In the movie The Day After Tomorrow changes in ocean current circulation from global warming result in the northern hemisphere freezeing over and US citizens fleeing to Mexico in search of a warmer environment. In An Inconvenient Truth we are told the world is already too warm with rising sealevels now displacing some Pacific islanders. Meanwhile, in the real world, it seems there really is no such a thing as a climate change refugee …
Hi Jennifer,
The Refugee Convention establishes a procedure for States to determine whether the individual is entitled to the status of a refugee. Once status determination takes place, with health and security checks, if the individual is a refugee then he/she is entitled to the human rights specified in the Convention–such as access to health care, education, employment, housing, social security etcetera.
The main problem with trying to include people displaced by climate change within the definition in Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention is that such persons do not meet the requirements of the definition. To be a refugee, an individual must have:
1) crossed an international frontier–ie. be outside of his/her country of origin. If the individual remains in his/her country of origin, then the individual is an Internally Displaced Person (IDP) and not a refugee
2) “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted” –the person left his/her country of origin because of the fear of being persecuted –the person left or cannot return to his/her country of origin because of the fear of being persecuted
3) the persecution is for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion
4) the individual is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of his country of origin–the main aim of the Refugee Convention was to attach an individual without the protection of a State to another State.
5) subject to cessation and exception clauses–mainly for war-criminals, serious criminals, and persons under the protection of another State/UN agency.
Since the definition of a refugee requires persecution for one of the five specified reasons (race etcetera), the indiscriminate nature of climate change means that people displaced by climate change are not refugees. The issue of how international law will resolve climate change displacement is only just emerging. However, the only academics that have written papers considering the issue are scientists without legal training, who generally don’t understand the definition of a refugee. No legal academics have written about the issue yet. However, Dr Jane McAdam, an expert in Refugee Law, has been getting increasing numbers of questions on this issue from Non-Government Organisations. Jane started the course ‘Forced Migration’ last year so that she could teach refugee law and consider whether it could extend to other circumstances where people are forcibly displaced, such as climate change, development induced displacement and internal displacement. Jane is also the director of the Centre for Climate Change in the Gilbert and Tobin Public Law Centre at the University of NSW.
While it is possible to open up negotiations for an extension of the Refugee Convention, through an Optional Protocol to vary the original Convention, there is significant resistance to doing this from the UN High Commission for Refugees and legal academics. Under International Law, States must consent to the obligations to be bound by them. At present it is unlikely that States will consent to an extension of their obligations to refugees in the current political climate, where most Developed States are actively pursuing policies to avoid responsibilities under the Refugee Convention.
The other alternative is for the negotiation of a separate treaty to specifically address the needs of people displaced by climate change. It is arguably preferable to adopt this approach, particularly considering the negative perceptions of ‘refugees’ in media discussions of immigration policy in Developed States (such as Europe, US and Australia). There is also the advantage of creating a definition that allows for arrangements to be made for resettlement before people are actually displaced by climate change, rather than persisting with the crossing an international border requirement.
It is also important to take into account that there were 9.9 million refugees in 2006. The vast majority of those refugees were in Developing States, such as Pakistan with 2.1 million Afghan refugees; and about 2 million Iraqi refugees in Iran, Syria, Jordon and Turkey. Since the international community has failed to equitably share the burden of refugees on Developing States, it is questionable whether increasing the numbers of people within the refugee definition will lead to durable solutions, such as resettlement in another State.
Nichole Hoskin
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
so what is the appropriate response to people displaced by extreme weather (AGW driven or not)?
“so what is the appropriate response to people displaced by extreme weather (AGW driven or not)?”
That is the question that occurred to me on reading the above.
One could also include earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions or any other natural disaster.
Climate change is not a new emergency that requires some special UN convention unless it is accepted that human activity is the current climate driver.
