During the United Nations Climate Conference (COP28) held in Dubai last year, the words “climate migrants” and “climate refugees” rang loudly across conference rooms and panels. These labels were enthusiastically used by UN officials, external stakeholders, academics, and activists working on the effects of climate change.
During the panel discussion, I emphasized that these terms have no legal weight and asked about the need for special legal protection for people affected by climate displacement. My question was quickly shut down by the panel organizers, much to the consternation of the attendees.
My thoughts immediately went to the many people I know who have been displaced by climate change. Ecuadorian refugees arrive in New York seeking refuge from the environmental chaos at home, and women from the Sundarbans in West Bengal who face climate change disasters but are unable to relocate. , and many of my neighbors in Brooklyn have experienced repeated home destruction due to heavy rains. All of them lack any international legal protection that could guarantee them a dignified life.
Sadly, the negative reaction at COP28 reflects a larger pattern of denial. The legal definition of “climate refugees” is hotly debated from various perspectives around the world. Critics often argue that attributing migration solely to climate change oversimplifies the complex effects on human migration. They argue that these terms reduce the role of institutional and human responses and social contexts in transforming environmental stressors into crises.
This complexity therefore makes it impossible to distinguish between climate refugees and economic migrants. Ironically, this argument actually survives alongside his predictions (PDF) that he estimates that 1.2 billion people could be displaced by climate change-related dangers by 2050. doing.
After COP28, this repeated chorus resonated in my heart. “We don't need a change in the law. We don't need a change in the law. We don't need a change in the law.” It is featured in the initiative. The Compact commits Parties to “creating the political, economic, social and environmental conditions that enable people to lead peaceful, productive and sustainable lives” (PDF). in their own country and to fulfill their personal aspirations. ”
Under its second objective, the agreement emphasizes the need for a consistent approach to addressing migration challenges during both sudden and gradual natural disasters, and addresses the concerns of displaced persons. We encourage its integration into disaster preparedness strategies.
Let's stop for a moment. While these policies promote preparedness, they do not provide strong legal recognition and protection to those who face the climate crisis and need to move, including the groups and individuals in the examples I just shared. It's grossly inadequate.
This lack of a specific legally defined framework poses a hurdle for individuals seeking migration status due to the effects of climate change.
Calls for the establishment of an international legal framework to address migration needs arising from environmental factors have been equated with opening Pandora's box. 1951, which defines the term “refugee” strictly in terms of “the fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Some have suggested that it could challenge the Refugee Convention.
They fear that revelations that would further strengthen protections for climate change and the environmental movement could destabilize already fragile global efforts to protect the rights of all refugees. . They warn that this opening could cast a shadow over the plight of people fleeing persecution or conflict.
I deeply sympathize with this concern. I agree that this criticism is worth considering carefully. But here's the crux. The urgency to address the humanitarian crisis caused by climate change must not be paralyzed by diplomatic complexities or fear of potential aftershocks.
Let us be clear: suffering from any form of persecution or seeking refuge from conflict requires immediate action. But these complexities must not overshadow the urgency of rethinking international agreements.
International agreements are constantly reviewed, and this review regarding the realities of climate change is no exception. Consider the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The treaty is the first legally binding treaty signed by 154 countries, committing to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
Although the results were far from satisfactory, they put us on track to develop the 2015 Paris Agreement and help us find ways to make common progress in tackling climate change. It's done.
Similarly, we may not negotiate a binding agreement on the legal framework for climate refugees today or tomorrow. But we can start thinking about or rethinking them now.
The time is now to envision a smart and sustainable path towards the protection of vulnerable people facing the impacts of climate change and environmental disasters, while preserving existing refugee status. This includes conceptually and legally rethinking what it means to bring together those directly affected by climate change, along with academics, activists, international organizations, and government representatives, to create fundamentally different approaches. A collective effort is required to achieve this goal.
Being mindful of the multilayered challenges of slow-moving climate change could help develop a suite of strategies that intertwine migration management, refugee protection, and environmental solutions for stayers and returnees. be. Our overarching goal is to prevent heartbreaking situations in which people are involuntarily forced from their homes, while ensuring the human rights of those who are forced to leave or have already been displaced. It is to be.
While these strategies are consistent with previous agreements, they also require us to collectively rethink and address the evolving needs and diverse vulnerabilities of both humanity and the planet.
A human rights-based approach and clear legal frameworks are essential to enforce claims at all levels of governance and provide access to sustainable environmental justice. Fear cannot guide our decisions. The defense of human rights should be the compass that guides us through this complex political and climate situation.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
