LAW MANTRA

THINK BEYOND OTHERS

(National Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 23216417)

Climate Refugees: A Beginning to Climate Wars

Abstract: Everyone right now is concerned about what would happen to the polar bears if the ice caps start melting due to inordinate rise in the global temperatures. Environmentalists talk of fast depleting resources which would not be available to our future generations. The world is worried about the depletion of the ozone layer. We recognise them as the biggest threats due to environmental depletion, dont we? Think again. Something out of all this is causing mass global migration and border conflicts. For the first time, the world super power, United States of America now considers climate change a national security risk and the term climate wars is being talked about in war-room like environments in Washington D.C. Do we have any idea as to why such border conflicts are coming up? To find the answer to such questions we need to be familiar to the term- Climate refugees or Environmental Migrants. In figures released by the International Organization for Migration estimated that climate change would drive a billion people worldwide from their homes in the next four decades. The situation in India also doesnt seem good. In Orissa, where the coastal village of Kanhapura has vanished, there would be a large scale environmental migration. The paper thus makes a discussion on this phenomenon of Climate Refugees and the disastrous effects that itll have on various nations and their inhabitants. These activities will subsequently trickle down to the neighbours and would lead to land-conflicts. The paper also suggests policies that should be adopted to tackle this mounting problem of Climate Refugees.

Introduction The word refugee has for centuries been understood to represent the section of people who were forced to leave their home owing to severe circumstances which were out of their control. The word instantly conjures sympathetic images of people being displaced from their native countries and living in refugee camps with minimal or no basic necessities. For long there was this conception that a person could only be forced out of his native place because of war situations, political turmoil, armed conflicts and other such situations. The term refugee was also defined under the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees , as: A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country. But at that point of time, the framers of these conventions didnt know that the situations would change and these definitions would demand necessary and considerable changes. They never knew that a situation would arise, wherein the nature would compel people to flee out of their homelands. The nature would take such a toll that it would leave millions homeless. Such mass displacements and disastrous situations accompanying these displacements were then noticed and the term Environmental Migrant was coined. The term was first popularised by Lester Brown in 1976 . But it actually got popularised through the contributions on the subject that were made El-Hinnawi and Jacobson which were supported by data which disclosed

migration of environmental refugees from across the Sahel and the Horn of Africa, as well as the Soviet Union and the United States. Later on, the need for discussions relating to environmental refuge started taking stride after various data relating to environmental migrants was highlighted in various reports. The matter was for the first time discussed on a global platform in the report that was formulated by UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990. It was specifically stated in the report: One of the gravest effects of climate change may be those on human migration. This was a prediction that was made 24 years ago when the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its First Assessment Report. The reports authors suggested that large-scale, global migrations might represent the greatest single impact on world security resulting from climate change.

There is now increasing scientific evidence to suggest that these concerns were well founded. In 2009 during a climate science summit in Copenhagen, experts increased earlier predictions of sea-level rise in this century to three times those given by the IPCC in 2007. And in the same year, the noted British economist and author of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, Nick Stern, warned of climate-induced migration on a massive scale. To see the situation in our very own country, Homer-Dixon drew an evidence where the piecing together of demographic information and experts estimates led him to conclude that Bangladeshi migrants had expanded the population of neighbouring areas of India by 12 to 17 million over the last forty years, whilst the population of the state of Assam was been boosted by at least seven million. These claims have gained significant currency, with the most common claims being that 150-200 million people will be climate change refugees by 2050. Variations of this claim have been made in various influential reports on climate change apart from IPCC and the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change , such as by NGOs such as Friends of the Earth , Greenpeace Germany and inter-governmental organisations such as the Council of Europe , UNESCO , IOM (Brown 2008) and UNHCR. Thus, a need has arisen to discuss this grave situation which has a potential to influence the lives of many others by inflicting problems on security conditions and causing major border conflicts. Climate refugees: what exactly are they? To begin with, it would be necessary to establish who exactly would be termed as a Climate Refugee. A working definition which can appropriately define Climate Refugees or Environmental Migrants would be - Citizens and persons with permanent residence who had to leave their home either within their State of origin or across borders, temporarily or permanently; the decisive, immediate trigger for leaving is environmental change induced by human or natural causes which poses a serious threat to their lives or livelihoods. The International Organisation for Migration proposes three types of environmental migrants: Environmental emergency migrants is the category which basically consists of people who flee temporarily due to an environmental disaster or sudden environmental event. There are cases wherein the natives of a place are forced to migrate because of destruction caused by natural disasters such as tsunami, hurricanes etc. Environmental forced migrants is the section of people who have to leave due to deteriorating environmental conditions. These most of the times lead to permanent migrations. Someone

