The link between migration and climate change
Climate change, along with the human displacement and the forced migration it creates, has increasingly demanded global attention in recent years. Since 2008, it is estimated that an average of 22.5 million people a year have been displaced by extreme weather events alone. Countless more are displaced due to the slower onslaught of drought, salinization - making soil infertile for crop production, and rising sea levels. In 2018, the United Nations Refugee Agency recognized that ‘climate, environmental degradation and natural disasters increasingly interact with the drivers of refugee movements.’ More recently, both the UN Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (UN-IPCC) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) have reported on the increasing propensity for climate change-induced, extreme weather events. These reports also project that developing and less-developed countries will be hardest hit by such extreme weather events. Although recent heatwave and flood disasters in North America and Europe highlight that no region is safe from the vagaries of the climate change crisis, developing countries are less well-equipped to withstand the immediate and devastating impacts of such extreme weather events.
This has prompted Mami Mizutori, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction and Head of UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) to note that:
‘More lives are being saved thanks to early warning systems, but it is also true that the number of people exposed to disaster risk is increasing due to population growth in hazard-exposed areas and the growing intensity and frequency of weather events. More international cooperation is needed to tackle the chronic problem of huge numbers of people being displaced each year by floods, storms, and drought. We need greater investment in comprehensive disaster risk management ensuring that climate change adaptation is integrated in national and local disaster risk reduction strategies.’
Thus, external migration is only one response to the challenges of climate change. There are schemes that reduce the need for migration, such as crop insurance schemes, and schemes that lead to or promote internal migration where those most impacted move from high to lower risk areas. However, these strategies will not be sufficient to address the needs of all those affected in the longer term.
The solution
The way that the subject is conceptualised dictates the way it is perceived and the effectiveness of regulatory responses. It must be acknowledged that the double sensitivity of both climate change and forced migration presents a particular challenge for conceptualisation. Any proposed international action that recognises and seeks to facilitate climate induced migration either within, or across national borders is likely to prove unpopular, with considerable costs and security implications. Of course, these costs are likely to increase if the problem is ignored but past experience suggests that states will not act unilaterally to uplift protection. Those most impacted by climate change do not have a strong voice to advocate or embarrass governments to act, leaving multi-layered regional or international mechanisms as the only way forward.
At the present time the obligations that may be owed to those who leave their homes because of climate change do not fall neatly within international environmental law initiatives, such as the Framework Convention on Climate Change, or international humanitarian obligations deriving from the 1951 Refugee Convention. Neither does the emerging discipline of ‘International Disaster Relief Law’ appear to offer much more than temporary respite to vulnerable and/or displaced communities.
Durable solutions must respect the fundamental rights and agency of those impacted and thus external migration is a legitimate response, which may be viewed as one of a number of adaptation strategies. In reality those most affected are unlikely to be in a position to externally migrate, but neither should they be expected to remain trapped in regions where they face insecurity, ill-health and poverty. This PhD provides an opportunity to identify how best to conceptualise climate induced migration but there are several observations which should inform this approach and some immediate questions that come to mind when considering the most appropriate response:
-
Should the response be local, regional or international (or a combination).
-
Should the response be grounded in humanitarian, environmental or human rights law
-
Does it require a free-standing treaty?
-
What role should the sustainable development goals play?
-
Are there existing/emerging approaches that can be used as best practice?
The place of refugee law
The internationally accepted definition of a ‘Refugee’ in Art 1A Refugee Convention 1951 does not easily apply to those fleeing the consequences of climate change. Whilst it may be argued that climate change could result in serious harm equivalent to persecution, it would be difficult to argue that persecution is for a reason listed in the Convention (race, religion, political opinion, nationality or particular social group). Further, the Convention requires that individuals demonstrate that they have been individually, uniquely impacted by ill-treatment. This has made it difficult for those fleeing generalized violence to make a case for refugee status. It may also be reasonably argued that there is little substantive difference between the position of climate change migrants and those fleeing extreme poverty or economic disadvantage (often labelled clumsily as ‘economic migrants’). Indeed, it may be difficult to identify climate change as the precise cause of migration, which is more likely to arise from a combination of intersecting factors. To date the only region that has seen obvious climate related external migration are the South Pacific islands where sea levels are rising at a rate of
12 millimetres each year. It has been estimated that by 2100, 48 islands will have been submerged and their inhabitants externally displaced.
The Refugee Convention itself is under considerable pressure with several states openly undermining the obligation of non-refoulement and seeking ways to deflect their responsibilities by seeking to process applications offshore. The European Commission’s response to the Syrian refugee ‘crisis’ in 2015-16, in which a third country (Turkey) was paid to host the majority of Syrians arriving in Europe, suggests there is little appetite for enhanced protection. In the UK the controversial Nationality and Borders bill is about to enter committee stage in the House of Commons. If enacted, it will radically change how refugees are processed in the UK with those who enter unlawfully receiving temporary, reviewable protection which will deny them vital family reunion rights. These proposals were modelled on the approach taken in Denmark. Recently the Danish authorities were internationally criticised for reviewing the temporary refugee status of Syrian nationals and returning a group of 100 Syrians to Damascus. In January the Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen indicated to Parliament that Denmark intended to have no asylum applications in the future.
The conceptualisation of climate migration as an issue of refugee protection will not assist those who take action to move before things become desperate or those who stay behind because they lack the resources and opportunities to move. Perhaps most importantly, there is a genuine concern that the ‘refugee’ label is inherently problematic as it emphasises passivity, victimhood, and vulnerability. McNamara has accused the United Nations of portraying “environmental refugees” as helpless victims of climate change in urgent need of foreign assistance. This is of course a useful UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) tool as it generates public sympathy which increases donations, thereby enabling action. However, as President Anote Tong of Kiribati remarked in 2009 it puts the “stigma on the victims, not the offenders.”
The conceptualisation of climate migration as an issue of refugee protection will not assist those who take action to move before things become desperate or those who stay behind because they lack the resources and opportunities to move. Perhaps most importantly, there is a genuine concern that the ‘refugee’ label is inherently problematic as it emphasises passivity, victimhood, and vulnerability. McNamara has accused the United Nations of portraying “environmental refugees” as helpless victims of climate change in urgent need of foreign assistance. This is of course a useful UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) tool as it generates public sympathy which increases donations, thereby enabling action. However, as President Anote Tong of Kiribati remarked in 2009 it puts the “stigma on the victims, not the offenders.”
5 min read
4 min read
