‘Climate refugees need legal protection and more support from rich economies’

Michael Doyle teaches at Columbia University and has served as assistant secretary — general in the United Nations. Sharing his perspective with

Times Evoke

, he discusses the legal lacunae surrounding climate-impacted people — and filling this gap:

I would describe climate migration today as a crisis that has an emergency element in some parts of the world and a long-term dimension that will only deepen. We have not made sufficient progress in dealing with global warming at a level that would allow the planet to sustainably adjust. Therefore, we must expect increased droughts, flooding and sea rise with more climate-impacted people world over.




We need a legal definition that protects these people. At the moment, those seeking refuge are governed by the Refugee Convention of 1951. But that was written in the Cold War and designed to respond to the ‘communist versus capitalist’ and ‘democracies versus dictatorships’ confrontations taking place in Europe. The standards for being recognised as a refugee were persecution over race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. This was mainly designed to help refugees fleeing communism, as in the Hungarian Revolt of 1956. That criteria has been broadened but it still doesn’t include persons whose far m has disappeared in a drought or whose island faces a rising sea because of climate change.

INCH BY INCH: As global warming makes sea levels rise, small islands across Micronesia in the Pacific face floods impacting lives, livelihoods, essential services and infrastructure. Picture courtesy: iStock


In 2015, a case came up before the

Human Rights Committee

(HRC) called the

Teitiota

matter — a Kiribati family was seeking refugee status in New Zealand because their island would eventually go under water. The New Zealand court turned down their claim after which the

HRC

considered it. The matter was eventually turned down as it was shown that sufficient protection measures were in place. But the case is important as it helped establish some standards under which a person facing climate change-induced conditions that threaten their right to life could claim refuge in another country.



But, while this was a beginning, the climate refugee standard remains unclear, applying only to extreme circum-stances. As the Carnegie Council’s Model International Mobility Convention which I work with emphasises, we need a law that takes into account the changes we will experience and the numbers we will see — these could run into millions. Currently, some countries, including the US, offer emergency humanitarian visas to people fleeing rapid-onset natural disasters. In the 1980s, some Haitians got refuge in the US after a large earthquake while some central Americans got shelter after a hurricane. But that’s a short-term measure and can be revoked once the natural disaster is dealt with. We need to develop a far more humane system of law applying to persons forced to move because of climate change.



Most of the world’s unsustainable increase in global temperatures was produced by wealthy, industrialised countries in Europe and North America. These countries should feel a greater ethical responsibility towards climate-impacted people. While some may argue that rapidly industrialising nations like India and China are large emitters now, it is amply clear that the developed economies are currently more capable of assisting refugees.

We also need a cohesive global approach for further mitigations. The most important mitigation is for all of us to move away from heavily carbon-based technology and mobilise technologies that allow us to grow but without polluting effects. There needs to be assistance between industrialised countries and developing nations for this, so the latter can avoid the same polluting path Europe and North America traversed in the 19th and 20th centuries.

But, that said, there will still be people forced from their homes who will need legal protection. Contrary to pessimistic scenarios, I think resettling climate refugees under the right circumstances can be a win-win for all concerned. Many industrialised countries, including the US, have jobs that aren’t being filled by nationals. Labour economists have identified such jobs across the skill spectrum, from agricultural work to medical care, homecare to engineers — US nationals are unlikely to fill all these positions, which would impact our rate of growth.

So, importing labour would bolster our economy. This works for migrants too who can multiply their incomes while their home countries would receive remittances, increasing national earnings. But this must be done in a legally instituted manner where people are properly protected.

Climate change is now driving people from central America to the US border. Migrants from Africa are risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean and get to Europe. Large numbers of people in South Asia are migrating within their nations, seeking a livelihood snatched away by global warming. The privileged must create solutions that empower these people with the work and dignity owed to them.