Why climate migrants do not have refugee status

By W.H.

EACH morning, as the tide recedes, the people of the Marshall Islands check the walls that protect their homes from the sea. Sea levels in this part of the western Pacific are rising by 12mm a year—four times the global average—and countering them with sandbags, concrete and metal is a Sisyphean task. Eight islands in nearby Micronesia have been swallowed by the ocean in recent decades, and most of the Marshall Islands could follow by the end of the century. Here and elsewhere on the world’s fringes, the apocalyptic consequences of climate change have become reality. Many people will be forced to find new places to live. Forecasts vary, but one widely cited study, from the United Nations University, suggests that there will be 200m environmental migrants by 2050. Both migrants fleeing environmental disaster and those escaping war will be constrained in their choices. But currently only the latter may seek refugee status, and with it the right to safe asylum. Why?

On the surface, the problem is bureaucratic. Environmental migrants are not covered by the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which is designed to protect those fleeing persecution, war or violence. The UN agencies most involved in refugee rights, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and the UN Development Programme, agree that the term “climate refugee” should not be used to describe those displaced for environmental reasons. The UNHCR already struggles to provide adequate support for the world’s 22.5m refugees (from war and persecution). During the Syrian refugee crisis, it admitted to being “stretched to the limit”. If the UNHCR broadens its definition of “refugee” to support an entirely new category, it is unclear if the political appetite exists to provide the necessary funding.