In November 2020, Central America was hit with not one, but two, devastating hurricanes: Eta and Iota, which caused extensive damage across Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Panama. Following these disasters, The Franciscan Network for Migrants reported that approximately 34 people emigrate every hour from Guatemala and Honduras because of climate-related reasons. By 2050, the World Bank estimates that 1.4 million people in Mexico and Central America could migrate due to the consequences of climate change.
Eta and Iota were recorded as Category 4 hurricanes, and two of the most intense storms in the region’s history. The severe winds and devastating floods affected six million people, and caused the displacement of nearly 600,000 people in Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. Little government assistance was given, meaning that up to 250,000 people were still in emergency shelters in January 2021. Eta and Iota destroyed people’s houses but also significantly impacted employment in the region. For instance, in Honduras, the agricultural sector provided for one-third of the country’s employment but 80% of this employment was destroyed by the storms.
President Biden’s Executive Order
In light of the clear acceleration of climate migration, President Biden signed an executive order in February 2021 on “Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration”. Federal agencies were to submit reports on climate change and its impact on migration, including a discussion on the implications of climate-related migration on international security, and a plan for protection and resettlement of those displaced due to climate change.
While this first step is an important one, as of now climate migrants do not have clear international protection. Under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, refugees are recognized as individuals outside their home country because they face persecution based on race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. As such, this definition does not include climate refugees – they are therefore being denied international protection. Biden’s executive order is a promising initial step, but the administration needs to go further. The United States (U.S.) is responsible for the largest share of heat-trapping fossil fuel emissions. These fossil fuel emissions are a large contributing cause of climate migration, so it is now crucial for the administration to include climate migrants in its migration policies.
Kamala Harris Disregards Climate Migration
In June 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris held a press conference with Guatemalan President, Alejandro Giammattei. She discussed the President’s plan to moderate migration at the southern border, and designated corruption and human trafficking as the most pressing causes of migration to the U.S. from Central America. Her visit to Guatemala came a few months after Hurricanes Eta and Iota, and President Biden’s executive order. Yet, Harris failed to acknowledge climate change as the biggest cause for migration in 2020.
The administration plans to tackle migration by investing $4 billion to “build security and prosperity” in Central America. This investment will be used to stimulate the region’s economy and to tackle corruption. Once again, this plan could help in the short term, but it fails to acknowledge more pressing matters that need to be dealt with in the long term, such as the effect of increasing global temperatures, rising sea levels, or severe weather events displacing millions of people. It seems futile for the Biden administration to invest a large sum of money to stimulate the economies of these countries without acknowledging the fact that their populations are already migrating due to climate change. The U.S. continues to fund fossil fuel projects in the Global South – from which a majority of climate migrants will be fleeing in the next 30 years – when its priority should be protecting those who have already fled.
It is crucial that now, more than ever, governments and international institutions change their policies to include climate migrants. Today, we witness the acceleration of climate change and the mass migration that it causes. This is no longer a problem for the future – it has already begun. With the COP26 taking place this November, governments must go beyond solely discussing climate migration. It is time to act and provide adequate international protection to the victims of human-caused climate change.
Flora Bensadon holds a degree in History and International Development Degree from McGill University. Through her studies, her culturally diverse background and her travels, Flora has taken a profound interest in the problems of migration, specifically those of climate refugees.
