Over the past decade, the number of disasters has soared, from hurricanes (such as Harvey, Irma, José, and Maria) and floods in Sierra Leone to wildfires in California, to droughts in Yemen and Nigeria. According to the United Nations, nine out of ten disasters are climate-related. The massive amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have enhanced the natural greenhouse effect. In turn, the increase in temperature both on land and in the oceans has caused a spike in natural disasters. Migration linked to environmental disasters represents a persistent challenge for the global society. As climate change progresses, the international community will need to address the growing number of climatic refugees and their place under international law.
The term “climate refugee” refers to people that are forced to leave their home country due to natural disasters. In 1985, Essam El-Hinnawi wrote “environmental refugees [are] those who had to leave their habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of a potential environmental hazard or disruption in their life-supporting ecosystems.” However, no law adequately encompasses the idea of ‘climate refugee,’ and these refugees have never benefited from any international legal status. The lack of legal acknowledgment has led to a lack of protection under international law. Yet, since 2008, natural disasters have forced an average of 24.5 million people to migrate each year. People have always migrated due to economic, social, or political reasons; however, today, forced displacement due to climate change has increased significantly. 70 percent of internally displaced climate refugees are from Asia, in particular Bangladesh and India. The American continent faces earthquakes, various storms, as well as wildfires. Africa is typically devastated by droughts and violent episodes of rain (15%). Populations at or below sea level are especially vulnerable. In the Netherlands, one-third of the country is below sea level.
The climate crisis threatens national and international peace as global warming has the potential to displace more people than war
Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority (95%) of climate-related displacement occurs within state borders. Climate change affects the most vulnerable, those who cannot afford to go far away. Bangladesh, for example, hosts more than 450,000 political refugees and must cope with the influx of Rohingyas people. In the long term, several factors could make it impossible to live in the country: rising temperatures, rising sea levels, intensification of natural disasters, and the melting of the Himalayan glaciers.
The climate crisis threatens national and international peace as global warming has the potential to displace more people than war. Conflicts do not arise directly from climate change, but global warming influences the depletion of natural resources or the destruction of habitats. As a result, environmental changes are a catalyst for poverty or social inequalities. The most affected populations are often the least able to cope with these changes. they already suffer from social-economic instability, extreme poverty, and insecurity. The attempt to alleviate these economic sufferings tends to fuel clashes.
Libya, Egypt, Syria, and South Sudan are clear case studies that exemplify a causal link between climate change and conflict. The current climate situation has exacerbated droughts and unequal water availability, generating hostilities between agricultural and pastoral communities. In Syria, 2 to 3 million people fled a devastating drought between 2006 and 2011.
While rising temperatures in Syria is not the cause of its civil war, it is a threat that can lead to violence. Global warming combined with population growth has, in part, driven the diaspora. The situation is critical because climate refugees do not have legal status. The issue of political, economic, or humanitarian refugees is urgent. Currently, Europe shows signs of struggling and picturing a worse migration scenario is worrying. The UN predicts 250 million climate refugees in the world by 2050. The example of Tuvalu, a small Pacific archipelago threatened by rising oceans, illustrates how urgent recognizing the rights and status of environmental refugees is.
Tuvalu, like the Kiribati archipelago or the Marshall Islands, is one of the small Pacific countries that suffer from global warming. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the average ocean level will rise by 7 to 23 inches by 2100. For these low-lying islands, it will be a disaster. In Tuvalu, no place is more than 15 feet above sea level. Areas only 20 inches above the sea will suffer from permanent flooding during the next decades. Traditionally, the people of Tuvalu migrated for economic reasons due to limited opportunities in the archipelago. They travel to the island of Nauru to work in the phosphate mines. But, in recent years, the climate threat has become another reason for exile. Many of these residents believe that they meet the requirements to claim the status of ‘climate refugees’ as victims of other countries’ pollution, such as the United States or China. Some states are developing pathways for ‘environmental migrants’ to get asylum. For instance, since 2001, New Zealand allows 75 immigrants from Tuvalu to settle in its territory each year—through an immigration program for the Pacific Islands—without recognizing them as environmental refugees. Dozens of rescue ships, like the Aquarius Dignitus, rescue migrants and refugees trying to cross seas in makeshift craft but are stranded in the sea. But these efforts are not enough to save millions of people, like those from Tuvalu, fleeing climate disasters when the hundreds of camps of the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) already count 82 million people driven by wars and political conflicts. Today, tragedies punctuate migration.
