As fears of the global impact of climate change grow, I’m seeing more and more references in the media to “climate refugees,” the millions of people who may be forcibly displaced by the natural and man-made disasters that climate change will provoke. As a descriptive phrase it has the advantage of being short and clear. The problem is that from a refugee rights perspective it is nonsensical, and therein lies yet another dilemma for anyone who wants to communicate clearly about a complex issue.
The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defines a refugee as someone who is outside the country of her or his nationality “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” While in the succeeding decades fleeing conflict has become an accepted rationale for claiming international protection, flight from natural disasters has not. Thus, under international refugee law there can be no “climate refugees.”
Indeed, the term points to a gap in the global protection regime that will have to be addressed if climate change has anywhere near the profound impact currently projected. While a change in the Refugee Convention itself may not be warranted (or achievable), an agreed international framework recognizing that hundreds of thousands of people may need temporary protection in neighboring countries as the result of large-scale climatic events will be necessary. In extreme cases, such as the threatened disappearance of island states like the Maldives, the displacement will be permanent. The international legal ramifications of the various scenarios will need to be negotiated, ideally within the context of the climate change negotiations which continue in Copenhagen in December.
In the meantime, there is no easy solution to the muddle on terminology. What is the alternative to climate refugees? People displaced by climate change (PDCCs)? Climate displaced people (CDPs)? People affected by climatic events (PACEs)? Once again --- as with internally displaced people (vs. the incorrect, misses the whole point “internal refugees”) --- rigor gets in the way of directness. But Refugees International has no choice but to stand with the pedants and ban climate refugees from our style book. So get used to phrases like “people forced from their homes by large-scale disasters brought on by climate change” --- you’ll be reading many of them in the months and years ahead. [1]