In this interview, Dr. Donald Kingsbury dives into his research on energy transitions and carbon capitalism with Earth Refuge Correspondent Samantha Quadros. Dr. Kingsbury saw how his community, located in the rust belt of the United States, was being affected by economic restructuring and NAFTA, which inspired him to look more closely into the social, cultural and political structures that facilitate resource extraction in Latin America. During his time in Venezuela working with social movements, he came to realise how deep the extraction of resources, ie. oil, underwrites political economy and social identity. Adopting lithium and water extraction as an example, Dr. Kingsbury explores the nuanced intersections between climate change, displacement and inequalities in the extraction sphere.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this interview on our Earth Refuge Spotify:
Amid ongoing global debate around the definition, classification, and treatment of ‘climate migrants’, little attention is paid to what the people affected want.1 There have been multiple reports with varying estimates of the number of people expected to be displaced due to climate change by 2050. 2,3 The common link featured in these reports, however, is that the majority of climate displacement is and will be internal. People around the world will be forced to relocate within their own countries to escape the slow onset impacts of climate change. Even in the face of uninhabitable conditions, people are generally unwilling to leave their homes and relocate to foreign lands. So, in addition to arguing over cross-border arrangements, countries ought to come up with inward-looking strategies to deal with climate-induced displacement.
One needs to look no further than the island states in the Pacific as examples. These small island nations are more vulnerable to the acute effects of climate change than any other region in the world. 4 Sea-level rise, amongst other climatic changes, is threatening the existence of these geographically isolated and small landmasses. Kiribati, which rises no more than two meters above sea-level at its highest point, is one such island state. A 2016 United Nations report has shown that half of the households have already been affected by sea-level rise on one of Kiribati’s constituent islands.5 In neighboring Tuvalu, a UNU-EHS study found that 97% of surveyed households had been impacted by natural hazards between the period 2005 and 2015, yet only 53% of the people affected believed that they would be able to afford migration in the future.6
Despite the above, people of these nations have been unwilling to leave their homes, families, and lives. New Zealand’s Pacific Access Ballot, an annual lottery which selects people from five Pacific countries for New Zealand residency each year, has repeatedly had quotas go unfulfilled.7 The governments of these islands are trying to build adaptive capacity and employ migration as a means of improving the quality of life. The Kiribati government has implemented a program, entitled ‘Migration with Dignity’, which aims to create a skilled workforce that can find decent employment abroad. In 2014, the government also purchased 6,000 acres in Fiji to try and ensure food security whilst the environment changes.8 With support from the Green Climate Fund, the Tuvalu Coastal Adaptation Project will enhance resilience to coastal hazards on some of the nation’s islands.9
These measures might not be enough, but they are better than simply waiting for other countries to help. As Kiribati President, Taneti Maamau said: “We are telling the world that climate change impacts Kiribati, it’s really happening… But we are not telling people to leave.” 8 Rather than simply focusing on relocation – an option that does not support true self-determination for the affected people – international policy should provide adaptive capacity and long-term support to these island states. Many engineering options are available, such as coastal fortification, and land reclamation technologies. It is imperative, therefore, for developed countries to voluntarily adopt these measures before they are forced to do so.
Nikunj is a consultant currently working for a climate focused philanthropy. In the past, he has worked as a business strategy consultant across various sectors and has also volunteered for various non-profits. His undergraduate background is in Engineering from BITS Pilani. Interested in human-environmental ecosystems and how they adapt to climate change, Nikunj has been part of various climate adaptation projects.
Climate-induced violence is rising in poverty-ridden regions across the earth, and women are being left in the shadows of its wrath.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, compounding variations in seasonality have resulted in an increased incidence of extreme weather events, acute environmental degradation, and a widespread decline in quality of life. With more than 95% of farmed land using rain-fed cultivation, these regions are heavily reliant on stable rainfall cycles to maintain annual agricultural yields. 1 In recent years, increasing severity in climate variability has magnified the intensity and frequency of flooding and drought, exacerbating issues of food insecurity and resource scarcity throughout the land.
Changes in climate disproportionately impact the livelihoods of women because they possess limited social control and ownership of land, and often serve as primary caregivers within their communities. They also face increased exposure to gender-based violence during periods of economic and environmental upheaval, as well as harmful discrimination in the labour market, making it difficult to generate alternative sources of income as needed.