The term “environmental refugees” was coined in 1985 when it appeared in a United Nations Environment Program report. However, there is no consensus on the definition and international discussions continue to stumble on the issue of climate refugee status. Some definitions include ecological refugees, environmental refugees, climate refugees, eco-refugees, environmental migrants, environmentally displaced people, etc. However, it is important to use the term “climate refugees” rather than “climate migrants.” A migrant is a person who moves voluntarily to another country or region for economic, political, or cultural reasons. In contrast, the 1951 Geneva Convention defines the term “refugee,” as any person subject to a “well-founded fear of being persecuted.” Therefore, whenever states release greenhouse gasses contributing to climate degradation, they generate political persecution against the most vulnerable. Regardless of which definition is accepted, the international community should be entitled to concrete obligations under international law.
Nowadays, the 1951 Geneva Convention determines rights and duties for asylum-seekers and refugee status. But the definition exclusively concerns people who are victims—or potential victims—of political or religious persecution. It doesn’t include refugees fleeing natural disasters or poverty. For most countries, climate change does not meet the criteria for obtaining refugee status or seeking asylum. In France, the argument is not admissible as such, but it can be considered and added to the file of asylum-seekers in certain cases.
The international community is planning actions but does not provide enough help. While the Paris Agreement and the COP26 Summit in Glasgow call on states to take urgent measures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, states are free to set their targets. Furthermore, they do not guarantee sufficient financial aid to support policies and measures that will allow the poorest countries to protect themselves during extreme events. Therefore, the current situation requires legal intervention, such as mending the 1951 Geneva Convention. Modifying the Convention could help to assign legal status to climate refugees. However, doing this puts existing protections at risk since there are many more environmental refugees than political refugees. The UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants held in September 2016 tackled the drive for migration and the need for global cooperation. This summit concluded by presenting a draft of what has become the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which unveiled a set of principles urging the international community to take action to protect refugees. Since the New York Declaration has enshrined a political commitment of unprecedented strength. It fills the gap in the international protection system. It is essential to increase international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate global warming and engage in sound development planning to resolve the refugee crisis.
It is high time to promote climate justice. It is necessary to re-interpret traditional moral concepts such as ‘responsibility,’ and to seek new normative concepts. The greatest carbon dioxide emissions and the major degradation of ecosystems prevail in the most populous and most developed countries. Therefore, the big polluters should take responsibility. However, behind the question of responsibility lies the question of funding. The UNHCR has reported massive underfunding of operations for refugee aid. They urge to: create new sources of funding, put in place mechanisms to legally protect the victims, and penalize those responsible for this crisis. In 2015, rich countries committed to raising $100 billion every year to finance the fight against global warming in developing countries. Yet, they have missed the goal set by far. In September 2018, pledges only amounted to $78.9 billion, while they rose to nearly $85 billion in 2020.
The international community must show solidarity with the most vulnerable countries and populations. To do this, many non-governmental organizations suggest creating a compensation fund for climate refugees through the ‘no-harm principle.’ This principle requires all states to take measures to contain the climate crisis. However, a core issue is how to compel each state to finance funds. Without it, the principle of climate justice enshrined in the Paris agreement and the Paris agreement itself remains meaningless. Failing to respond to these challenges will increase the risk of triggering disastrous climate change. The realization of the most unfair scenarios is looming over both the poorest populations and future generations.
Photo credit: Asian Development Bank
Be First to Comment