BLOG

Last week, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees briefed the UN Security Council on "New Challenges to Security," highlighting the increasing threat posed by climate change. 

His remarks could hardly have come at a better time. In 2010 alone, more than 43 million people were forcibly displaced by sudden-onset natural disasters – just as many as were displaced by conflict. Millions more have had to flee their homes because of slower-onset events like drought and famine.

These numbers reflect a new reality: severe natural disasters, food and water insecurity, and environmental degradation are increasingly driving displacement. And the impacts on human mobility are almost sure to increase as climate change leads to more extreme weather, sea level rises, increased desertification, lower agricultural yields, and more. 

These new challenges to human security require new policies and institutional responses. As I pointed out earlier this month, those displaced by natural disasters and other types of environmental change aren’t considered "refugees" under the 1951 Refugees Convention; as a result, they often lack protection.

So what is the United States doing about it?

Not much, apparently – though the issue may have finally caught the attention of some members of Congress. Last week, the Tom Lantos Commission for Human Rights convened a briefing entitled, "Environmental Refugees and Displaced Persons: Protecting the Vulnerable." Rather than take on the politically-charged question of the link between natural disasters and climate change, the discussion focused on the need to provide vulnerable populations with protection and care, regardless of cause.

During the briefing, panelists discussed the complex relationship between environmental changes and displacement. They acknowledged the difficulty in accurately predicting the scope and patterns of future displacement. But they also agreed that with the developing world on a trajectory of rapid population growth, increased urbanization, increased pollution, and growing natural resource scarcity, environmental displacement may only get worse.

The most important message for Congress and other US policymakers is that ignoring these facts and trends only limits our options going forward. If we make plans now, however, we can better avoid and manage these impacts in a way that protects the world’s most vulnerable people.

So, how to do this?

First, through better protection: We must implement measures that better protect those displaced by environmental events or changes. This means addressing both gaps in the current legal and institutional frameworks, and gaps in the operational response.

Second, through better prevention: We need to develop mechanisms to mitigate or prevent displacement, primarily by reducing disaster risks and increasing resilience to environmental change. This will require a shift in focus from crisis response to prevention and mitigation.

When it comes to sudden-onset events like floods or storms, this means focusing on disaster risk reduction (DRR) – measures that address underlying risk factors to reduce loss of life, homes, property, and livelihoods. For slower-onset events like droughts, improving protection not only requires better early-warning systems (and actual responses to those warnings), but also measures that make vulnerable populations more resilient to environmental shocks.

Finally, through a rethinking of current US policies and bureaucracy: Right now, the bureaucratic maze of the US government doesn’t allow for a proactive, holistic approach to environmentally-induced displacement and migration. To address this, Congress should commission a report that details the state of knowledge regarding environmental displacement and migration, current US policies, and possible response mechanisms. Without this vital data, it will be enormously challenging for the government to plan for crises and respond appropriately.

In addition, the US government must determine which agency has primary responsibility for addressing the various aspects of environmental displacement. For example, is the State Department's Bureau of Population, Migration and Refugees responsible for those fleeing their homes for environmental reasons? Since they aren’t "refugees" in the traditional sense, the answer to that question is not clear. Clarifying responsibilities will result in more coherent planning prior to environmental crises – and, when those crises result in displacement, a more effective response to those in need.