Economic pressures have intensified with environmental disaster in many rural areas of Sub-Saharan Africa, driving hunger-based fatalities. In Angola, girls as young as the age of 12 are resorting to prostitution in order to avoid starvation. 2 Crisis coverage from the Thomas Reuters Foundation reports that “a girl might get 500 kwanzas ($1) for sex – enough to buy about a kilo of beans or two kilos of maize – but could get as little as 200 kwanzas.. Sometimes they earn as little as 5 RGT ($0.31) for one sexual encounter, which is .. not even enough to buy a loaf.” 3 These conditions simultaneously place girls at higher risk of sexual exploitation and human trafficking due to the subversive nature of the sex market.
In the Amboseli basin of southern Kenya, rising temperatures have caused rivers and grasslands to dry up, causing women and young girls to walk extensive distances to collect essential resources including firewood and water. 4 A field report conducted by the UN Africa Renewal program affirms that these tasks are both physically and mentally demanding, as it may take more than 20 hours per week to locate clean water, examine existing well levels, and carry the water home. 5 This process leaves young girls vulnerable to sexual assault and rape, whilst worsening the spread of infectious disease and infirmity within already weakened communities.
Environmental extremes also aggravate the prevalence of child marriage in various rural regions. The intensity and duration of recent dry spells have left countless families in dire need of basic resources, causing many to offer their daughters as brides to help ease financial stress. In rural districts of Malawi, “girls are forced sometimes to marry younger than 14. Some are impregnated by schoolteachers, some are forced to get married so the in-laws will bring bread and butter to their homes, others marry because of peer pressure. Especially when harvests are not good, these problems arise as girls are used to generate income.” 6
An increase in child marriage has further driven the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), as this procedure is often carried out in preparation for marriage. Despite bans that have been implemented to prohibit both of these practices, researchers in northern Kenya have witnessed a climate-related surge in cases. 7 Throughout the 2020/2021 season, periods of prolonged drought were superseded by widespread locust outbreaks, resulting in deeper impoverishment and irreparable damage to livestock and crops. Despairing households succumbed to desperate measures, marrying off their daughters in exchange for dowries. 8
Girls who have undergone FGM are also perceived as more ‘valuable’ in comparison to those who remain uncut, inviting higher bride prices. Many families are able to circumvent the bans on these practices by shipping their daughters to neighboring countries where laws are less restrictive, and having them sent back prior to marriage. 9
In the absence of government intervention, rates of child marriage and FGM will continue to rise in synchronicity with environmental disaster and displacement. A severe lack of legal reinforcement and safeguarding services in regions across Sub-Saharan Africa is contributing to this endless cycle of gender-based violence. If vulnerable areas are left without stronger protection aid, this issue will only continue to worsen as levels of hunger and extreme weather events become more pervasive.
It is vital to draw deeper attention to the connections between climate change and violence against women and children in order to subvert the underground nature in which many of these practices are conducted. In addressing the impacts of climate-sensitive stresses, it is crucial to accentuate the various gender disparities inherent in a shifting ecological framework.
Rachel Aronoff recently graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a degree in English, and a specialization in Literature and the Environment. She is also certified in health and wellness coaching, personal training, and in the process of becoming a yoga instructor.
2. Batha, Emma. (2020) Cheap as bread, girls sell sex to survive hunger crisis in Africa. (2020). Thomas Reuters Foundation News. Retrieved May 24, 2021. https://news.trust.org/item/20200130182713-wao6m/
6. Climate change connections to HIV and AIDS. (2009). The Winds of Change: Climate change, poverty and the environment in Malawi, Oxfam International. Retrieved April 27, 2021. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/winds-change
You can buy his book Climate Changed: Refugee Border Stories and the Business of Miseryhere.
Daniel Briggs is an experienced ethnographer and social researcher who has studied some of the most disturbing and challenging social realities of the 21st century. He is currently a part-time Professor of Criminology at Universidad Europea, and an award-winning author in the field of Criminology.
