Why UNHCR doesn't like the term 'climate refugee'

When the European Parliament voted last year against a resolution “on the impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations in developing countries,” the center-right European People’s Party based its opposition partly on remarks by Filippo Grandi, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees. Grandi had told members of the European Parliament in May 2021 that when it comes to the term “climate refugees,” the UN Refugee Agency's position is that “we don’t believe that definition is the way forward.” He said: “How do you define a ‘climate refugee’? Somebody fleeing a natural disaster? Somebody fleeing rising sea levels? Somebody fleeing drought or floods? It’s very complex.” Grandi added, “I would not advise that time is, may I say, used — wasted — arguing about definitions around which I can foresee no consensus in the international community.” Instead, UNHCR’s approach is to focus on existing legal frameworks in order to provide protection for people who move due to the climate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that about 250 million people may experience high water stress in Africa alone by 2030, with up to 700 million displaced as a result. Devex continued the discussion this week with Andrew Harper, special adviser on climate action to the high commissioner for refugees, at the inaugural European Humanitarian Forum. For Harper, one issue is defining why people are displaced. “Are they displaced by extreme weather events? Have they been displaced because of poor adaptation?” he said. “Or is it a whole collection of elements which contributed to their vulnerability?” The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Doesn't all of that fall under the umbrella of a “climate refugee”? Well, there's no legal term of what a “climate refugee” is. But what is the consistent element is that everyone is internally displaced [within their country] first, and they'll generally try and return back several times before they move further afield. So the vast majority of people have not crossed an international border [and therefore don’t meet the international legal definition of a “refugee”]. One, there’s no legal tether for the term. And two, it often unfairly gives the impression that the government has not necessarily been protecting people in a way which they should. I've spoken to a number of government officials in the South Pacific, and they say, “Don't use the term refugees because we're doing our damnedest to try and protect people.” It's not that people have been forced out and they've been discriminated against or persecuted. That being said, it does provide the sound bite, which gives the attention which these people deserve. They are in need of some type of protection. But we are not saying it necessarily has to be the 1951 Convention [Relating to the Status of Refugees] or 1967 Protocol. So what we would be doing is to identify, or offer our good offices, to see what may fit. Generally, it's probably not international instruments, but you may have regional instruments. We'd be looking at whether it's the [Convention on the] Rights of the Child or the OHCHR [Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights] covenants or the Human Rights Committee. We are discussing legal definitions. But shouldn’t we get our act together, because this is coming one way or another? Being pragmatic, it's going to be extremely difficult to imagine a change in the international statute. So this is why we haven't been necessarily focusing on the impossible. We've been focusing on pragmatic protection and working with those entities that are the most likely to provide protection to people who are being forced to flee due to climate or disasters. And what we do find is that when you deal with regional institutions, such as the [African Union], and looking at the Kampala [Convention] or looking at the Cartagena [Declaration on Refugees] … they're actually much more pragmatic about trying to provide protection to people within their region — much more so than trying to get a change in the 1951 mandate. “From UNHCR’s side, I would prefer if people were not made more vulnerable, so they didn't have to move in the first place.” --— Andrew Harper, special adviser on climate action to the U.N. high commissioner for refugees Why not change the 1951 mandate, given the scale of the coming challenge? Because these people are not refugees per se under the 1951 Convention … or the 1967 Protocol. And given the challenges that the international community has now of just providing the necessary protection for people who do fit under that, there's just no room or bandwidth to extend or expand any mandates at the moment. But that's a question of political will, right? Yes. But it's also realpolitik as well. So our focus at the moment is trying to ensure that people who are in need of protection under the 1951 Convention are provided that. The interesting thing is that the vast majority — 90% — of the world's refugees actually do come from countries on the front lines of the climate emergency and which have the least capacity to adapt. When you talk about regional, pragmatic solutions, are you satisfied that the regional solutions are enough to offer that pragmatic protection around the world to everyone who's going to need it? No. This is why it's quite interesting to look at countries or regions who are leading the charge. And it's often those countries who have got the least capacity and who, despite the least capacity, have been the most generous — [in] Africa, South America, and the small-island developing states. You don't necessarily have the necessary safeguards within these regional agreements, and it differs obviously between them, because when these agreements were promulgated decades ago, the issues that are being confronted now weren’t there. So what we're doing is working with these regional entities to see “OK, how can we support you in making this much more fit for not only purpose, but also fit for the future?” Particularly in ECOWAS [the Economic Community of West African States] — for instance, freedom of movement for livelihoods for people within certain African areas — and in southern Africa as well. We're working much more with regional entities to see how we could support the provision of free movement where possible. We've seen the way Ukrainians have been welcomed in Poland. And we've seen the way those crossing the border from Belarus, from Afghanistan, have not been welcomed and instead been criminalized. When people from the Pacific arrive in Australia due to climate change, do you think they are going to be welcomed like Ukrainians or like Afghans? What I would always stress is, people should be assessed on their vulnerability, and then determining what instrument or regulation or mechanism provides that protection. This is where, from UNHCR’s side, I would prefer if people were not made more vulnerable, so they didn't have to move in the first place — hence why I'm talking about these preventive actions and being much more involved in early warning. There should be no surprises. No one can say that they did not think this was going to happen. We don't know the extent. But no one should be surprised.