Can Climate Migrants Claim Refugee Status Under the 1951 UN Convention?
A Kiribatian teen swims in the flooded area of Aberao village. Kiribati is among one of the countries most affected sea level rise. (Vlad Sokhin/UNICEF)
Climate migrants are a subset of environmental migrants who are displaced by climate change, usually due to a rise in sea-level, extreme weather events, water scarcity or drought. The current definition of refugee as defined by the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, referred to the Convention in the rest article, does not address climate migrants, and as it stands, cannot include them for the most part. This will become a significant problem as climate migrants become greater in number with increased climate change. Nevertheless, there is a particular circumstance in which climate migrants may claim refugee status under the Convention. This is important as both its current and future interpretations of the definition of refugee will have profound implications for the obligations of the international community to climate migrants.
The Convention currently defines refugee as, “a person who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail him—or herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.” The main element to take note of is the notion of “persecution,” which is defined as, “unfair or cruel treatment over a long period of time because of race, religion, or political beliefs.” This definition demonstrates that in order to qualify for refugee status under the Convention, one must be ill-treated by another person, group or entity wherein intent may be inherently ascribed.
Climate migrants are often displaced within their national borders as internally displaced people, but at times, they may cross borders if needed. They are often of a lower socio-economic status, and many are people whose livelihood relies on the land, such as farmers and fishermen. A rise in sea-level, extreme weather events, and droughts cannot solely be caused by one group within one nation. Climate change is a global phenomenon that is caused by an aggregate of global activities. Hence, it is not possible to pinpoint a persecutor who had caused a crisis on the lands on which climate migrants resided. Without a persecutor, it is not possible for climate migrants to fit within the current definition of refugee under the Convention. In refugee cases, persecutors intentionally target social groups, which again cannot apply in the case of climate migrants. This is because their crisis is an unintended, albeit negligent, consequence of global activity caused by a plethora of national and international actors. Additionally, under the current definition, refugees may return to their lands if they so choose, once the circumstances in which they were persecuted cease to exist. This cannot be the case with migrant refugees as the land undergoes extreme and permanent changes; for instance, underwater submersion.
Nonetheless, there is a particular situation in which climate migrants may fit within the current definition of refugee which may allow them to claim refugee status under the Convention. As countries are faced with the crisis of climate change, vulnerable groups will be internally displaced. As many of them move into safer but already occupied lands and are unable to make a living, it will impact other parts of the country and the ways in which the government manages the situation. These events can cause a political rift in society and pit various groups against one another. Politicians may instigate hate among groups for personal gain. This will ultimately result in civil unrest, hate crimes, and fear of the “other.” Such attitudes may trickle up and affect the way that the government addresses the plight of those who are displaced due to climate change. It may choose to partake in the prejudice and implement discriminatory policies by moving displaced people onto lands no one wishes to live on—further exacerbating their plight and thrusting them into the throes of a downward cyclical situation. Seeing that the displaced are usually less well-off and hold less power, they are likely to be vulnerable to unfair situational outcomes with little legal and social recourse. Ultimately, discriminatory action on the part of the government and elite groups may fulfil grounds for climate migrants to claim refugee status under the Convention. Furthermore, climate migrants already meet the current requirement of being “outside their country or habitual residence”. This is a rare circumstance where climate migrants may claim refugee status under the current definition.
Climate migrants will become more prevalent as the years go by. As the Convention’s definition of refugee currently stands, climate migrants do not meet the grounds on which to claim refugee status as there is no persecutor. However, in the case of potential societal divide that may result from climate change, climate migrants will likely face persecution; this should be sufficient grounds on which to claim refugee status. International actors need to heed attention to the looming and inevitable crisis of an overwhelming number of climate migrants and refugees in order to be prepared to deliver justice to those who need it most. An ideal place to start would be the revision and expansion of the Convention’s definition of refugee as this will have broad and profound implications for nations and the lives of millions.
Dinoba Kirupa is a Master of Public Policy and Global Affairs student at the University of British Columbia. After earning a degree in Political Science from the University of Toronto, she immersed herself in the Canadian political landscape. Her passion for addressing gender and racial inequity has influenced much of her community work, and has most recently brought her to work in the Education Section at UNICEF’s Regional Office of South Asia in Nepal.