In this conversation with Yumna, he discusses what ethnographic research entails, and what led him to research and write ‘Climate Changed: Refugee Border Stories and the Business of Misery’, an honest, humane account about the rapid downsizing of the world’s natural resources and the consequences this has for millions who are displaced from their home countries because of politically-instigated and economically-justified war and conflict. The book is centred upon interviews with 110 refugees who arrived into Europe from 2015-2018 and observations of refugee camps, border crossings, inner-city slums, social housing projects, NGO and related refugee associations. Briggs sets this against the geopolitical and commercial enterprise that dismantled refugees’ countries in the international chase for wilting quantities of the world’s natural resources.
“… i counted about [200 people] in [Basmane Square] … and there was a boy, probably 2 years of age at the time…playing with a [discarded] lifejacket as if it were a toy with which he didn’t know how to play… You realise that actually, these people want everything you or I want in life: a safe place for their family to live, a job, and to not be terrorised. And I just thought to myself, “My God, that kid has no idea what has happened in his home country, no idea why he is sitting on a dirty pavement playing with a lifejacket…it really brings it home”
“We demand that Global North countries recognise climate migrants as such.”
– Xiye Bastida, youth climate activist, US Leaders Summit on Climate 2021
As climate activists demand accountability from powerful corporate and government actors, the disproportionate impacts of climate change on vulnerable groups is the imprint on the flipside of the climate justice coin. With climate change and human rights issues growing inseparable, activists are focusing their attention on vulnerable groups like farmers, women and people in poverty, especially in the Global South. An issue that encompasses all these groups is climate-induced displacement and migration.
‘Climate migration’ refers to the movement of people forced to leave, or choosing to leave their homes predominantly due to climate change impacts[1]. Slow onset climate change impacts that drive climate migration include crop failure, water shortage, and rising sea levels. These can pressure people to flee their homes either by rendering their livelihoods untenable (e.g. for farmers) or making their homes uninhabitable (e.g. due to sea level rise)[2]. Other sudden climate-induced events like flash floods and typhoons also drive temporary displacement.
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimates that 80% of annual worldwide sudden onset natural disaster-induced displacement occurs in the Asia Pacific region, where income inequality, conflict, and regional connectivity are also major drivers of migration[3]. A 2010 report for the US National Intelligence Council predicted that climate change may induce cross-border movements of “Vietnamese and Indonesians to Malaysia, Cambodians and Laotians to Thailand, Burmese to Thailand and Malaysia, and Filipinos throughout the region”[4]. Within borders, coastal communities can feel the growing impacts of sea level rise, fish stock depletion and intensifying coastal storms, and may move inland away from the coasts. Nearby cities and urban areas with commerce, job opportunities, and family relations also serve as pull factors for displaced people[5].
LET’S TALK ABOUT IT
Climate migration remains on the fringe of discourse in the front-facing messages of some prominent climate movements, both in Southeast Asia and internationally. It is merely identified as one of many climate threats in cautionary messages about global warming, rather than a potential thrust of climate action. Mentions of climate migration or displacement usually take the form of standalone articles aiming to educate audiences about the urgency of climate change, such as those by Greenpeace US[6]. Extinction Rebellion US consolidates resources on climate change and migration on its website, directing users to news articles and research[7]. In news interviews, members of Klima Action Malaysia (KAMY), a Malaysia youth climate group, cite climate migration as one of the consequences of inaction[8].
Understandably, activists focus on solutions and opportunities that can lead to calls for action that their audiences can contribute to, and demands for governments and corporations. These are messages that feed into their positive imagination of a just transition and a climate-resilient future; but can climate migration be a part of that imagination?
The table below exhibits some examples of initiatives prioritised by these movements.