forced to leave due to a slow deterioration of their environment such as deforestation, coastal deterioration, etc. would fall into this category. Environmental motivated migrants also known as environmentally induced economic migrants are the people who choose to leave to avoid possible future problems such as declining crop productivity caused by desertification, drop in fish business due ti vanishing fish species etc. These three are the basic categories of environmental migrants as suggested by the International Organisation for Migration. This categorisation has been able to formulate the fundamental reasons that have been driving the natives out of their homelands. From natural disasters to economic conditions that have been induced by environmental problems have been the reasons that have forced people to be migrants. Although the environmental emergency migrants move back to their native places after the natural calamity has been controlled and reconstruction has been done, the latter two situations have seen migrants of permanent nature who do not return to their native lands. The migrants who have been forced to move out due to the aforementioned reasons have either opted to move out of the country or within the country but to some other place. Based on such choices of migrants, migration has been recognised to be local migration and Trans-boundary migration. The rights of the migrants and the liabilities of the governments are varied in both the situations and would be discussed once the issues that crop up due to Environmental Migrations are discussed. Threats posed by Environmental Migration Firstly, environmental change and migration can pose immense challenges to human security and peace. Failure to meet these challenges may in turn lead to permanent migration. Environmental change and migration can have far-fetched effects on human security and can consequently pose extreme challenges. For migrants and their families, extreme environmental events and gradual changes in habitat have enormous human security implications. The risks to public health alone are dire and can include direct impacts such as heat stress, injuries, air pollution and cancer, plus ecosystem- mediated impacts such as increased risk of infectious diseases, malnutrition, vector-, food- and water-borne diseases. Natural and industrial disasters can cause substantial damage and destruction to basic infrastructure and services. They also tend to result in prolonged family separations and disruptions to health care and education services. In the absence of a safe learning environment, displaced children and youth become

more vulnerable to human trafficking, sexual and gender-based violence and enlistment in criminal activities. For those migrating to escape gradual environmental degradation, income often drops markedly just as food insecurity and public health risks grow. In few of the cases, where the female section of the society is unable to use migration as an adaption technique, it may over exploit the natural resources to meet their basic necessities. Those who do migrate may find themselves in an irregular or undocumented situation, vulnerable to exploitation and human trafficking. With the loss of human capital that can accompany such outward migration, the communities left behind can find it difficult to keep their schools and health clinics open. These constraints on coping capacity can in turn lead to further migration. Secondly, the human security of environmental migrants can also be undermined by conflict. Reductions in arable land, drinking water or fishable seas can give rise to territorial disputes, or conflicting claims to rights to use resources. Similar grievances can erupt in cases of stark cross-border resource disparities. At the same time, mass environmentally induced migration, if inadequately managed, can fuel conflict. Dealing with movements of such magnitude is trying for even the best equipped of States. For many, however, these flows far exceed coping capacity, potentially generating tension. Communities hosting displaced persons may resent the ensuing property damage, property claim disputes or overuse of local resources and the burden on their publicly funded health and social systems. Even gradual environmental migration to urban centres can have a negative effect on social cohesion. Apart from the repercussions that are faced by the migrants, there are consequences that have to be faced by the hosts too. Situations of sudden mass displacement can have substantial environmental repercussions on the migrant host area. In the past, swathes of land have been deforested to set up camps or settlements. Displaced persons themselves may resort to unsustainable resource management in order to make ends meet in extraordinary and protracted circumstances. Some development and land conservation initiatives have had similar environmental effects as resettled populations that are poorly equipped with alternative livelihoods or who have been settled in unworkable areas overexploit natural resources. Where affordable housing and sound sanitation are unavailable, migrants may take to felling trees and procuring coastal sands for construction material, and to consuming contaminated water and food supplies. Migrant homes are often precariously built, in contravention of building codes, and situated on floodplains or sparsely forested hillsides, or next to mangrove swamps and tidal flats. Such coping tactics not only accelerate deforestation and soil erosion, they also limit the

water drainage capacity of increasingly covered surface areas and the populations ability to access safe, clean water, resulting in further public health deterioration. The situation also becomes complex when the legal status of these Climate Refugees is determined. Although the people who cross borders in order to avoid the effects of climate change and environment disasters are supported by the United Nations commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) through assistance in cases where government cannot, but there is no obligation on the host states to provide any temporary identifications to such refugees and if they enter host states undocumented, a situation arises which subsequently makes them vulnerable to criminal sanctions and punishments. Thus, these considerations make it clear that what immediately needs to be thought about is the legal protection that has to be given to these Climate Refugees and what are the international conventions that convey the roles that have to be played by the country of origin and the third state in case of environmental migrations. Legal considerations: Relevant conventions and frameworks and obligations on states Now when it comes to tackling of Climate Refuge, there can be two possible considerations. Firstly, the prevention of circumstances that lead to happening of such situations and secondly, policies to cope up with such migration if they could not have been prevented. The obligations that arise on the part of the states for prevention of situations of environmental migrations include the duty to avoid situations that lead to environmental degradation which consequently result into reasons for environmental migrations. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, sustainable energy use, reducing carbon emissions, use of better technologies and afforestation etc. and the prohibition of trans-boundary damage are a part of the measures that form the part of the states obligations . These obligations not only help in avoiding the immediate change in the environmental conditions but also help in formulation of state responsibility principles. The state is also obliged to act according techniques which can also be termed as adaption measures. These include measures such as Environmental Impact Assessment techniques, pre-warning systems, formulation of building policies and other such measures. Preventive minimisation of the negative consequences of environmental flight situations before the realisation of a danger (preventive mitigation) is also one such obligation. So far, human rights obligations of States in an environmental context have been either deduced from a substantive right to a healthy environment, from procedural rights (e.g. rights

