The U.S. government is considering a plan to offer protection to people coming to the U.S. who have been displaced by drought, rising seas, or other consequences of climate change. Currently, no country offers any legal protections to people who have specifically been displaced due to the effects of climate change.
President Biden’s administration is studying this idea – the president issued an executive order in February ordering national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, to discuss with federal agencies how such protection could be created. A report on these discussions is due to be released in August. If the U.S. did define a climate refugee, it could mark a major shift in global refugee policies.
Last week, mayors across the U.S. signed a letter to President Biden requesting that the study “actively engage U.S. mayors and municipalities” throughout its progression. The letter was signed by mayors of major U.S. cities, including Los Angeles, New York City, San Diego, and Chicago. They argue they should be consulted on potential new climate migrant legislation as cities are due to receive most of the people who have been displaced. The letter’s organiser, Vittoria Zanuso, said cities want a role in helping Biden to protect climate migrants, and that any plan should address the relocation of Americans who have been fleeing climate change related disasters, such as forest fires.
With over 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States (US), and the undebatable reality that they have been essential during the pandemic, President Biden has made immigration reform one of his administration’s top priorities. The statistics of undocumented people living in the US have featured in the headlines for quite some time. “We have to stop the flow first,” is the recurring reason given for failing to expand immigration law for the protection of those living in the shadows. The same reasoning was provided in dismissal of Biden’s immigration bill which was introduced in Congress.
Despite contentions that due to the new administration, the border is now ‘open’, the vast majority of migrants are still being turned away at the Southern border. Some politicians associate the increase of people at the border with Biden’s promise of legalization. However, the issue of legalization and a surge of migrants at the border should not be grouped together, because these groups of people are facing very different problems.
As of 2017, most undocumented immigrants have been living in the U.S. for an average of 15 years. They comprise part of the fabric of the American economy and well as society, as parents, community leaders, business owners, and essential workers. However, their humanity is undermined when they face discrimination from the very same society, when their rights as workers and individuals are violated, and when they live in constant fear of deportation.
On the other hand, a large proportion of recent migrants to the US from Central America are fleeing a lack of basic resources in their countries due to the effects of climate change. The use of law enforcement at the border does not address the lack of water and food being experienced in the ‘Dry Corridor’, or the destruction caused by Iota and Eta last year. It would be beneficial to address this major root cause of migration, and to demilitarize the border and instead invest these funds into sustainability efforts in the US, and climate resilience in Central America. The US should be playing a role in funding the latter as a neighboring country that has very much impacted polices and climate change in Central America.
Climate Migrants
Experts predict that migration will continue to increase when natural disasters intensify as a result of climate change. Currently, approximately 8 million people suffer from food insecurity due to the effects of climate change in Central America, and during 2020, the region endured the formation of 30 cyclones which devastated many areas.
In Honduras specifically, hurricane Eta evolved from tropical depression to Category 4 hurricanes in less than 36 hours. Entire villages were destroyed and buried with mud. The impact of the storm is ongoing as many houses remain destroyed, and people remain unemployed after losing their jobs when plantations were destroyed. This is directly linked to the rise in the surface temperature of the sea.
To address the root cause of migration from neighboring countries, or the so-called “border crisis”, President Biden signed an executive order on February 4, 2021, dubbed ‘Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration’. In section 6 of the order, entitled ‘Climate Change and Migration’, the President ordered the submission of a report within 180 days on climate change and its effect on migration. Specifically, the report should include options for protection and resettlement of individuals displaced directly by climate change, how to identify these migrants, how the US can mitigate the negative impacts of climate change, and how to collaborate with other countries in doing so.
This is a first step in recognizing and addressing the complex situation at the US Southern border. Acknowledging that climate change is directly linked to the displacement of people arriving to the US should be followed by further action, for instance, an expansion of the definition of a ‘refugee’ to include climate migrants, or collaborative work with Central American governments to mitigate the effects of climate change, to which the US is a top contributor.