Organisation/initiative
Region/country
Main calls to action, demands or principles
Greenpeace International
International
‘Ways to Act’· Protect the Oceans· Tell your story· Stop plastic pollution· Join the movement for clean air· Prevent uncontrollable global fires· Raise your voice for climate justice
Sunrise Movement
United States
(Selected) principles· Stop climate change and create good-paying jobs in the process· People from all paths of life· Non-violence· Unite with other movements for change· Fight for the liberation of all people
Asia Climate Rally 2020
Asia
Demands· Climate action now· Defend our environmental defenders· Policies for the people and planet· Demand ambition, collaboration and accountability· Towards a just recovery
Youth Advocates for Climate Action Philippines (YACAP)
Philippines
‘Points of Unity’· Climate justice· Urgency of climate action· Defend our environmental defenders· Youth-led collective action· System change
Klima Action Malaysia (KAMY)
Malaysia
Demands· Inclusive and intersectional climate action· Serious political will· The right to climate information
Besides calling for accelerated reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as shown in bold, most of these groups share a common thread on inclusiveness and climate justice — making sure that climate action considers the voice and well-being of all people, including vulnerable groups. It is evident that the protection of climate migrants does fall under the umbrella of inclusive climate action that is being championed by many activists; but it is discussed mostly insofar as minimising climate change can help to prevent climate displacement. The fact is that climate displacement is already happening. How does the current plight of climate migrants fit into the demand for a just transition?
A THREAT TO SECURITY?
Governments have already recognised the alleged security threat presented by climate migration for some years. The security-based narrative for approaching climate migration argues that instability in neighbouring countries can drive illegal migration, which can in turn exacerbate drug and arms trafficking and resource-related conflict[9]. This perspective uses self-interest as a credible motivation for governments, so integrating human rights and justice into such a mindset is a challenge. Some have responded to this security concern by advocating for a military strategy focusing on stronger border protection, but climate security expert Professor Lorraine Elliott warns this will instead likely increase instability and uncertainty, while further punishing those already vulnerable to the climate crisis[10]. In a report on climate migration, peacebuilding organisation International Alert stresses that “migration in itself need not be a destabilising factor… it is not the process, but the context and the political response to immigration that shape the risks of violent conflict”[11]. For example, in a study on Indonesian-Malaysian labour migration, researchers found that conflict was triggered when it shifted from “being perceived as an economic issue with potential gains for both countries” to a “political and security issue in which the interests of sending and receiving states were “viewed as threats to one another”[12].
INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT
In terms of internal displacement, case studies from the Philippines, Cambodia, and Indonesia have found inadequate institutional and legal provisions for the human rights of those affected by natural disasters — especially women, people with disabilities, and the elderly. Researchers’ recommendations included disaster risk management policies with specific guidelines on the treatment of vulnerable groups in compliance with international standards, as well as comprehensive laws enacting the rights of internally displaced people (IDPs) in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. In particular, it was pointed out that such policy development would be an opportunity to overcome patriarchal beliefs and “harness the knowledge and experiences of women”[13].
There is, then, a precedent for climate activists to apply the “justice” in “climate justice”, to garner greater empathy and equity in government responses to climate migrants. Professor Elliott does not support “simply mainstreaming climate change into security discourses”, but rather for “bottom-up policymaking” that aims to strengthen adaptation, social resilience, disaster risk management, and sustainable development strategies[14]. This is echoed by a 2018 World Bank report on internal climate migration, which recommends that governments actively embed climate migration into development planning and seek to improve their understanding of the issue itself[15].
A POSITIVE OUTLOOK
Climate activists also favour a positive framing of climate action, not just as the prevention of disaster, but as an opportunity for better lives. A campaign by the Singapore Climate Rally called #TakeBack2050 encouraged its audience to imagine what life would be like in 2050 after overcoming the climate crisis. Participants raised their hopes for community gardens, renewable energy, and a more equitable society[16]. This uplifting narrative has already been embraced by many world leaders. At the US Leaders’ Climate Summit in April 2021, Vietnam’s President Nguyen Xuan Phuc emphasised that transitioning to a net zero economy would “bring about huge opportunities and benefits, including jobs, ensuring energy security and enhancing economic competitiveness and sustainability”.
