Image by climate-exchange.org
What is Climate Change Induced Displacement?
The lifetime of the human species has witnessed five mass extinctions to date. Currently, we are going through the sixth mass extinction, which is known as the “Anthropocene Extinction”. In layman’s language, it means an extinction caused by human activity. According to the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there has been a spike in the average global temperature as high as 1.5°C. There has also been a high rise in the incidence of climate-related life-threatening disasters, with high casualties, all around the globe.
The World Risk Index 2020 highlights the precarious conditions emanating due to climate-related hazards which force millions of people to abandon their homes leading to loss of livelihood. In most severe cases, the victims of climate-induced forced displacement are rendered stateless leading to loss of their basic human rights.
Climate change affects human migration in three different ways. Firstly, people migrate due to the reduced agricultural potential caused by global warming. Secondly, the aggravated weather conditions cause mass displacement of communities living in extreme heat/cold. Thirdly, rising sea levels leading to the destruction of low-lying coastal regions add to the woes of the residents, forcing them to relocate permanently.
In this article, we will try to critically evaluate the position of International Humanitarian Law concerning the rights of these “climate refugees”, the States’ responsibility towards them, and the urgent need for bringing about reforms.
Where does International Humanitarian Law Stand on This Issue?
The 1951 Refugee convention defines a Refugee as -
“a person who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.”
This convention came into existence in the backdrop of World War II considering the outrageous number of people rendered stateless due to violence and armed conflict. However, the present scenario has changed drastically. According to the World Migration Report 2020 published by the International Organization for Migration, out of 28 million people displaced, sixty-one percent were provoked by climate-related disasters, and thirty-nine percent were caused by conflict and violence.
The graph given below highlights the growing trend of the increasing number of displacements due to climate-induced displacements, in contrast to conflict-induced displacements:
The magnitude of the data itself speaks about the narrow scope of the definition of refugees and its failure to include in its ambit a major number of victims of forced displacement, thus invalidating their hardships.
A characteristic of a good law is the one that evolves with the changing circumstances of the world and is capable of foreseeing any adversities that may crop up in the future. The intent of the refugee convention would be defeated if “climate refugees” are left at the margins. “Climate refugees” have a “well-founded fear” of losing their social, economic, and emotional ties, and cannot be said to face lesser problems than victims of racial, ethnic, religious, or political violence. Ecological violence cannot be singled out. We need to liberally interpret the definition of refugees thereby safeguarding the basic human rights of the invisible victims.
Since there is no agreement on the status of the people displaced due to climate adversities, it is quintessential to include them in the refugee convention in light of Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that-
“Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”
At present, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), is only able to cater to 10 million refugees, mostly political refugees, in contrast to the actual statistics being 20 times more.
Article 39 of the UN charter places a responsibility on the Security Council to endeavor to maintain international peace and security and use force, if need be, to combat any threats to the same.
Former UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, declared climate disasters as a “threat to international peace” under the above provision.
The Advisory Group on Climate Change and Human Mobility suggested a few measures to develop resilience and support the displaced communities and encouraged institutions to undertake steps to strengthen and protect the exposed and vulnerable communities to safeguard their right to reside in areas they have arrived and also a right to relocate and re-integrate in the areas they have been displaced from.
Additionally, even if the law is tweaked to include climate change-induced migrants to be given protection under the Refugee Convention, the question remains about the unsafe conditions of the victims of Climate Change, who refuse to leave their land.
Case Study: Understanding the Ground Reality Of Tuvalu
A small country in the west-central Pacific Ocean, comprising nine coral islands, Tuvalu is one of the most adversely affected countries due to climate change. This is to such a grave extent that two out of its nine islands are on the brink of sinking due to a rise in sea levels and coastal erosion.
The main source of livelihood for the fourth smallest country in the world is subsistence farming.
It is very evident that any change in the climatic conditions would have a dreadful impact on the food security and the life of the local inhabitants. Scientists have predicted that Tuvalu might become uninhabited in the next 50-100 years if steps are not undertaken to preserve the ecology and mitigate the harsh effects of climate change.
With a country having very meager resources and a bleak future for development, foreign aid is the only ray of hope for Tuvaluans. So the only way out for the Tuvaluans is to migrate to other countries. As a response to this, the New Zealand Government devised a policy in 2002 allowing 75 Tuvaluans per year to immigrate, but the sad reality remains that not more than 21 applications were approved for immigration in the following year. The Secretary of Justice, Communication and Foreign Affairs of Tuvalu, Dr. Tauisi Taupo, in his keynote, address brought to the fore the gravity of the situation-
"The breach of human rights and scale and severity of the humanitarian problem in the region requires more systematic attention be given to internally displaced persons in the Pacific".
In such cases, it becomes absolutely essential to have strong laws in place being implemented to safeguard the rights of such communities.
A dire need for broadening the scope of the definition of “refugees” so as to include “climate refugees” as well as effective implementation of the above discussed international humanitarian laws becomes all the more important in vulnerable regions like these, for the preservation and protection of the grossly affected communities and their lost livelihoods.
Creation of a relief fund
A possible solution to tackle the problems of people affected by climate change would be to recognize the issue on an international level and create a cross border relief fund, where countries contribute a minuscule percentage of their GDP which can be allocated towards:
Education, healthcare, and housing facilities for displaced communities;
Increasing awareness about climate hazards for effective preventive measures;
Reducing the immediate number of casualties during the climate adversities and their aftermath;
Undertaking academic and policy research, which would, in turn, contribute to reforming the laws;
However, a mere relief fund will not be effective enough to address this humungous issue of climate change, but would simply act as interim relief to the affected. Other hurdles associated with the allocation of these funds would be:
The actual number of victims of climate change is under-represented;
There have been predictions of a surge in climate disasters and victims of the same;
There are no reliable statistical tools to correctly identify the number of climate migrants;
Another major obstacle would be bringing different countries together on a consensus, unless a powerful economic alliance, like the G-5 or G-7, or other international organizations, like the UN, the World Bank, or the IMF itself, considers the magnitude of the issue at hand and proposes the formation of such a fund. Nevertheless, the political aspirations of individual countries would prove to be a hindrance tantamount to the other impediments discussed above.
Conclusion
It is the moral duty of the highly developed nations to mitigate the environmental crisis they created in the process of industrializing and globalizing themselves. The ‘first-world’ countries are obligated to come forward and contribute to this cause, as they are equipped with the resources to do so. The war against climate change is a long one. It is also the responsibility of humankind to stand guard on the victims and casualties of this war. Our first and foremost step should be to give legal recognition to “climate refugees” and this should be followed by the creation of a situation where there is no need to identify groups as “climate refugees”, create a world where states voluntarily come forward to shelter and protect these vulnerable communities, on the grounds of morality and ethics.
This article has been authored by Prakruthi Jain, a first year student of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad and Vanshika Gupta, a first year student of Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
Commentaires