to access to information, rights to participation) or from rights presupposing a healthy environment. A substantive right to a healthy environment is currently only established at the regional level (contractual and customary law); on a universal level, this right is not yet clearly articulated; accordingly, no clear universal State obligations can be identified. In view of the current lack of such a universal provision in international law, effort is made to derive a right to a healthy environment indirectly as a component of other human rights that presuppose a healthy environment; these other human rights can be civil and political rights (e.g. right to life, right to private life), ESCR (e.g. right to health) as well as collective rights. While State obligations concerning the prevention of environmental flight are not explicitly stipulated in treaty law, they can be identified by way of interpretation of those rights. Obligations resulting from the interpretation include: obligations concerning the prevention of environmental change as such (e.g. obligation to carry out environmental impact studies, obligation to regulate the conduct of private actors; obligation to provide the population with the right to participate in decision-making processes which could have an impact on the environment); obligations concerning adaptation (e.g. obligation to inform the public about environmental risks and possible actions to avoid these risks); obligations concerning the preventive minimisation of consequences of environmental migration situations (e.g. obligation to inform the public about potential environmental changes and corresponding rights to information and participation); obligations concerning the mitigation of the impacts of environmental flight situations (e.g. obligation to provide access to legal remedies, to review and redress procedures, obligation to support the population in coping with the situation, obligation to assist affected persons in resettlement efforts). During and after an environmental migration the State of origin continues to be obliged to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights (exceptions exist in cases of public emergency). The Operational Guidelines on Human Rights and Natural Disasters (2006) provide useful documentation on how human rights apply during (but also before and after) natural disasters. Regarding internal environmental refugees the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are applicable. The obligations to avoid trans-boundary harm and damages to neighbouring countries have been formulated through various international treaties including the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol etc. furthermore, the principle which prohibits states from causing trans-boundary environmental damage has also found its way into customary law and this has been time and again been proved through international jurisprudence.

Conclusion: What need to be done? It has now been founded that the problem of Climate Refugees poses a serious threat to security of various nations and thus it needs to be addressed through a legally binding treaty that sets out obligations of states (state of origin as well as host state) in case there is an environmental migration. Apart from the obligations that have been discussed already and need to be fulfilled, first of all what needs to be done is that the definition of Refugee that has been set out in the United Nations Convention on the rights of refugees, 1951 needs to be modified and made to include Climate Refugees within the realm of Refugees. It defines a refugee as a person who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail him or herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution, but nowhere talks of people who have been forced to move out of their states due to deteriorating climatic conditions and manmade disasters. This would provide protection to the Climate Refugees under this convention and would oblige the host nations to respect their basic human rights. The obligations of the state to intervene at the earliest possible stage and adopt policies that work towards sustainable development would be the first step towards tackling this problem of environmental migration. Furthermore, migrations should be regularised by the state authorities i.e. there should not be un-regularised use of natural resources and building of housing facilities but there should be a structured process. Facilitating migration through agreements and individual policies is also one such criteria. For example: New Zealand has implemented a new labour migration policy called the Pacific Access Category (PAC), which allows 75 citizens of Kiribati, 75 citizens of Tuvalu and 250 citizens of Tonga (including their partners and dependent children) to establish residency in New Zealand each year. Currently, both Sweden and Finland recognise environmental migrants as a category of person in need of protection, and, at least on paper, offer protective measures for those people. In Sweden, for example, the Aliens Act offers subsidiary protections for a person otherwise in need of protection, who is outside the country of the aliens nationality, because he or she is unable to return to the country of origin because of an environmental disaster. On the surface, this legislation would seem to offer a positive protection framework for populations displaced by the effects of climate change.

Effective management of environmental migration is essential to ensuring human security, a healthy life, basic humanitarian rights and avoidance of border conflicts. The use of suggested techniques and addressing the needs at the level of international law would definitely provide a practical and realistic approach towards tackling of this grave problem of Environmental Migration.

By:- Vasuprabhat Shukla And Nivedita Chaudhary,4th Year, B.A LL.B(Hons.), Dr.R.M National Law University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh