Climate Refugees and a Policy Discourse

Although considerable debate still surrounds the specifics of cause and effect relationships, there is an overwhelming consensus that environmental change does impose an influence on migration choices. With this in mind, I wanted to better understand the legal protection available for those who either choose, or are forced, to migrate under conditions of climate change. However, it became apparent very quickly that any support available was incredibly limited. This was something brought to light recently following the failed attempt of a Kiribati national to become the world’s first ‘climate change refugee’.

Within international law, there are no mechanisms allowing people to enter into a State against their will, unless they can be classed as refugees. Whilst the term ‘climate refugee’ is commonly cited in the media, literature and by NGOs, it actually has no legal foundations. In the 1951 Refugee Convention, a refugee is defined as somebody who “has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” Thus, environmental displacement cannot be categorised in this manner.  

But is ‘climate refugee’ a term that should be given legal recognition? Hartman (2010) criticises this terminology, stating that it ignores the underlying political and economic causes of displacement in an attempt to ‘naturalise’ the issue, which could be seen to mask the necessary institutional response. This could allow natural disasters to be utilised as a scapegoat for incompetent or corrupt management systems. Additionally, Wisner (2009) also has concerns that such terminology may lead to the induction of political fear, particularly when migration is such a politically sensitive subject:

‘Words matter, and terms such as “environmental refugee” and “climate migrant” have been used in contexts that could accidentally give fuel to xenophobia and racism’

Although altering the current Refugee Convention to accommodate for those displaced by climate may be ineffective and inappropriate, it is imperative that a more appropriate solution is developed to plug this gaping legal hole. As Naser (2015) discusses, the multi-causal nature of migration should not be used as an excuse to ignore the immediate necessity for a climate-induced displacement protection framework. This framework should also help to establish a mechanism to integrate science within decision making, enabling the development of objective criteria. If migration is ever going to become a viable adaptation response to climate change, then these people need to be adequately recognised by international law. Otherwise, there is a risk that the human rights of those affected will be considerably undermined.