The climate crisis permeates every aspect of our lives, threatening our livelihoods and societies. Climate migration, or climate-induced migration, is emerging as a deeply concerning pattern of movement, occurring when people voluntarily or forcibly migrate on the grounds of climate change, leading people to internal displacement within borders and increasing cross-border migration. International refugee law stipulates climate migrants as entities not entitled to the same legal protections as refugees. Climate migrants are stuck in a legal loophole where their fundamental rights are unprotected and left vulnerable by an international refugee regime reluctant to expand refugeehood to integrate climate migrants.
Climate change as a migration pattern is increasingly becoming a reality as millions flee devastated homes in search of protection and better lives. Though the international community may sympathize, no legal solutions or pathways exist for climate migrants to be protected under the same policies as refugees. First, there is little consensus on the legal definition of climate migration, derailing efforts to protect those affected. Without a common working definition, over twenty labels and corresponding definitions have been thrown around, harming consistency in formulating a unified policy response. Second, the 1951 Refugee Convention defines refugees as those fleeing violence and persecution, leaving climate migrants unprotected under international law and, consequently, amplifying their vulnerability to further exclusion and exploitation. Recent agreements like the Global Compact for Migration (GCM), signed in 2018, recognize climate change as a push factor of migration and outline how governments should respond to these situations. However, the GCM does not specify legal protections or compel states to extend protection for climate migrants, given its non-binding nature.
Recognizing climate migrants as refugees and giving them the same legal protections current refugees are entitled to would go a long way to prevent climate migrants from being stuck in legal limbo. Some have argued for granting legal protections for climate migrants by recognizing environmental degradation as a form of persecution. However, others have expressed wariness about expanding the scope of ‘refugees’ to incorporate climate migrants into the global international refugee regime for two valid reasons.
Extending legal protections for climate migrants is challenging as there is a disagreement on classifying climate migrants, in addition to the complication of establishing climate change as an isolated causal factor of migration. While extreme, sudden-onset weather events (e.g., droughts, floods, hurricanes, and wildfires) are identifiable disasters that can be isolated into variables for causing migration, establishing causality between slower-moving climate challenges (e.g., rising sea levels, growing desertification, and intensifying water stress) and migration is much more difficult. Often, push factors for migration are a combination of economic, social, and political factors borne out of global warming. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, rising sea levels are causing soil salinization, damaging land, agricultural productivity, and food security, further straining social welfare, and reducing state legitimacy. Political tensions and violence may later erupt, forcing people to leave and seek asylum. A slow-onset disaster like soil salinization may be the initial underlying cause but soon assumes the role of a contributing factor. As such, isolating climate change as the sole push factor for migration is far from straightforward, as climate migration is multicausal and heterogeneous. Categorizing a migrant as a climate refugee implies climate change is the only motive when, in fact, many leave after conducting a multi-factor analysis, considering economic, social, political, and environmental circumstances. As labels carry legal weight, it is no surprise legal reforms to integrate climate migrants into the international refugee regime are making little progress. Until these legal obscurities are resolved, it is hard to see multicausal climate migrants being labeled refugees and enjoying the same legal protections. In the meantime, climate migrants, especially those internally displaced, will only be further excluded by the legal loophole.
The current political climate and the erosion of refugee protections in recent years are expected to marginalize climate migrants from legal recognition further. The rise of right-wing, conservative politics has made reaching a global consensus on the legal status of climate migrants more unlikely. The domination of nationalist, xenophobic narratives in Western politics and the adoption of policies and practices that criminalize refugees and tighten borders is expected to continue. For example, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak politically exploit the plight of refugees through their anti-immigration policies in Europe. Hostility against refugees is rising and is only expected to intensify as more migrants attempt to cross borders. Unsurprisingly, this trend is not unique to Europe. Given this political climate, negotiations for climate migrants – whether that be reopening the 1951 Refugee Convention or exploring new options, are unlikely outcomes in the foreseeable future, especially after the number of forcibly displaced people (i.e., refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced people) reached a grim milestone of 100 million in 2022. Advocates for climate migrants are wary of reopening the 1951 Refugee Convention for negotiation, as existing concessions made for refugees may be withdrawn. The continuing European refugee crisis that escalated in the mid-2010s strained the asylum system. With the recent influx of Ukrainian refugees to Europe, a scenario in which states act in solidarity to bear responsibility for climate migrants is far-fetched.
The road to the legal protection of climate migrants will not be easy, but it is not only doom and gloom. A landmark UN ruling in 2020 recognized that climate migrants cannot be returned if the climate crisis violates their right to life. The judgment by the UN Human Rights Committee is the first decision on a complaint by an individual (a Kiribati national) seeking refugee status on the grounds of climate change (in his case, the rise of sea levels and increased salinity). By emphasizing the legal responsibilities of states in protecting people fleeing from the climate crisis, the historic ruling sets precedents and standards to facilitate the success of future global warming-related asylum claims. With the reopening of the 1951 Refugee Convention out of consideration, no matter how daunting it may be, it is imperative to design and adopt a comprehensive, binding legal framework that specifies legal protections for climate migrants in the spirit of the GCM. Although the plight of climate migrants received little attention in COP27, many experts remain hopeful for greater discussion in COP28.
Climate change knows no borders, and climate-induced migration will increase exponentially in the coming decades, affecting developing and developed countries alike. The Global South has and continues to bear the burden of climate change. In 2020, hurricanes devastated livelihoods in Central America, pushing people from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador across the border into Mexico toward the U.S. Further, heat waves and desertification forced Sahelian communities to flee in the face of insecurity and conflict risks, echoing the 150 million people in the Horn of Africa that faced extreme hunger from droughts in 2022, displacing millions. The 2022 floods in Pakistan left more than 20 million dependent on humanitarian aid, pushing 8 million into displacement. Even more, Tuvalu in the Pacific Islands is on the brink of being erased from the map by rising sea levels. Under a false sense of insulation and security, it is easy to brush off concerns over climate change and climate-induced migration as a problem of others or exclusive to those in developing countries. In the not-so-distant future, these issues will knock on our doors – maybe they already have. In the U.S., hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts have displaced 3 million in 2022 alone, unable to return home. The World Bank estimates climate change to force 216 million people into internal displacement by 2050, and the Australian think tank IEP predicted global warming to displace at least 1.2 billion people by the end of the half-century.
In the face of imminent challenges posed by climate migration, debating the legality of climate refugees is necessary but not the limit of discussions. Time is running out, and there needs to be a global initiative centered around implementing policies and practices that share instead of passing responsibility. Instead of waiting for climate migration to go out of hand, why not prepare and devise prevention and mitigation measures ahead of time?
Edited by Kimberly Nicholson
Ryan Kim is in his third and final year at McGill University, currently pursuing a B.A. in Political Science and International Development. He is a staff writer at Catalyst. He is particularly interested in human rights, refugees, and migration.