Undocumented and Essential Workers
It is crucial to humanize immigrants and acknowledge that people are more than a “crisis” that comes in “waves”. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been estimated that 5 million undocumented workers (or 3 in 4 undocumented immigrants in the workforce) are essential workers. They play a critical role the food chain as farmworkers and food processors, and working in health care as food servers and in nursing homes. As a result, a bill to provide permanent residence for over 5 million undocumented essential workers who played a role in the COVID-19 response has been introduced. The House of Representatives also passed the Farm Workforce Modernization Act to make temporary farm workers eligible to become permanent residents. These are some initial measures that benefit those immigrants who are not just living in, but contributing to American society.
The issues faced by immigrants living in the shadows in the U.S need to be addressed separately from those at the border. Though these issues are intertwined, the reality of the millions that are living undocumented in the US and alienated from the rest of society requires a solution that is geared towards integration. The evidence that undocumented immigrants have contributed to the coronavirus response and economic recovery shows that they consider the US to be their home, and are working alongside their neighbors in the best interest of recovery. We can no longer ignore just how essential undocumented workers are to their communities and the country at large. Holding them hostage in limbo because of an inability to deal with the root causes of migration is inhumane and immoral.
Caroline Miranda Foley is a law student at Western New England, Massachusetts. She has worked in immigration law for the past ten years and is passionate about access to justice, especially in the immigrant community. She has been an immigrant in the United States for over 15 years, and is very tied to the Brazilian and other Latino community where she resides.
A report released last week by U.S. intelligence officials predicts that factors such as climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic and growing inequality will lead to further unrest both in the U.S. and across the world. The Global Trends report is released every four years by the National Intelligence Council, and predicts “trends and uncertainties” the U.S. can expect over the next two decades.
The report forecasts that the next 20 years will be increasingly fragmented and turbulent. “Shared global challenges — including climate change, disease, financial crises, and technology disruptions — are likely to manifest more frequently and intensely in almost every region and country,” the report’s authors write. This will produce “widespread strains on states and societies as well as shocks that could be catastrophic.”
Increased rates of climate migration over the next two decades is also predicted in the report. This is a trend which has already been observed, particularly in rural populations which are increasingly migrating to urban settings due to struggles with framing in changing weather and climatic conditions.
In addition, the report also highlights that the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the fragility of the world order, and has worsened global challenges including exposing disparities in healthcare, increasing inequality and highlighting failed international cooperation.
U.S. President Joe Biden has proposed $14 billion towards fighting climate change in the 2022 discretionary budget request, in order to help the administration reach their goal to decarbonise the economy by 2050.
$1.4 billion of the budget will go towards environmental justice initiatives – the largest amount ever to be invested in environmental justice in U.S. history. $936 million of the $1.4 billion will go towards the creation of an Acceleration Environmental Justice initiative within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create “good-paying union jobs, clean up pollution, and secure environmental justice for communities that have been left behind.”
Other boosts to environmental justice efforts in the budget include a proposed $400 million for a grant program in the Department of Housing and Urban Development which would help state and local governments reduce lead paint and other health hazards for low-income families. A further $100 million has been proposed towards developing a new community air quality monitoring and notification program to update data in areas with air pollution problems.
New data published in The Lancet Planetary Health indicates that the acute inequity in healthcare workers throughout the Northern Territory (NT) could become exacerbated by climate change as doctors in the region relocate to cooler climates. Contrasting the situation of refugees forced from their homes due to increasing environmental disasters and receding coastlines, the reality is that those who have financial and social capital are also relocating to more temperate areas.
The study surveyed 362 medical professionals in Australia’s NT in November 2020 (representing over 25% of the workforce) and determined that over one third of respondents are already considering leaving the NT (15%) due to climate change, or would be likely to consider leaving in the future (19%). Rising temperatures and drier weather are becoming more severe in the NT and are contributing to increased heat related illness and death in a healthcare system that is already understaffed and overburdened. Among doctors who responded to the survey, 85% agree that climate change is currently causing, or is likely to cause negative effects on the health of their patients. 75% percent agree that parts of the NT are becoming or will likely become uninhabitable due to climate change.
Australia’s NT is the third largest territory by land mass but also the least populated and most remote region according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and the population is in decline. Approximately 30% of the 245,929 Australians who lived in the NT in 2019 are indigenous, compared to 3.3% nationally. Despite its high level of development, disparities in Australia remain wide. This recent report recognises that and a decline in the number of healthcare workers would further exacerbate inequities and put remote and indigenous communities at risk.
