For those displaced by disasters, label and legal status remain out of reach

Last month, New Zealand rejected the appeal of Ioane Teitiota, a man who requested refugee status and cited climate change as the reason that barred his return to his home. Teitiota, from the low-lying island nation of Kiribati, was not the first one to launch such a bid, but he likely won’t be the last to be unsuccessful — at least for now. Noting that Teitiota and his family, who have been living in New Zealand for years, do not face persecution or “serious harm” in Kiribati and that the Kiribati government is doing what it can to protect its citizens from environmental degradation, New Zealand’s Supreme Court ruled to refuse the bid. But the Supreme Court acknowledged the vulnerability of Kiribati and didn’t exactly eliminate the possibility of welcoming those displaced by disasters in the future. “This requirement of some form of human agency does not mean that environmental degradation, whether associated with climate change or not, can never create pathways into the [1951] Refugee Convention or protected person jurisdiction,” it said. According to the 1951 Refugee Convention, a refugee is “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” The definition currently excludes those displaced by disasters, including what some have referred to as climate change refugees. But while revising the definition may seem to be the most straightforward solution in enabling so-called climate refugees to seek asylum in other countries, it may be easier said than done. What’s in a name? “We think that the term ‘climate refugee’ is a very problematic term,” Walter Kaelin, envoy of the chairmanship of the Nansen Initiative, told Devex. Aside from lacking the element of violence present in the 1951 Refugee Convention, the notion of a person displaced by climate change entails a high burden of proof. In the New Zealand case, for example, the lack of a clear link between climate change and the need for refuge in another country resulted in the rejection of Teitiota’s appeal. “We know that climate change is leading to more serious weather-related disasters but it’s not possible to prove that a specific event is caused by global warming,” Kaelin said. A 2011 report from the Brookings Institution — London School of Economics Project on Internal Displacement didn’t focus on those who are externally displaced by disasters, but the authors made a point that is relevant to those displaced by disasters both externally and internally: “Perhaps the most difficult aspect of understanding the relationship between climate change and the movement of people is the difficulty of separating out the effects of climate change from other factors in people’s decisions to migrate.” “Climate refugee” isn’t used within the International Organization for Migration, either. Dina Ionesco, head of the migration, environment and climate change division at IOM, in an interview with Deutsche Welle, said the term “would be an interpretation [of the 1951 Refugee Convention] and we can’t do that.” Instead, IOM uses the term “environmental migrants” to refer to those who flee their homes — whether unwillingly or voluntarily — to escape dangers caused by climate-related conditions. The term, however, does not carry any legal weight. Countries, after all, do not seem to be interested in revising the 1951 Refugee Convention, according to Ionesco. That even the Green Climate Fund doesn’t consider disaster-induced displacement a prominent priority is also telling. But at the very least, the label “climate refugee” could ring hollow. “It’s important to keep in mind that simply recognizing the climate refugee status would still exclude a lot of environmental migrants, because a large part of migration takes place as internal migration, within a country,” Ionesco said. “Of course, the legal status of migrants who cross borders plays a big role but it’s just one way to support migrants.” Data from the Norwegian Refugee Council’s Internal Displacement Monitoring Center shows that while there have been significant fluctuations in the total number of people displaced by disasters from year to year — total disaster-induced displacement fell from 22.3 million in 2013 to 19.3 million last year, for example — there is a rising trend over decades. Even when historical models are adjusted for population growth, the likelihood of being displaced by a disaster today is 60 percent higher than it was four decades ago, according to IDMC. Free movement, not aid Any discussion of such terminology, of course, should include those who are already or are likely to be affected. The Nansen Initiative, which has been working on a protection agenda for those displaced across borders in the context of disasters through what it calls “a bottom-up, state-led consultative process with multistakeholder involvement,” talks to these people themselves. In Pacific island states, which might become completely uninhabitable in the next few years because of the impact of climate change, residents expressed apprehension about potentially being called refugees. “It was very interesting what people from civil society, grass-roots organizations and governments told us: They all said we don’t want to become refugees, because a refugee is someone who ends up in a humanitarian emergency situation, someone who’s marginalized, someone who’s dependent on humanitarian aid,” Kaelin said. “They said, ‘We don’t want to but we know that someday we’ll have to leave our islands, but we don’t want to wait until there’s really no choice.’” Those living in small island states in other regions had the same sentiment. Instead of being classified as refugees, people from environmentally vulnerable countries generally want to be given the opportunity to “migrate voluntarily in a regular, organized way.” Since changing the 1951 Refugee Convention is “not a realistic approach right now,” according to Kaelin, the key to making this happen is by keeping disaster displacement in the international agenda, through domestic laws as well as bilateral and regional agreements. “I do think it’s important that U.N. organizations are working much more closely together to address the situation because right now, very often these organizations are working in a manner that is not sufficiently coordinated,” Kaelin added. Adaptation and disaster risk reduction strategies must also be updated to address disaster displacement. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-30, which was adopted at the third U.N. World Conference in Sendai, Japan, earlier this year, was a step in the right direction because it included disaster-induced displacement in its agenda, “but it needs to be implemented,” Kaelin said. The agreement resulting from the U.N. climate conference or COP21 later this year should likewise cover disaster displacement in its text. “Up to now most DRR and adaptation focuses on helping people to stay [in their homes or in their countries],” Kaelin said. Check out more insights and analysis for global development leaders like you, and sign up as an Executive Member to receive the information you need for your organization to thrive.