Such positivity can also be applied to climate migration. Former director of the Australian Migration Research Centre, Professor Graeme Hugo, argued that climate migration can help build resilience and adaptive capacity in vulnerable areas. Migration can benefit host and source countries through remittances, knowledge transfer, increased foreign direct investment and diaspora involvement in development and most certainly, benefit migrants themselves and their families. Migration has also contributed to poverty reduction in Southeast Asia[17]. Therefore, viewing climate migration as a development opportunity rather than just a coping response can maximise the benefits for all parties.
Paying greater attention to climate migration as a tenet of climate justice is well-aligned with the existing principles and demands of climate activists. While Global North activists can argue for the moral responsibility of developed countries to help climate migrants in and from developing countries; Southeast Asian countries, which are mostly developing, call for different tactics. Framing the issue as a pragmatic development opportunity can help avoid excessive security tensions around climate migration in a region already rife with political turmoil, and instead encourage the mainstreaming of climate migration into national planning. Southeast Asian climate activists repeatedly point out that their countries are already experiencing some of the most intense impacts of climate change, which disproportionately affect vulnerable groups; and these include climate displacement and migration. It is an issue which presents both the urgency and potential for climate activists to call upon governments and the international community to recognise the opportunities that fair and well-planned climate migration and displacement policies in Southeast Asia can establish beyond humanitarian responses.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not represent the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
Jiahui Qiu is a research officer at the Climate Change in Southeast Asia Programme, ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore. She is a graduate in Environmental Studies from the National University of Singapore. Her interests include natural capital and ecosystem services, climate policy, and just transitions.
Research conducted by Earth Refuge Advisor Dr Chris O’Connell in Bolivia and Peru, and published by Anti-Slavery International, indicates that climate change is a big – but not the only – factor driving displacement and vulnerability. He summarises his core findings in this article.
Climate change is the primary cause of migration worldwide. It presents an existential threat that is undermining traditional livelihoods, worsening the vulnerability of already marginalised groups and communities, and driving displacement. According to the World Bank, if sufficient action is not taken, over 140 million people could be displaced by 2050. Indeed, there is growing evidence that this is already occurring, with research linking northward migration from Central America to climate variability.
Under the right circumstances, migration represents an important form of climate adaptation, helping to mitigate economic precariousness and escape hazardous conditions. However, as highlighted in my report – ‘From a Vicious to a Virtuous Circle’ – if communities are not adequately listened to and supported, this situation can expose migrants to the risk of exploitation, including trafficking, debt bondage and forced labour.
My research in Bolivia and Peru reveals that climate change is not the only factor that is driving displacement and vulnerability, however. Until recently, the issue of environmentally destructive activities – such as mining and export-oriented agriculture – was predominantly treated as a ‘pull factor’ for migration by creating a demand for cheap labour. But as research participants made clear, in many places it is also a significant ‘push factor’ by making other economic activities – and even life – unviable in certain places.
Around 90% of the poorest people depend directly on natural resources, while 75% make a living from small-scale farming or fishing. These are more than just economic activities for many communities: they are deeply intertwined with their culture and identity, and often rely on ancestral knowledge passed down through generations. This same knowledge is increasingly recognised as crucial to preserving and restoring biodiversity, and for successful adaptation to the climate crisis.
Nevertheless, vital lifelines for communities and indigenous peoples are being shut down or restricted due to the expansion of extractive activities. Not only do these activities contaminate the air, soil and water, they are also associated with ‘staggering’ rates of deforestation and heavy water usage at a time when climate change is driving water scarcity.
Over and over, research participants described the negative environmental and human impacts of pesticides from industrialised agriculture, toxic oil spills, and pollution from mining residue that contains chemicals and heavy metals. This situation is also endangering the food security of these communities. In the words of an indigenous broadcaster I interviewed in the Peruvian Amazon,
“it is due to pollution, but also to the changes that are happening to the climate – both things are affecting us. The rivers used to be full of fish, but not now; we are eating our last fish…”
For many families and communities, this combination can represent the ‘last straw’ in pushing them to migrate. The cruel irony is that in countries where economic activity relies on natural resource extraction, the only choice for many citizens is to accept offers to work in these same environmentally destructive sectors. This work often consists of highly exploitative and degrading conditions, including instances of debt bondage and forced labour, which causes further human degradation and contributes to further greenhouse gas emissions. This is the vicious circle from which many struggle to escape.
