Aidan Campbell
Peru
6th Main Committee
Environmental Refugees and Refugee Status
In 2015, not only is the world community faced with the realities of conflict, violence,
and persecution, but as the global population increases and resources dwindle, the state of the
environment has also become a growing concern. Deforestation; rising sea levels; desertification
and drought; land, water, and air degradation; natural disasters; and climate change have led
millions of citizens to flee their homes seeking refuge in neighboring countries. As of now, the
parties to the United Nations have failed to recognize these displaced peoples as refugees, thus
denying them the rights afforded to political or war refugees in the 1951 Convention. According
to Article I of the Convention, the status of a refugee presently refers to “a person who is outside
his/her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of persecution
because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political
opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country, or to
return there, for fear of persecution.” Those who fit this description are protected under The 1951
Convention and its 1967 Protocol and must receive, at a minimum, the same standards of
treatment given to other foreign naturals, or, as many countries dictate, the same treatment as
nationals including such things as the right to freedom of religion, the right to movement, the
right to work, the right to housing, the right to public relief and assistance, the right to education,
the right to accessibility to travel documents, the right to access courts, and the right to protest
refoulement. The country of asylum is already at a deficit providing for these political refugees,
that the added number of environmental refugees, which some estimate at around a quarter
million, would only put added strain on the country, testing the limits of its generosity. Peru is
already a State Party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, but it has yet to implement
legislation addressing the protection and assistance of persons in need of international aid who
do not qualify under the present refugee definition, most notably, those caught up in
environmental conflicts. And while Peru is party to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of
Stateless Persons, it is not party to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The
delegation from Peru has stated that it is willing to cooperate with the UNHCR on the status of
refugee and stateless persons. The first step would be to identify areas vulnerable to climate
change and monitor these areas, keeping close track of the numbers of the population, the
problems faced, and the possible aid the country itself can provide. If this fails though, and the
country is unable to provide for its people, the international community should set in stone a firm
definition of who is an ‘environmental refugee’ and develop protocol for cross-border relocation
by either amending the current 1951 Convention to include the victims of environmental
conflicts, or by establishing a new convention entirely to accommodate for the needs of this
group of people. As discussed, the biggest problem with this is that the country of asylum would
then be legally contracted to provide for these refugees, thus placing a large financial burden on
the country. So while the country may be willing to accommodate these environmental refugees
on a case by case basis, if a new legal framework were put in place, legally mandating them to
accept and attend to all those seeking aid due to environmental conflicts, many countries would
immediately reject it, as the sheer number of potential people would surely deplete the country’s
own economy. But, if an independent fund were developed to support these host countries, many
more would be willing to accept a new convention related to the status and protection of
environmental refugees.
According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Second Working Group
Report and the Stern Review, Peru produced barely enough global CO2 emissions to scratch the
surface, but it will be one of the countries affected most by the consequences of Climate Change.
With more than 70% of the world’s tropical glaciers supplying more than 9 million rural
peoples, the now unavoidable melting of glaciers will severely reduce water supplies in a country
that is already becoming water poor with 3.3 million currently lacking access to safe drinking
water. Furthermore, as a warmer country, Peru is susceptible to droughts and extreme weather
such as El Niño which devastated the country in 1998, and, with climate change, such disasters
will only become more common. Peru’s coastal communities are also at risk as sea levels rise
and the small communities, dependent on fisheries and agriculture, are forced to relocate. Peru is
already a proponent of climate action and hosted the World Climate Summit in 2014. They are
moving toward a low carbon path by protecting forest carbon reserves and eliminating emissions
from key sectors, but at this point, without the support of the rest of the international community,
they will likely become a top country of origin for environmental refugees.
In December 2014, Lima, Peru initiated the Lima Climate Conference, a call to the world
community to establish a foundation for climate action and address the consequences of climate
change. Among the issues discussed there was a work program established under the committee
to gain a better understanding of how the loss and damage due to climate change affects
particularly vulnerable developing countries and populations including indigenous or minority
status ones, and how this then impacts human migration and displacement. In light of the coming
2015 Paris Agreement, there are a number of potential solutions in place. The international
community has already given its support to mitigating greenhouse gases which is projected to
diminish climate change and avoid displacement. The committee should also prioritize the
documentation of the environmental changes on habitats and communities at a local level,
including whether this is leading to forced population movements. This will then allow them to
identify those populations at risk and either provides assistance via DRR actions, or as a last
resort, put in place a planned relocation. In cases in which relocation is required, delegates
should consult with the Nansen Initiative to develop a comprehensive plan educating the
communities at risk and strengthening their resilience; working with the country of origin to fully
support and provide for these peoples; and finally, preparing possible countries of asylum for the
challenges of cross-border humanitarian assistance.
If these steps fail, the international community should consider developing an entirely
new legal instrument outlining the rights and protections given to environmental refugees
compared to political refugees. This would involve a Protocol on the Recognition, Protection,
and Resettlement of Climate Refugees to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, along with a separate funding operation, the Climate Refugee Protection and
Resettlement Fund, an independent fund supported by the parties to the climate refugee protocol.
This fund would alleviate the financial burden of the countries of asylum, since if their own
country’s economy won’t suffer, they might be more willing to accept environmental refugees.
The fund would be supplied by a “polluter pays” or solidarity approach. Thus the countries who
fail to encourage and address climate action, must pay the price in the form of a fine going
toward the fund. For example, if a country exceeds the agreed upon greenhouse gas emission
amount, then the country would be made to pay a set amount which would go into the fund for
the protection and resettlement of climate or environmental refugees. Such a policy could be
extended to the world citizens too in the form of an international air-travel levy. Back in 2005,
the European Union investigated a similar plan to help meet the Millennium Development Goals,
and France already has a solidarity ticket levy on air passengers, which goes to fund the fight
against HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Thus, this would not be an unprecedented solution
and judging by the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, which garnered the support of 92% of
countries, and the participation of parties in the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO), if these same countries adopted the policy, upwards of US $1 billion could be raised.
This small per-trip payment by passengers would amount to nor more than $2 per passenger with
no variation between classes, which, with a collection efficiency of 80% and a participation rate
of 80% would produce a total of US $1.1 billion to fund the protection and resettlement of
environmental refugees. In this way, the tax would demonstrate the solidarity of wealthier
international air passengers with those in poorer, more vulnerable countries who are suffering
from the climate impacts caused by international air travel.
While the first course of action would be to take steps to enable each country to
individually provide for its environmental refugees and foresee and prepare for future problems
facing its people, if this fails, and cross-border migration seems the only option, countries must
contemplate devising an entirely new legal framework outlining the protection and resettlement
of these victims of environmental conflicts. But in order for the international community to issue
such a mandate, they must provide financial support to the host countries who are taking in these
refugees. This money would come from the Climate Refugee Protection and Resettlement Fund,
an independent fund for all parties to the climate refugee protocol. Those countries which
exceeded the cap on greenhouse gas emissions would be made to pay. Another way to gain funds
would be to introduce an international air travel levy, mandating that all international passengers
pay an additional $2 tax, which would go to the Climate Refugee Protection and Resettlement
Fund. The International Community must be united in its efforts to promote climate action and
protect environmental refugees and any country which threatens the welfare of either must be
made to pay.