Forced displacement for environmental reasons is not a recent phenomenon. Historically, people have often had to move from their land because of degradation of resources and/or conflict over scarce resources. Migration, and population movement in general, is part of human history and an important adaptive mechanism. What is more recent is the potential for mass movements caused by chronic factors such as desertification and widespread resource depletion and by acute events such as floods, droughts, hurricanes and tsunamis. As awareness grows of the role and speed of climate change and as the physical effects of climate change (both acute and chronic) are felt around the world, there has been a proliferation of warnings of spiralling rates of displacement.
The FMR Editors are looking for practice-oriented submissions, reflecting a diverse range of opinions, which address questions such as the following:
What is the likely scale and impact of displacement as a result of climate change? Does debate over numbers of those likely to be affected help or hinder the development of preparedness, preventive and response strategies?
How can risk reduction and resilience building become integral to humanitarian agencies’ programming and planning? What has been the impact of the Hyogo Framework of Action?
What are the key ‘tipping points’ that trigger displacement rather than adaptation? What are the push and pull factors?
How will the impact vary – in terms of migration, adaptation and response – depending on whether a crisis is of slow or rapid onset?
Are there examples of situations where an earlier intervention might have prevented conflict and/or displacement?
How can the international community monitor and respond to catastrophes in the making?
What are the principles by which policymakers should respond to the displacement of this new category of ‘refugee’?
Will the definition of ‘refugee’, the concept of protection and notions of national sovereignty need to change?
Should there be a new Protocol to include this new category of displacement?
Should UNHCR be given responsibility for this new type of ‘refugee’ or is there a need for a new organisation with a specific mandate?
Who should be responsible for ensuring the protection and resettlement of those displaced by climate change? Who should pay?
Are there replicable examples of resilience, adaptation and coping strategies?
Can governments and the international community help local communities resolve conflicts over natural resources and boost adaptive capacities?
What is the role of the media in generating awareness and educating people – and, conversely, in contributing to fears about mass migration?
How can we promote better communication and collaboration between communities of ecologists, demographers, sociologists, economists and relief and development workers?
Deadline for final submission of articles: 3rd March 2008. Maximum length: 2,500 words. Further information for FMR authors is at: http://www.fmreview.org/writing.htm. Please write to us as soon as possible if you are interested in contributing or have suggestions of colleagues who may be able to.
We are keen to reflect the experiences and knowledge of communities affected by environmentally-induced displacement. Please consider writing for us even if you have not written an article before. We would be happy to work with you to develop an article about your experience.
If you could help disseminate information about this issue – and/or copies when printed – we would very much like to hear from you.
We encourage readers to send us written contributions on any aspect of contemporary forced migration. Each issue of FMR has a feature theme but at least a third of each issue is set aside for ‘non-theme’ articles.
Please contact the Editors at fmr@qeh.ox.ac.uk
In cases of natural disasters, the response is usually for the international community to provide emergency aid to enable food, shelter and other essential items to be delivered to displaced populations. In Australia, the governments aid agency, Ausaid has emergency response units that travel to natural disasters in the Asia-Pacific region in order to access needs and to work with governments.
I’ve just changed the second point in the above post following this note from Nichole:
After thinking about it, the second requirement is slightly misleading in the present form. This is because as a matter of law, it is possible to become a refugee after leaving the country of origin. Would it be possible to change the latter part of the second requirement to ” –the person left or cannot return to his/her country of origin because of the fear of being persecuted ”
Its a minor technical point but I think it is worthwhile being as accurate as possible.
Thanks,
Nichole
Since the international community has failed to equitably share the burden of refugees on Developing States, it is questionable whether increasing the numbers of people within the refugee definition will lead to durable solutions, such as resettlement in another State.
Just allow sufficient lawlessness and disorder to erupt and we’ll see. There’s a huge business in building border communities and high tech monitoring these days. Do nothing until it’s time to biuld more walls to keep the impoverished scum out. They must deserve it, otherwise they wouldn’t be there.