The authors of this study have called for a “National Plan for Health and Climate Change” to address the relationship between climate change and health. They recommend that “Health-care workforce supply should be considered in climate-related health risk assessments and adaptation strategies, and climate-related concerns should feature in the national health workforce strategy” (Pendrey et al, e184).
Sources
Pendrey, C., Quilty, S., Gruen, R., Weeramanthri, T. and Lucas, R., 2021. Is climate change exacerbating health-care workforce shortages for underserved populations?. The Lancet Planetary Health, [online] 5(4). Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00028-0> [Accessed 14 April 2021].
A virtual Climate Emergency Summit, held on the 6th April ’21, hosted by the African Development Bank and Global Centre on Adaptation, saw representatives discuss the challenges of COVID-19 alongside climate change across Africa.
Africa’s leaders called for a scaling-up of finances to combat the effects of climate change across the continent, warning that the COVID-19 crisis has halted climate adaptation efforts.
Gabon President Ali Bongo Ondimba, said: “Every day the thunderstorms seem more violent. Flooding is more frequent and droughts are more severe,” he said. “Crops are failing. People are being forced to flee their homes (and) becoming climate refugees.”
The summit heard that adaptation and resilience finance accounts for only 20 per cent of total climate finance flows. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged G7 members, developed nations and Multilateral and National Development Banks to increase their allocation of climate finance for adaptation and resilience to a minimum of 50 per cent.
Akinwumi Adesina, president of the African Development Bank (AfDB), pointed out that “Just 3% of international climate finance is reaching the continent“, arguing that developed nations have a responsibility to support Africa, given that despite the continent being the lowest emitter of carbon, it faces some of the worst consequences of climate change.
Whilst various climate adaptation efforts by countries across Africa and the AfDB have gone a long way to protect lives and livelihoods (such as green job initiatives, heat-tolerant wheat farms and large-scale land restorations), much more needs to be done through climate adaptation and resilience initiatives to support nations subject to sea level rise, coastal erosion and other climate change related effects.
Imagine traveling almost 1,000 miles by foot with your family to have access to drinkable water, leaving behind your community to venture into an unknown land. Eric, his wife, and two children, an indigenous Mayan family from Guatemala were forced to do just that. When the family arrived in the U.S., their two children were diagnosed with anemia. Further test results also showed high levels of lead, which were most likely a result of the rainwater they collected and consumed. When it stopped raining, they had no choice but to walk 2 miles to bring water home. They also tried to dig 20 meters into the ground to find water, but to no avail. At last, they turned to their mayor for help, but unfortunately that, too, failed.[1]
The adverse farming conditions brought by droughts have worsened the crisis in the area in Central America known as the “Dry Corridor.” According to UNICEF, the effects of climate change disproportionately impact particularly indigenous families.[2] In the San Marcos department in Guatemala, indigenous peoples are faced with droughts caused by climate change that have affected water supplies for human consumption and irrigation. Many parts of Guatemala face desertification, because rainfall is expected to decrease by 60 percent, and the amount of water keeping soil moist may drop by as much as 83 percent.[3] A study predicts that as many as 680,000 climate migrants might be forced to move from Central America and Mexico to the United States between now and 2050.[4] More generally speaking, extreme weather events are the leading cause of migration around the world. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Center estimates that 21.5 million people per year, on average, over the past decade have had to flee their homes due to storms, floods, wildfires, droughts, and other weather events[5]. These events have increased in severity and frequency due to climate change.
Despite the alarming numbers, one of the difficulties in “making a case” for climate migrants is to draw the line between when conflict is created and/or fuelled by climate change, or when it is driven by other factors, such as those of political nature and poverty. In the example of Guatemalans who migrated to the United States, poverty and violence are often cited as the push factors, when often they were a product of the droughts caused by climate change.
Neither does the U.N. refugee definition cover their ‘status.’ However, there are regional expansions of the “refugee” definition in Latin America and Africa that are gradually becoming accepted by international organizations and countries; and should, therefore, also be adopted by the United States to address the regional climate migration crisis in Central America.
