We can add another voice to the climate change and forced migration debate. Jon Barnett of the University of Melbourne, claims that "no one is currently emigrating from Pacific small island states principally due to climate change."
"In this short interview conducted at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Barnett situates climate change’s potential future impacts within the broader social, political, and economic challenges for residents of small island states, reminding us that there is great physical and political diversity among these islands.
Stressing the mix of pushes and pulls that motivate people to move, Barnett suggests we examine existing patterns of migration to better understand how they will develop in the future. He emphasizes that climate change is most likely to push islanders to move due to declining food production and drinking water availability, rather than sea-level rise—despite the iconic image of lapping waves submerging low-lying countries. These sober reminders on the complexity of climate-migration links are worth keeping in mind when evaluating the plethora of new reports on the topic."
Source: New Security Beat
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
UNHCR Offers Outline for Climate Refugees
In a fateful coincidence, the day the very first blog post launched on this site, UNHCR wrote and submitted a report to the Bonn Climate Change Talks - June 2009 about "Forced Displacement in the Context of Climate Change: Challenges for States Under International Law." While we have been calling for the UN's, particularly UNHCR's, presence in the debate on climate refugees, they are hesitant to take the lead in legal protection. Within their submission, they instead place the responsibility on that of the State, suggesting even that
Human rights law, in general, also dictates that the "right to life....create[s] positive obligations on States to take appropriate steps to safeguard the life, limb and property of those within their jurisdiction against the threat of disasters," which is further compunded by the duty of the State "to put into place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective protection against such threats" (p. 6) . Some regional instruments like the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, which both broaden the refugee protection framework to include those compelled to flee due to "events disturbing public order" or a "massive violation of human rights", are offered as a potential stepping stone towards climate refugee recognition.
A larger problem arises when climate refugees become refugees in the truer sense of the word, when they cross international borders. Important protection measures already exist within the 1951 Refugee Convention, specifically Article 33(1), which prohibits the refoulement of asylum seekers to "the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened" (p. 11). But, again, UNHCR shies from expanding the traditional definition of refugee and leaves the designation up to each receiving state. They offer various examples, including the U.S. Temporary Protected Status mechanism -- which was enacted in 1990, but put into use in 1998 after Hurricane Mitch. This mechanism allows nationals of foreign states temporary refugee status so that they can stay within the U.S. if they meet three key criteria: 1) there has been an environmental disaster in the foreign state resulting in a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions; 2) the foreign state is unable to handle adequately the return of its own nationals; and 3) the foreign state has officially requested such a designation.
While we applaud the attempt of UNHCR and the international system to acknowledge the threat of climate refugees, it seems they are disproportionately placing the burden on states -- and largely developing ones at that. What are the chances that a Burma or Zimbabwe would actively aid their citizens when disaster strikes or petition a neighboring state for temporary relocation? We're willing to bet slim to none.
Below you'll find the entirety of the report submitted on behalf of UNHCR to the Bonn Climate Change Talks - June 2009.
Forced Displacement in the Context of Climate Change
"State Parties should build on existing international response mechanisms and ensure policy coherence between mitigation, adaptation, humanitarian responses and development" (p. 3).Pinning the fate of climate refugees on existing international law has been a popular refrain. In the case of internal displacement, UNHCR suggests using the 1998 UN Guiding Principles on International Displacement as a starting point. They claim that under it, States "bear the primary duty and responsibility to provide assistance and protection in all phases of internal displacement (Guiding Principle 3) for all IDPs, including those displaced by the effects of climate change" (p. 3-4) In fact, they stress that the State must address the challenge of climate refugees on mutliple levels; namely, through preventative measures like mitigating climate change, and reducing risks created by climate change, and of course, responsive actions like protecting those individuals displaced by climate change. Other international organizations suggest the same.
Human rights law, in general, also dictates that the "right to life....create[s] positive obligations on States to take appropriate steps to safeguard the life, limb and property of those within their jurisdiction against the threat of disasters," which is further compunded by the duty of the State "to put into place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective protection against such threats" (p. 6) . Some regional instruments like the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, which both broaden the refugee protection framework to include those compelled to flee due to "events disturbing public order" or a "massive violation of human rights", are offered as a potential stepping stone towards climate refugee recognition.
A larger problem arises when climate refugees become refugees in the truer sense of the word, when they cross international borders. Important protection measures already exist within the 1951 Refugee Convention, specifically Article 33(1), which prohibits the refoulement of asylum seekers to "the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened" (p. 11). But, again, UNHCR shies from expanding the traditional definition of refugee and leaves the designation up to each receiving state. They offer various examples, including the U.S. Temporary Protected Status mechanism -- which was enacted in 1990, but put into use in 1998 after Hurricane Mitch. This mechanism allows nationals of foreign states temporary refugee status so that they can stay within the U.S. if they meet three key criteria: 1) there has been an environmental disaster in the foreign state resulting in a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions; 2) the foreign state is unable to handle adequately the return of its own nationals; and 3) the foreign state has officially requested such a designation.
While we applaud the attempt of UNHCR and the international system to acknowledge the threat of climate refugees, it seems they are disproportionately placing the burden on states -- and largely developing ones at that. What are the chances that a Burma or Zimbabwe would actively aid their citizens when disaster strikes or petition a neighboring state for temporary relocation? We're willing to bet slim to none.
Below you'll find the entirety of the report submitted on behalf of UNHCR to the Bonn Climate Change Talks - June 2009.
Forced Displacement in the Context of Climate Change
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Carteret Islands as Poster Child
As mentioned in a previous blog post, the Carteret Islands seem to be getting most of the media attention as the "first climate refugees." This is further bolstered by a Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting documentary about the islanders needing to move because "rising sea levels have polluted their fresh water wells with salt water. High tides flood more and more of the islands, and erosion is a growing problem." ('Next Wave' chronicles the climate change refugees). This comes on the heels of a groundbreaking resolution passed by the UN that acknowledges climate change's threat to security, particularly for small Pacific islands. While nonbinding, the resolution looks to be just the start of international recognition on climate change and possible forced migration scenarios.
To learn more about the climate change's effect on the Carteret Islands, see the short preview below:
"Located 50 miles off the coast of Papua New Guinea, the Carteret Islands are disappearing into the ocean. Climate change is destroying the atoll, forcing the islanders to search for homes on Bougainville, an autonomous region of Papua New Guinea. Though this is the story of one remote community, scientists estimate climate change will displace up to 50 million people by 2050."
To learn more about the climate change's effect on the Carteret Islands, see the short preview below:
"Located 50 miles off the coast of Papua New Guinea, the Carteret Islands are disappearing into the ocean. Climate change is destroying the atoll, forcing the islanders to search for homes on Bougainville, an autonomous region of Papua New Guinea. Though this is the story of one remote community, scientists estimate climate change will displace up to 50 million people by 2050."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
