The variety of conflicts and natural disasters becoming normalized today have created a need for common terminology for the communities displaced by them. As conversations on global migration increasingly consider impacts of climate change, the term “climate refugees” has gained traction among those trying to distinguish climate-induced forced migration from voluntary or economic migration. However, the use of this term can be problematic and feeds confusion over how to talk about forced migration, despite a lack of consensus on what alternative terminology can be used instead. As such, the use of “climate refugees,” and whether the “refugees vs. economic migrants” dichotomy remains adequate for today’s dialogue on mass population displacement, warrants reflection.
In the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations formalized a definition of the word refugee in the 1951 Refugee Convention and additional 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees[1] to identify cases where individuals were forced to flee home under threat to their safety and well-being due to some intrinsic characteristic of their identity or beliefs. This sought to differentiate forced migration from voluntary motivations for migration (marriage, education, employment opportunities, etc.).
The “refugees versus economic migrants” dichotomy has dominated international conversation on migration ever since. Two UN agencies – the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and International Organization for Migration (IOM) – hold constant debate over whose mandate applies in different global contexts of mass population movement, with an eye to their own continued funding and relevance.
Under the ’51 refugee definition, individuals qualify for refugee status if they:
- had to flee their country of origin because their government would not or could not protect them;
- crossed international borders to seek safety in another country;
- have a well-founded fear of returning home; and
- owe their fear to a risk of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion (actual or presumed[2]), or membership in a particular social group.
Even in countries such as India that never adopted this definition, internal proposals for refugee status determination[3] often look to the ’51 definition as a template, a standard legal baseline for addressing populations forced to flee their home countries.[4]
Climate-related population displacement has been on-going, but has received more attention in the last decade. The term may meet some elements of the traditional refugee definition, but not all. Both rapid and slow onset climate events may force individuals to flee for their survival, and they may not be able to return without risking their safety and well-being. Often, their governments cannot ensure their protection, even if they would like to.[5]
However, climate-related displacement does not result from persecution under one of the protected categories, which are intended to indicate a greater need for international protection and heightened obligation by international actors to provide aid. Usually, climate change is only one of several compounding factors that necessitate fleeing for survival. Other compounding factors may include poverty, lack of infrastructure or livelihoods, marginalization, and political instability.[6] Plus, most climate-based displacement does not take place across international borders.[7]
So even as an important compounding factor in global dynamics of forced migration, climate displacement does not fit within the existing refugee definition. Yet, those using the term climate refugees may simply be referring to the concept of being forced to flee for your own safety, as opposed to voluntarily migration, leading many to ask whether the 70-year-old definition of refugee merits revision.
Limited examples show some willingness to expand upon the refugee definition. Mexico allows gender as a basis for persecution.[8] The 2012 Kampala Convention in the African Union[9] [10] and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration[11] in Latin America are regional instruments that expand the definition. Cartagena allows consideration of generalized violence and cumulative impact of various factors that force people to flee, including widespread violence, human rights violations, or events disturbing public order. This definition has recently been applied by some countries to the Venezuelan crisis.
Nevertheless, global powers are generally hesitant to revise the refugee definition, particularly Western democracies that have codified it under their domestic laws along with human rights treaties that apply to the treatment of refugees and migrants at their borders.[12] With refugee and migrant flows continuing up to the borders of Western democracies, it has become a major issue in domestic politics of many countries, often re-framed as a concern about preservation and observation of local culture and values. Consequently, many such countries are increasingly looking for ways around applying refugee and migrant protection laws, including stopping potential refugees from reaching their borders and offering sometimes insubstantial explanations for why individual cases do not qualify for refugee status.
These intentions have become more transparent over time. In her recent letter to Rishi Sunak regarding the end of her tenure as British Home Secretary, Suella Braverman lambasted the British Prime Minister for failing to “Include specific “notwithstanding clauses” into new legislation to stop the boats (crossing the English Channel), i.e. exclude the operation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Human Rights Act (HRA) and other international law…”[13] Refugee advocates observing the current political winds fear that if the ’51 definition comes up for debate now, it will be further narrowed by nations seeking to close their borders, with vulnerable individuals losing further international protections.
International case law has also not supported applying the term refugee to climate-related displacement.[14] In 2014, New Zealand considered the case of a man from Kiribati applying for refugee status on the grounds that climate change has caused land disputes and difficulty accessing safe drinking water. The court determined that all elements of the refugee definition had not been met, although New Zealand did approve a petition later that year for residency (not refugee status) based on climate impacts in another country.[15] [16]
Rather than revising their refugee status determination definition, many countries opt to create alternative schemes for those forced to flee for climate-related reasons, such as humanitarian visas. alternative visas[17], or Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in the US.[18] [19] Individuals within displaced communities may prefer the alternatives even if they meet the formal refugee definition because alternative visa processing times can be much faster. Longer processes mean deferring life – setting up business, gaining employment, finding a home, enrolling children in school, ability to travel, etc. In some contexts, the term “refugee” itself has also become so politically poisoned that individuals who do meet the refugee definition may not want to identify as refugees.[20]
While India itself is not a signatory to the ’51 Convention or ’67 Protocol, the government does on occasions apply protection for forcibly displaced populations in a similar manner to humanitarian visa schemes elsewhere, establishing residency individually for different displaced populations.[21]
Still, some believe that the term “climate refugee” has utility. For example, climate change and environmental reporters in Assam say they have tried to avoid using “climate refugee” in their pieces but editors want it proactively added in. The reason: the hope that using the term at the local level will draw the attention of more visible forced displacement actors like UNHCR, and thus more resources to overburdened local responders. Using the term in these cases aims to draw the attention and assistance to underserved communities easily forgotten by expert panels in high-level climate forums like the COP28, regardless of whether the term is accurate.
