Panel Theme:
Is it time to legislate?
Paper Title:
The International
Refugees‘
Author:
Michèle Morel
Protection
and
Rights
of
‘Environmental
The formulation of the problem of ‘environmental refugees’
‘Environmental refugees’ are a new phenomenon in the global arena. Their existence is the
result of environmental degradation or damaged ecosystems. Partly due to natural influences
and partly due to pollution and over-exploitation of natural resources by human beings, our
environment, i.e. the natural ecosystems, has been damaged to a great extent. 1 While
restoration of these damages is becoming a priority and of environmental interest, those
damaged ecosystems have a great influence on populations: many of them living in such
environments are not able anymore to support themselves. The only alternative is seeking
refuge elsewhere, whether inside or outside their homeland, whether temporarily or
permanently. Doing so, they have become environmental refugees: fleeing as a result of
changes in their environment such as soil erosion, drought, desertification, deforestation,
climate change, sea-level rise and also natural disasters.2
Although estimates of the number of refugees are dependent on who are considered to be
environmental refugees, their number is rising. In 1995, their estimated number, based on an
18-month research project, was at least 25 million,3 while by 2010, Myers expects the number
to double. These refugees are mainly located in Sub-Saharan Africa, India, China, Mexico and
Central America.4
Notwithstanding the existence of a clear causal link between environmental or ecological
changes and forced migration,5 there is uncertainty about the international legal status of
these ‘refugees’ and with regard to their protection, little headway has been made. No
universal consensus about a definition of ‘environmental refugee’ and about the notion to use
(refugee versus displaced person versus migrant) exists. However, such a distinction is
necessary to understand the international obligations. Contrary to ‘political’ refugees,
environmental refugees are recognized neither by the Geneva Convention of 1951, nor by the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).6
From the international community an appropriate reaction to the problem is expected because
it is faced with humanitarian, justice, global security and new environmental problems.7
Views on and possible solutions to the issue of ‘environmental refugees’
Some academics and non-governmental organizations argue for the international recognition
of environmental refugees in international treaties, either in the 1951 Geneva Convention (new
category ‘environmental persecution’), or in a new international convention. Others consider
their inclusion in the Geneva Convention inappropriate, unfeasible and ineffective. According to
them, the international community must rather create a new coordination mechanism
See B. C. Rana (ed.), Damaged Ecosystems and Restoration (World Scientific Publishing Company, 1998).
N. Myers & J. Kent, ‘Environmental Exodus: an Emergent Crisis in the Global Arena’, 1995, the Climate Institute,
Washington DC, at 18-19.
3
Compared with at that moment 27 million traditional refugees, i.e. people fleeing political oppression, religious
persecution and ethnic troubles: UNHCR, The State of the World’s Refugees 1995: In search of solutions (OUP, 1995),
Chapter 1.
4
N. Myers & J. Kent, ‘Environmental Exodus: an Emergent Crisis in the Global Arena’, 1995, the Climate Institute,
Washington DC, at 1; see also B. R. Doos, ‘Can Large-Scale Environmental Migrations be Predicted?’ (1997) Global
Environ. Change 7, 41; R. Ramlogan, ‘Environmental Refugees: a Review’ (1996) Environ.Conserv. 23, 81.
5
See S. Lonergan, ‘The Role of Environmental Degradation in Population Displacement’ in Environmental Change and
Security Project Report No. 4 (Washington DC, Woodrow Wilson Center, 1998), 5.
6
See N. Myers, & J. Kent, Environmental Exodus: an Emergent Crisis in the Global Arena (Washington DC, The
Climate Institute, 1995).
7
T. King, ‘Environmental Displacement: Coordinating Efforts to Find Solutions’ (2006) Georgetown International
Environmental Law Review 18, 543 at 557.
1
2
Author: Michèle Morel
University: University of Nottingham
Programme: Master (Erasmus) International Public Law
(International Coordinating Mechanism for Environmental Displacement – ICMED)8 that
coordinates the actions of existing organisations in the field of environmental protection,
sustainable development, migrants and refugees protection and, for cases of natural disasters,
humanitarian assistance (UNEP, UNDP, IOM, UNHCR, OCHA). Also considered additionally is
the establishment of a UN Commission, which would report directly to the UN Security Council
and UN General Assembly about the legal, economical, political and social consequences of the
growing number of environmental refugees.9
It has been argued that nations that have contributed the most to environmental pollution in
the past should now recognise their ‘ecological debt’ and assume responsibility in relation to
developing countries that will bear increasingly the consequences of that pollution.10 This is
possible through the inclusion of environmental refugees in national immigration legislation.
However, others see the issue in a broader frame of sustainable development. The solution in
this view must be found in the organisation of development projects and activities to tackle the
poverty and other factors related to environmental displacement.11 The UNHCR takes the view
that environmental refugees (of whom the majority is still internally displaced) still enjoy
national protection and therefore are outside the ‘competence’ of the international
community.12 However, the recognition as internally displaced persons (IDPs) will offer
insufficient protection, since environmental refugees are increasingly expected to cross the
national border.
Questions for the future
Many questions arise when attempting at tackling the problem of environmental refugees.
Is a differentiated protection regime required depending on the category environmental
refugees or is a general regime for all environmental refugees desirable? To propose a possible
distinguished protection regime, a typology such as ‘environmental refugees’, ‘environmental
migrants’, ‘environmental (internally) displaced persons’ could be of importance. Also
additional consequences of the flight such as a threat to the international security or a threat
to the environment to which these refugees move must be taken into account.
On the basis of which current or future international legal set of instruments can the best
protection be offered to environmental refugees? Can the international community anticipate
and remedy this problem through existing environmental treaties such as the Climate Treaty or
adaptations to it, whereby the industrialised countries support the affected developing
countries in IDP programs through ‘adaptation measures’, or would the extension of the 1951
Geneva Convention, a new refugee convention or a new migration regulation be preferable? It
has to be examined whether the most desirable solutions are also feasible, politically and
practically, but sure is that the adequate protection of environmental refugees requires a
combination of two measures: measures dealing with the healing of the degraded environment
and measures dealing with the plight of those who headed for safer countries.
T. King, ‘Environmental Displacement: Coordinating Efforts to Find Solutions’ (2006) Georgetown International
Environmental Law Review 18, 543 at 559.
9
See T. King, ‘Environmental Displacement: Coordinating Efforts to Find Solutions’ (2006) Georgetown International
Environmental Law Review 18, 543 at 559-564; M. Conisbee & A. Simms, Environmental Refugees: the Case for
Recognition (London, New Economics Foundation, 2003), at 21-39.
10
M. Conisbee & A. Simms, Environmental Refugees: the Case for Recognition (London, New Economics Foundation,
2003), at 33 and 39.
11
J. Lambert, Refugees and the Environment: the Forgotten Element of Sustainability, The Greens/European Free
Alliance in the European Parliament (Brussels, 2002).
12
See M. Conisbee & A. Simms, Environmental Refugees: the Case for Recognition (London, New Economics
Foundation, 2003), at 26-27.
8
Author: Michèle Morel
University: University of Nottingham
Programme: Master (Erasmus) International Public Law