and what kind of evidence supports your conclusion?
What makes you think that it is disappearing? I don’t believe it is – see Kench and Webb that you refer to below. Some parts of all atolls are eroding and some parts are accreting/growing – normal wear and tear and the impact of cyclones etc – and of course the impact of humans. As Kench and Webb show, the worst erosion is where humans have made changes which also means that there are more people in those areas to see the changes .. Again, as Kench and Webb show, flooding was also significant a century ago.
Can we put blame on a single cause and/or group of people?
Erosion can be blamed on many people and many events – as I suggested in the APV article in 2003 by events such as causeway construction, deforestation, sand mining etc (all most evident in the capital Funafuti that has grown massively since independence) – such changes have made physical events such as cyclones more damaging .. Global warming of course has multiple causes – and none are based in Tuvalu ..
“Global warming of course has multiple causes- and none are based in Tuvalu…”
Is the data collected on sea-level rise consistent with geological data (in reference to Paul Kench’s work on Tuvalu)?
Yes – I believe so – the data for the areas closest to Tuvalu where records exist, and for the few points in Tuvalu itself, show a very tiny, almost imperceptible sea level rise over recent decades – enough obviously for concern over a future where this accelerates but not in itself enough to account for significant contemporary physical changes. What has mainly caused problems in Tuvalu recently has been high (king) tides in association with El Nino events.
Has enough data been collected to come to a definitive conclusion concerning the future of Tuvalu?
No – but then where has such data been collected? As you know there is massive debate about the speed and causes of global warming – from deniers to doomsayers…and on the speed of that hinges PART of the future of Tuvalu.
But only part of it – Tuvalu is in a sense behaving like other small Polynesian countries (Niue is the best, although the most extreme, example –no problem with sea level rise there but 1200 left in Niue and 18,000 who live in New Zealand) – where economic prospects are very limited and good job opportunities are scarce.
The future of Tuvalu hinges on political and economic issues and the many decisions of individual Tuvaluan families choosing to migrate (or not) alongside environmental change.
The future can never be certain= what if a cyclone like Katrina went straight over Tuvalu? But what if oil was discovered in nearby waters?
In your opinion, who are the main actors in the debate surrounding the future of Tuvalu?
We all are in some way – given the significance of environmental change – but the main actors are the government of Tuvalu (and other Pacific states who work together through the Pacific Forum) and the governments of nearby states especially New Zealand and Australia.
Which types of communities have the most legitimacy when weighing in on this debate? (The scientific community? Journalists? The local residents? Politicians?)
Everyone has a role to play but the scientists are important in defining the nature of changing contexts – though even they are unlikely to be in agreement, given the limited amount of data. The rest must interpret all this as best they can – in a context where personal opinions are important and there are complex politics – linked to aid, economic development, migration, and, of course, power. Local residents will make their own decisions – stay or go – build a larger house etc …
Do you think that the media distorts the scientific reality of the situation in Tuvalu?
Of course – see my APV 2003 article and the various papers of Carol Farbotko. The media need a story – a disappearing country is a good one; business as usual is no story at all.. And, indeed, all journalism (and most academic studies too!) distort whatever it is they focus on simply because no study can ever be holistic.
“The media need a story- a disappearing country is a good one”