I. Current Immigration Law in the U.S.
U.S. refugee policy used to recognize that those displaced by “natural calamity” deserved protection. The 1953 Refugee Relief Act defined a refugee as “any person in a country or area which is neither Communist nor Communist-dominated, who because of persecution, fear of persecution, natural calamity or military operations is out of his usual place of abode and unable to return thereto… and who is in urgent need of assistance for the essentials of life or for transportation.”[6] However, the 1980 Refugee Act subsequently eliminated “natural calamity,” and instead adopted the United Nation definition of a refugee, which makes no reference to natural disasters.
Currently, in the United States, there are few options for migrants who left their country primarily because of climate change. One of the options available only applies to migrants who are already living in the United States when the natural disaster takes place, and the other option has not been recognized by any Federal Court in the United States.
Temporary Protected Status
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is granted to individuals who are unable to return to their countries due to “ongoing conflict, environmental disasters, or extraordinary and temporary conditions.”[7] The Secretary of Homeland Security has the discretion to decide when to designate a country for TPS. Although they often consult with the Department of State and the National Security Council, the Secretary’s decision as to whether or not to designate a country for TPS is not subject to judicial review. A TPS designation is a very short-term resolution as individuals will be protected six, twelve, or eighteen months at a time. At least 60 days prior to the expiration of TPS, the Secretary may extend or terminate a designation based on the conditions in the foreign country. If the Secretary decides against renewing the TPS designation for a certain country, all TPS beneficiaries from that country return to the immigration status held prior to receiving TPS and can become subject to removal. Overall, the benefits of TPS status is limited and only benefit a small portion of climate migrants.[8]
Asylum Law
Another narrow option in U.S. immigration law is asylum law. To qualify for asylum, the individual must be fleeing persecution based on “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”[9] Most of the litigation happens in the context of “membership to a particular group.”Advocates and practitioners are creative in expanding this category before immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, the category of “accepted” particular social groups is limited to only a small portion of asylum seekers, which became even smaller once Donald Trump assumed office. In effect, legal practitioners have been unable to expand “membership in a particular social group” to include people affected by climate change.[10]
Returning to our initial case, people like Eric do not qualify for TPS nor asylum, neither can they return to Guatemala due to both the land conflict and climate-induced water shortage. There is an ongoing push to expand TPS so as to include migrants who are currently not in the U.S. at the time of designation, and to advocate for a broader definition for a “particular social group.” I will attempt to look at how some regions have dealt with local migration within the continent and how, or if, the U.S. could adopt a regional approach and/or a broaden the refugee definition.
II. International Framework for Refugees
Africa and Latin America have acknowledged that the UN Definition of a refugee as per the 1951 Convention fell short in helping migrants displaced within their continents. They have both pushed for bolder policies to expand the definition in order to protect a migrant’s basic right to life.
The Organization of African Unity Convention (“OAU”) of 1969 is a regional expansion to the 1951 United Nations Convention.[11] A specific purpose of the 1969 OAU Convention was to provide additional refugee protection. The broader refugee criteria included in Article I(2) of the 1969 OAU Convention protects people who migrate as a result of “events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole” of the country of origin.
It should be noted that the factors that pushed the need for the 1969 OAU Convention are no longer restricted to Africa. The 1969 OAU Convention does not define or limit the concept of “events seriously disturbing public order”. The language allows for interpretations reflecting the ongoing developments in the continent.[12] Although the Convention is silent as to whether victims of natural disasters can legitimately be considered as refugees, the Convention operates as a human rights protection, and “events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality”,[13] can be construed to cover this category.
The OAU Convention inspired the Cartagena Declaration which incorporates a similarly worded extended refugee definition, as well as the doctrine of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.[14] The Declaration recognized the need to protect persons displaced by the unrest in Latin America during the 1980s, which was instrumental in responding to the people displaced by the coup d’etats and generalized government violence that happened in the region. The Declaration’s interpretation is informed by international and regional human rights and humanitarian law, especially the norms and standards of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights, and the evolving case law of the Inter-American human rights bodies.