In the end, it is still the aid sector that bears a responsibility to listen to how communities most affected by the impacts of climate change, choose to talk about climate risks that threaten their homes, livelihoods, and general safety. The COPs are distant from those realities, even while continuing the debate on how to talk about climate-related forced migration.
Purvi Patel is International Affairs Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations.
This article was exclusively written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. You can read more exclusive content here.
Support our work here.
For permission to republish, please contact outreach@gatewayhouse.in.
©Copyright 2023 Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. All rights reserved. Any unauthorised copying or reproduction is strictly prohibited.
[1] Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, UNHCR, https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees
[2] EUAA Practical Guide on Political Opinion, European Union Agency for Asylum, December 2022, Available at- https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2022-12/Practical-Guide-Political-Opinion.pdf
[3] DR. SHASHI THAROOR, M.P., THE ASYLUM BILL, 2021, http://164.100.47.4/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/Asintroduced/45%20of%202021%20As%20(PDF).pdf
[4] Displacement across international borders is an essential element of the refugee definition, as those who remain within their country of residence are referred to as internally displaced people (IDPs). The majority of individuals displaced both by conflict and by climate relocate to elsewhere in the same country. Sturridge, C. and Holloway, K. ‘Climate change, conflict and displacement: five key misconceptions’. HPG briefing note. London: ODI 2022. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/hpg-briefing-note-climate-change-conflict-and-displacement-five-key-misconceptions-september-2022
[5] In the most extreme cases of island nations slowly disappearing into the ocean, it even begs the question: if your nation’s territory disappears and you must flee to another country, would you still be a refugee, even if the definition applied to climate change? Or are you simply stateless?
[6] Sturridge, C. and Holloway, K. ‘Climate change, conflict and displacement: five key misconceptions’. HPG briefing note. London: ODI 2022. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/hpg-briefing-note-climate-change-conflict-and-displacement-five-key-misconceptions-september-2022
[7] “Global Trends – Forced Displacement in 2022.” UNHCR, June 14, 2023. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2022
[8] “Mexico: The Global Compact on Refugees: UNHCR.” The Global Compact on Refugees | UNHCR. Accessed November 30, 2023. https://globalcompactrefugees.org/gcr-action/countries/mexico
[9] Kampala Convention – African Union. Accessed November 30, 2023. https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/36846-treaty-kampala_convention.pdf
[10] The list of signatories for the Kampala Convention available at- https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/36846-sl-AFRICAN%20UNION%20CONVENTION%20FOR%20THE%20PROTECTION%20AND%20ASSISTANCE%20OF%20INTERNALLY%20DISPLACED%20PERSONS%20IN%20AFRICA%20%28KAMPALA%20CONVENTION%29.pdf
[11] Declaración de Cartagena Sobre Refugiados, 22 November 1984. Accessed 7 December 2023. https://www.acnur.org/fileadmin/Documentos/BDL/2001/0008.pdf
[12] Luisa Feline Freier, Eleni Karageorgiou and Kate Ogg, “Challenging the legality of externalisation in Oceania, Europe and South America: an impossible task?” Forced Migration Review, Issue 68, Nov 2021, available at: https://www.fmreview.org/sites/fmr/files/FMRdownloads/en/externalisation/magazine.pdf
[13] Full text of Suella Braverman’s letter can be found at: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-67416146
[14] Overview: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/worlds-first-climate-change-refugees-were-just-granted-residency-new-zealand-180952279/
[15] “Tuvalu Climate Change Family Win NZ Residency Appeal.” NZ Herald, September 15, 2020. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/tuvalu-climate-change-family-win-nz-residency-appeal/JMA2SVA2HUB67XTUEXPJXN5DOA/?c_id=1&objectid=11303331
[16] “Un Landmark Case for People Displaced by Climate Change.” Amnesty International, August 13, 2021. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/01/un-landmark-case-for-people-displaced-by-climate-change/
[17] One example is the MERCOSUR visa in Latin America that has been used is recent humanitarian crises.
[18] “Temporary Protected Status.” USCIS, October 10, 2023. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status#:~:text=TPS%20is%20a%20temporary%20benefit,based%20on%20an%20immigrant%20petition
[19] As of May 2023, the following 16 countries were designated for TPS and the designation had not expired: Afghanistan (Valid through November 20, 2023), Burma (Valid through May 25, 2024), Cameroon (Valid through December 7, 2023), El Salvador (Extended until March 9, 2025), Ethiopia (Valid through June 12, 2024), Haiti (Extended through August 3, 2024), Honduras (Extended until July 5, 2025), Nepal (Extended until June 24, 2025), Nicaragua (Extended until July 5, 2025), Somalia (Extended until September 17, 2024), South Sudan (Extended until May 3, 2025), Sudan (Extended until April 19, 2025), Syria (Extended until March 31, 2024), Ukraine (Extended until April 19, 2025), Venezuela (Extended until March 10, 2024), Yemen (Extended until September 3, 2024).
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/temporary-protected-status-overview
[20] When working with Venezuelans in Peru, I met many individuals who perceived services for refugees as services for poor communities that did not want to start businesses or work themselves into better economic circumstances, in part due to the anti-socialist sentiments among the communities that had left Venezuela.
[21] India has provided refuge on separate occasions to Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, Tibetans, Afghans, and Chin and Rohingya from Myanmar. See Daniel P. Sullivan and Priyali Sur, ‘Shadow of Refuge: Rohingya Refugees in India,’ Refugees International, May 18, 2023, https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports-briefs/shadow-of-refuge-rohingya-refugees-in-india/.