"An Iñupiat girl stands on [an] ice floe on a shore of the Arctic Ocean in Barrow, Alaska in the United States of America". UNICEF/Vlad Sokhin, July 2016.
In 2019, 11,000 scientists declared that our planet, with its intersecting ecosystems and its myriad plant and animal species, is facing a climate emergency. Yet, the focal point of discussions in the Global North surrounding the impacts of climate change is often on the future. While this is not inherently problematic, this direction nonetheless risks forgetting, or rather ignoring, the developing countries or Indigenous communities that are facing and adapting to the consequences of planet destruction right now. Therefore, as environments become uninhabitable the amount of people forced to relocate increases. In turn, the international community needs to prepare adaptation and relocation strategies for how to deal with this group of “climate migrants” or “climate refugees”.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified that the largest impact of climate change could be on human migration due to shoreline erosion, coastal flooding, and agricultural disruption. In the last decade, 24 million people have been displaced by catastrophic weather disasters. For example, a recent 2017 study by Columbia University found a positive correlation between weather inconsistencies and asylum applications to the European Union. They further note that these weather changes, which were studied in developing countries, will have a ‘leakage’ effect in that increased refugee flows to developed countries will have a corresponding impact.
Accordingly, understanding, and defining, what constitutes a climate ‘migrant’ or ‘refugee’ is one of the first and most pertinent questions that must be answered.
In 2008, the International Organization for Migration suggested a definition for what they classify as "forced climate migrants" wherein due to environmental impacts these persons “are obliged to leave their habitual homes, or chose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, and who move either within their country or abroad”. However, in a study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the authors suggested a ‘restricted’ definition of climate refugees based on three climate impacts, namely, drought and water scarcity, sea-level rise, and extreme weather events.
Some criticism to defining this group as climate refugees is the risk of conducting a limited debate in which the proposed solutions fail to address and encompass all aspects of human mobility and climate change. These factors include the difficulty in isolating environmental drivers, migration occurring within borders, and a potential weakening of refugee status. As well, when employing the term “refugees”, one instinctively draws images of people fleeing war-torn countries, whereas consequences from climate change manifest in a multitude of forms that are not always as easily tangible and captured as they are with war. As a result, some argue that the use of the term “refugee” is inappropriate.
Through interviews with policy experts, one study argues that the utilization of the terms “refugee” or “forced migrant” connotes understandings of involuntary migration and the causation being directly related to climate change. While these policy experts argue that climate change is not a major driver of migration, the evidence clearly suggests otherwise.
An interesting aspect to this definitional debate is the calculation of this ‘forced’ migration. Specifically, who determines how much pressure is required for a choice to migrate to qualify as “forced”? Determining a definition for this group of climate displaced persons will enable more robust and succinct policy responses, and potential preventions that are urgently needed. Regardless of the definition chosen, one truth remains indestructible: these people require adaptation strategies, aid, and legal protections – now.
Because a large amount of displacement occurs within borders, some claim that the term climate migrants should be used rather than refugees. However, the identification of this group as climate migrants does not guarantee international protection as this is only afforded to refugees under international refugee law. While the 2018 Global Compact for Migration encompasses a framework to include climate migrants, the compact is non-binding and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.
Despite the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees stating on January 22, 2020 that the world needs to prepare for the increase of refugees that will emerge from the impact of climate change, as it currently stands, the 1951 Refugee Convention does not have a provision for climate change as a reason for people to flee their country and be granted asylum. While the Commissioner urged countries to prepare, the inclusion of climate refugees to the Convention did not occur.
If there is no inclusion of this definition into international law, or the creation of a new legal status or institution to enforce protections to which countries must abide, then legal protections for those displaced will fall upon the shoulders of individual countries rather than comprising a collective international effort. This could lead to a hodge-podge of policies varying from one state to the next, with no incentive for states to support climate refugees. For example, Germany has stated that they would not grant asylum to people on the basis of climate refugees arguing it does not fall under the current refugee definition in the Geneva Refugee Convention. There needs to be a judicial apparatus to deal with these upcoming claims – preferably an efficient mechanism that doesn’t cost people their lives as they wait for their claims to be accepted.
Importantly, the January 2020 UN ruling in response to Ioane Teitiota’s rejected refugee claim in 2015 by New Zealand has stated that climate migrants cannot be returned to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis. Though this ruling has established a precedent by prohibiting the extradition of displaced persons to their home country, it does not establish any legal protections to this group in their new country. In essence, this ruling has maintained the ambiguity surrounding the legal status of climate displaced peoples.
While Canada has an international obligation to keep their borders open to climate refugees from other countries, it must also seek to identify what will happen when Indigenous peoples are displaced from their traditional lands. Specifically, for First Nations peoples whose reserves are consecrated in law (e.g. The Indian Act), will the Government of Canada establish new reserves? For Métis whose land was dispossessed and rights to land barely recognized, where will they go if forced to relocate without legal protections?
The Arctic is experiencing, and adapting, to climate change effects such as melting permafrost, coastal erosion, longer sea ice-free seasons and invasive species. Together this is contributing to a decline in the Inuit ability to sustain themselves off of the land. If the Inuit are forced to relocate, they not only face the question of where they will go, but they must also determine how to uphold their culture and identity in areas where their traditional practices and knowledge no longer apply. Canada has a separate and distinct political responsibility to Indigenous peoples that must not be pushed aside.
Canada may find an example in New Zealand: in 2017, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced plans to aid Pacific Islanders who are forced to relocate due to climate effects, such as rising sea levels, by creating a special refugee visa. Heralded as a frontrunner in addressing this issue, critics argue that this climate visa opens the potential for pressure on the government to accept those fleeing from disasters such as tsunamis or earthquakes, which may not be directly connected to climate change.
The different responses by individual countries articulate the dire need for a definition for climate refugees that is recognized by the international community. Specifically, and with difficulty, there must also be an agreed upon methodology of what is considered “climate-related conditions” and how these will be quantified. Impacts of climate change are imminent and to prevent as much destruction as we can, collective efforts are required immediately. This means defining and accepting climate refugees. A broken, scattered response will not provide the necessary justice.
Comments