While not a treaty, the 1984 Cartagena Declaration is similar to the OAU in that in Conclusion III(3) it recommends that refugees include “persons who have fled their country because their lives, security or freedom have been threatened by … other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order”.[15] Although the Cartagena Declaration is not legally binding, most Latin American countries have adopted its broader refugee definition by incorporating it within their domestic law or through practice. Even the countries that have not adopted it, have recognized its crucial role in protecting displaced persons in the region, including the United States. This version of the refugee definition has also been recognized by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights[16], and the General Assembly of the Organization of the American States.[17]
It is important to note that national refugee agencies are in charge of interpreting and applying the refugee definition in the Declaration. Mexico and Brazil, for example, have granted refugee status under the broad definition of the Declaration to more than 53,000 and 46,000 Venezuelan Refugees.[18] In December 2014, 28 countries across the Americas convened in Brasilia to mark the 30th anniversary of the Cartagena Declaration.[19] At the end of the meeting, officials adopted the Brazil Declaration and Plan of Action, agreeing to further the work begun in Cartagena and move toward implementing solutions for displaced persons.[20] The Declaration is currently incorporated by 16 countries and we can see a continuous increase in commitments. While no country in Latin America as of today has interpreted the Cartagena Declaration to grant refugee status based on the effects of climate change and disasters, due to the ongoing developments, it has still been listed, along with the 1969 OAU Convention, as an example of progress with regard to regional refugee protection.[21]
III. Moving forward
Assessing claims for international protection based on climate change is extremely complex when attempting to apply the UN 1951 Convention, the OAU Convention, and the Cartagena Declaration. Although, there is currently no real intention to change the refugee definition, there is certainly a lot of advocacy and conversation happening around the need to recognize climate migrants by the United Nations and country leaders.
For example, in 2020, the UN Human Right Committee in Teitiota v. New Zealand clarified that people seeking asylum are not required to prove that they would face immediate harm if deported back to their home countries because climate-related events can occur suddenly, or over time. Most importantly, Committee members underlined that the international community must assist countries adversely affected by climate change.[22] Furthermore, given that the risk of an entire country becoming submerged under water is one of extreme nature, the conditions of life in such a country may become incompatible with a right to life with dignity before the risk is realized.[23] Although the decision is not binding to the United States, it is a step in the right direction.
Another effort has been the creation of the Migration, Environment and Climate Change Division at IOM, which oversees and supports all policy projects on environment- and climate change-related migration. One of IOM’s goals in managing environmental migration includes providing assistance to affected populations during a disaster and facilitating migration as a climate change adaptation strategy.[24] While the IOM partners with the UNHCR on the issue of resettlement, climate migrants are not a priority as they do not don’t fall within the 1951 refugee definition.[25]
As for the current refugee program in the United States, participants in the climate migrant resettlement program could be eligible to apply for lawful status if the program was tied to a regional compact on climate displacement like Cartagena or OAU Convention. Though this may not immediately result in greater resettlement opportunities, it could expand protection.
In this regard, the UNHCR concluded that the key question in making a decision regarding eligibility of refugee status under this ground, is whether human dignity has been violated, and if so, whether the state is unwilling or unable to address it. Looking at the refugee definition more broadly, UNHCR concludes that climate change may have significant adverse effects on state and societal structures, individual well-being and the enjoyment of human rights. Additionally, it recognizes that a narrow focus might “fail to recognize the social and political characteristics of the effects of climate change and their interaction with other drivers of displacement”.[28]
The UN has defined a “disturbance” to public order occurs when there is a disruption to the normal and stable functioning of this order.[29] The “serious” threshold may embrace quantitative and qualitative dimensions and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the nature and duration of the disruption and its consequences on the security and stability of the state and society therein.[30]Whether a disturbance to public order stems from human or other causes is not determinative for concluding a serious disturbance of public order;the central concern is the effect of a given situation. Accordingly, the principal inquiry at the time of assessing a claim for refugee status is whether a serious disturbance to public order exists as a matter of fact, based on an assessment of available evidence.