The distinction between environmental impacts linked to climate change and those arising from man-made environmental harm is an important one. While the roots of both lie in the history of unequal development, their immediate drivers and control levers differ. Mitigating climate change is a long-term global challenge, but action to reduce environmental destruction should, in theory, be more straightforward.
Yet, rather than regulating these activities, governments in many countries are actively facilitating them via state policy, including tax breaks, subsidies, and infrastructure projects, while often turning a blind eye to human rights abuses against land- and environmental-rights defenders. This situation must be tackled as a matter of urgency, and must also involve the meaningful participation of affected groups and communities.
Responsibility for this scenario extends beyond national governments to include transnational corporations, consumer demand, and the architecture of global trade and investment – all of which restrict the ‘space’ for governments and suppliers to improve labour and environmental standards. Measures such as mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence legislation and a ‘Just Transition’ that respects workers’ rights are essential steps to taking a holistic approach to climate resilience.
All of this points to the need to not only improve legal safeguards for those who are displaced, but also to actively prevent or mitigate such vulnerability. Whether moving or staying, the fundamental rights of those most affected by climate and environmental breakdown must be upheld. Many of the tools required to tackle this situation already exist in the form of International Labour Organisation conventions, and UN human rights treaties, declarations, and principles such as the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights among others. What is needed now is corresponding action to translate these commitments into tangible change.
A public interest lawyer and entrepreneur who has worked in DC and throughout Asia, Rebecca Ballard founded @MavenWomen to meet an unmet market need for additional socially conscious options for professional women’s attire, and went on to found the recently launched @The.Fashion.Connection (FTS) to “move the needle” in the global garment industry through product creation and partnership, consumer education, and advocacy. This year, FTS is highlighting the links between the impacts of fast fashion and human trafficking. During this interview, she discusses the vulnerability of the – largely female – fast fashion workforce, the modern day slavery landscape, and the overlaps between fast fashion, human trafficking, and climate justice.
In this interview, Dr Anna Oltman, researcher and lecturer at University College London, talks about human rights and the politics of refugees and asylum with Nikoleta Vasileva. She explains the key terms relating to migration and some common misconceptions in the Global North and society as a whole. She sheds light on the policy of deterrence that States adopt to discourage migration and how it affects refugees. Finally, Dr Oltman touches upon the role of gender and sexual orientation in asylum applications, as well as on some key takeaways from her research to benefit activists and displaced people alike.
Dr Oltman is a lecturer and researcher in international human rights with a focus on the politics of refugees and asylum. She has worked with several refugee resettlement agencies and is a committed advocate for displaced people and migrants regardless of immigration status. Currently, she teaches two modules on the politics of human rights at University College London and her research focuses on the institutional and political sources of compliance with international human rights agreements.
Take Aways
85% of refugees* worldwide are hosted in developing countries. 73% of refugees* worldwide are hosted in neighbouring countries.
*This includes refugees and Venezuelans displaced abroad
39% of refugees are hosted in only five countries:
Turkey – 3.6 million Colombia – 1.8 million Pakistan – 1.4 million Uganda – 1.4 million Germany – 1.1 million
Relative to their national populations, Lebanon hosted the largest number of refugees (1 in 7).
Only a fraction of the millions displaced found a solution during 2010-2019, “A Decade of Displacement”
40% of the forcibly displaced persons were children: An estimated 30 – 34 million of the 79.5 million forcibly displaced persons were children below 18 years of age.