Both under Cartagena and OAU Convention, the refugee definition requires “circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order”.As such, climate change or a disaster must have an effect on the person’s place of habitual residence and force the person to leave their country. The document gives the criteria to analyze whether the climate change that unfolds is a risk of harm: how the disaster unfolds and develops; the geographical proximity of the disaster to the person’s place of habitual residence; how it affects their life, physical integrity, liberty and enjoyment of other human rights; and how the State responds.[31]
Lastly, the document highlights that if there is a real risk of being subjected to serious harm, that person has the right to be protected from irreparable harm by Articles 6 (right to life) and 7 (prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[32] In addition to the UNHCR report, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, also highlights the link of healthy environment and human rights when it stated that human beings need to be at the center of concerns for sustainability and should be entitled to a healthy life in “harmony with nature.”[33]
Conclusion
The Biden’s administration has taken an interest in the protection of climate migrants. On February 4, 2021, the Biden administration ordered a report on climate change and its impact on migration, including forced migration, internal displacement, and planned relocation, to be submitted in 180 days.[34] This report will include options for protection and resettlement of individuals displaced directly or indirectly from climate change and mechanisms for identifying such individuals. Most importantly, the Biden administration requests that the report looks at opportunities to work collaboratively with other countries to respond to “migration resulting directly or indirectly from climate change”.[35]
It is crucial that the United States, as well as the rest of the world, recognize how interconnected we are, especially to neighboring countries. The Cartagena Declaration and OAU Convention, although imperfect, are a step towards realising our shared responsibility within our continents to protect families like Eric’s.
This article is part of our Spring 2021 collaboration with students from the International Human Rights Clinic at the Western New England University.
Caroline Miranda Foley is a law student at Western New England, Massachusetts. She has worked in immigration law for the past ten years and is passionate about access to justice, especially in the immigrant community. She has been an immigrant in the United States for over 15 years, and is very tied to the Brazilian and other Latino community where she resides.
[1] The author of this piece worked on this immigration case personally. The names were changed to protect anonymity.
[2]John Vidal, How Guatemala is Sliding into Chaos in the Fight for Land and Water, The Guardian (Aug. 19, 2018), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/19/guatemala-fight-for-land-water-defenders-lmining-loging-eviction.
[5] Erol Yayboke, A New Framework for U.S. Leadership on Climate Migration, CSIS (Oct. 23, 2020), https://www.csis.org/analysis/new-framework-us-leadership-climate-migration.
[6] Maria Cristina Garcia, Does the United States Need a Climate Refugee Policy?, Historical Climatology (Apr. 25, 2019), https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features/does-the-united-states-need-a-climate-refugee-policy.
[12]Legal Considerations Regarding Claims for International Protection Made in the Context of the Adverse Effects of Climate Change and Disasters, UNHCR (Oct. 1, 2020), https://www.refworld.org/docid/5f75f2734.html.
[14]Summary Conclusions on the Interpretation of the Extended Refugee Definition in the 1984 Cartagena Declaration (Oct. 2013), https://www.unhcr.org/53bd4d0c9.pdf.
[16]Advisory Opinion OC-25/18, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (May 30, 2018), https://www.refworld.org/docid/5c87ec454.html.
[17]Proteccion de los Solicitantes de la Condicion de Refugiado y de los Refugiados en las Americas, OAS (Jun. 5, 2012), https://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/AG-RES_2758_XLII-O-12_esp.pdf.
[19]Regional Refugee Instruments & Related, Brazil Declaration and Plan of Action, 3 December 2014, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5487065b4.html.
[21]The Cartagena Declaration at 35 and Refugee Protection in Latin America, E-International Relations (Nov. 22, 2019), https://www.e-ir.info/2019/11/22/the-cartagena-declaration-at-35-and-refugee-protection-in-latin-america/.
[23]Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand, CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016, UN Human Rights Committee (Jan. 7, 2020), https://www.refworld.org/cases,HRC,5e26f7134.html.
[29]Key Concepts on Climate Change and Disaster Displacement, UNHCR, www.unhcr.org/protection/environment/5943aea97/key-concepts-climate-change-disaster-displacement.html.
[33]Report of the United Nation Conference on Environment and Development (Aug. 12 1992), https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf.
Nature Communications, a scientific journal published by Nature Research, is a peer-reviewed, open access journal covering natural sciences. In a new study, published on the 6th April ’21, researchers, using machine-learning analysis, identify predictors of migration into the European Union.
Calculating numbers of climate migrants is inherently challenging because of the difficulty in defining causality; people often migrate for a multitude of reasons.
Studies show for example, a strong correlation between migration caused by climate change and higher levels of violence leading to an increase in migrant flow.
The study identified violence and insecurity as the strongest predictors of asylum migration to the EU, such as during the migration crisis of 2015-16. Economic and climate conditions, to a lesser extent, are predictors of migrant flow, and more so in non-conflict areas. Other studies however, have predicted that global warming may triple the number of asylum seekers to Europe in this century. A report published in 2019, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, directs policy makers to consider that climate change can further exasperate stresses for conflict and disrupt food chains hence threatening livelihoods.
Whilst the stated confidence for climate change as a predictor for migration is low across recent studies, system research into the extent climate change can influence political violence, (or other superior factors identified as good predictors of migration) indicates a priority for future research.
Residents of the Indian state of Uttarakhand, which sits a few hundred miles north of New Delhi and is bordered to its north by the Himalayas, have come face to face with the deadly impacts of climate change. In early February, the effects of melting glaciers in the Himalayas caused a flash flood of debris-filled water to crash through the Tapovan Vishnugad Hydropower Plant. Reports have estimated the death toll may be as high as 200, as search and rescue efforts were stymied by the harsh terrain around the Dhauliganga River. The flash flood was likely triggered by a massive section of glacial ice breaking free and causing a surge of water to rush downriver. Evidence shows that climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of these disasters by exacerbating extreme rainfall in the region as well as raising the average temperature of the glacial ice.
In a country grappling with the task of providing electricity for its growing population, the increased risk of severe flooding and avalanches may put India’s goal of expanding electricity access and reducing power outages at risk. According to The Associated Press, experts tasked with studying the impact of receding Himalayan glaciers on dams in the area have long recommended that hydroelectric projects “take into account the ecological fragility of the mountains and the unpredictable risks posed by climate change”, and other sources of renewable energy may pose less harm to the local community. But the human impact that these disasters have on residents of Uttarakhand is too often overlooked.
The increased risk of severe flooding and avalanches has already killed thousands of Uttarakhand residents and displaced many others. NPR reported that a number of villages immediately began evacuating residents and nearby riverside areas were put on high alert. According to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), climate change is increasing the frequency of migration in Uttarakhand as well as the risk associated with relocation. To better accommodate the needs of migrants, PIK recommends that policymakers establish safe routes of migration and support the development of alternative livelihood options for the large population of agricultural workers who may be forced to leave their land behind.
Vaidya RA, Shrestha MS, Nasab N, Gurung DR, Kozo N, Pradhan NS, Wasson RJ, Shrestha AB, Gurung CG, Bajracharya A, Dasgupta P, Shrestha MS, (2019) Chapter 11: Disaster Risk Reduction and Building Resilience in the Hindu Kush Himalaya In: Wester P, Mishra A, Mukherji A, Shrestha AB (eds) The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment. Springer Nature, Cham, p 402. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92288-1_15
A new Massachusetts climate law has been heralded as a crucial step in the state’s fight for environmental justice. The wide-ranging legislation, signed by Governor Charlie Baker at the end of last month, sets new goals on emissions and clean energy, however, it also has a significant emphasis on environmental justice.
The climate change legislation commits to achieve net zero emissions for Massachusetts by 2050, however in addition to this the bill also aims to protect vulnerable communities. The law has provided a clear definition of a community overburdened by pollution – also known as an Environmental Justice (EJ) community – defining it based on race, income and language-proficiency criteria. Advocates have welcomed this new definition, claiming it improves on the confusing parameters which were previously used in identifying the most vulnerable communities in the state.
The bill recognises the significant impact of climate change on EJ communities, which are more likely to have poor air quality and disproportionately high levels of pollution, and aims to allow these communities to have a say in future infrastructure projects or any other projects likely to impact air, water or soil quality. The law also says that the state must take into account how existing pollution levels have already impacted residents when considering whether to approve any new project in an EJ community.
This bill is a significant step towards protecting vulnerable communities who are disproportionately affected by climate change and paves the way for other states, and other countries, to pass climate justice laws in the future.
Earth Refuge Newsletter
Sign up to our Earth Refuge newsletter for the latest updates on climate change, environmental justice and migration!
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.OkPrivacy policy