“The worst victims of environmental harm tend also to be those with the least political clout, such as members of racial and ethnic minorities, the poor, or those who are geographically isolated from the locus of political power within their country”
– Caroline Dommen
The global scale at which modern multinational corporations (MNCs) operate inevitability results in widespread environmental harm.[1] This article contends that international law must be developed to hold MNCs accountable for transboundary environmental harm as well as to offer protection to those upended by such harm.
Developing the international system
Poorly regulated and substandard MNC activities have resulted in numerous accidents such as water contamination, deforestation, soil erosion, and the exploitation of natural resources by oil, mining, and forestry companies.[2] Domestic recourse is the preferred avenue for preventing environmental abuses by MNCs.[3]This, however, is a largely ineffective as it presents an orthodox view of law wherein states are the principle actors in the global order and state sovereignty is paramount.[4] This disregards the fact that MNC operations in the host country have the potential to affect that state’s environment as well as that of other countries, as was the case in Ecuador and Peru with regards to MNC water contamination.[5] Additionally, this ignores the very real influence MNCs have on governments, especially developing states and the threat this presents to domestic enforcement.[6]For example, the Nigerian state relies on oil MNCs as its major source of revenue, granting these corporations enormous influence and control.[7]
The current international legal order is, however, not well equipped to address transboundary environmental harms.[8]One solution is the development of international jurisprudence to recognise a universal substantive environmental right, under which companies can be held accountable.[9]This long-term approach should be supplemented by short term enforcement by economic superpowers such as the United States, where many MNCs are incorporated.[10]
The dual potency of a substantive environmental right
Some scholars and legal experts find universal acceptance of substantive environmental rights at the national, regional, and international levels.[11]However, most of these instruments that address environmental protection and economic development are criticised as being non-binding, soft- law agreements, many of which are worded so broadly that they provide little or no guidance to states or MNCs.[12]The current international instruments do not sufficiently combine environmental protection and human rights or establish a substantive environmental right.
If drafted, or phrased, and implemented correctly, the two main goals of a universal substantive environmental right should be: i) to prevent environmental harm; and ii) to protect those forced to leave their home region due to sudden or long-term changes to their local environment, that is environmental migrants, post-harm.
Transboundary environmental degradation, including that perpetrated by MNCs, can impact millions at a time and the current international legal architecture does not offer any substantive protection for those displaced by this degradation.
The body of international human rights law does not effectively protect against displacement and migration which result from environmental degradation because it has not evolved to keep pace with the rapid advance of economic globalisation and the privatisation of resources.[13]The current lack of a universal provision means that at best, a substantive environmental right preventing harm and protecting migrants is to be derived from other existing rights, significantly weakening the position of those advocating for the protection of climate migrants and for the regulation of MNC activity.
It is therefore paramount that a universal substantive environmental right is developed to prevent of situations of environmental change as such as to promote reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the prohibition of transboundary damage as well as to mitigate the consequences of such harm, including especially the equal protection of all environmental migrants.
Human Rights Pulse core team member and Earth Refuge Archivist Vaughn is passionate about sustainability and human rights, his scholarship and writing focuses on international law, climate change and transitional justice.
[3] E. Prudence Taylor ‘From environmental to ecological human right: A new dynamic in international law?’ (1990) 10 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 309 350.
[4] A Shinsato ‘Increasing the accountability of transnational corporations for environmental harms: The petroleum industry in Nigeria’ (2005) 4 Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 194.
[11] U.N. ECOSOC, Comm. on Human Rights, Sub-Comm. on Prevention of Discrimination and Prot. of Minorities, Review of Further Developments in Fields with which the Sub-Commission Has Been Concerned, Human Rights and the Environment: Final Report, ¶ 240, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/9 (July 6, 1994).
[12] Joshua P. Eaton, The Nigerian Tragedy, Environmental Regulation of Transnational Corporations, and the Human Right to a Healthy Environment, 15 B.U. INT’L L.J. 261, 297 (1997).
[13] Dinah Shelton, Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment, 28 STAN. J.INT’L L. 103, 123 (1991).
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
