Blog post by Abigail Ogden, student at American University
In 2022, UNHCR reported approximately 32 million people displaced due to climate-related events. This figure represents a 41% increase in climate-related migration since 2008, showcasing the repercussions of rising extreme weather events related to climate change. As the world becomes more critically aware of the present danger that climate change poses to populations around the world, a new term for those affected seems to be emerging: ‘climate refugees’. National Geographic defines the term as “people who must leave their homes and communities because of the effects of climate change and global warming.” Despite the growing popularity of the expression, this term is not recognized under international law.
Internal and international migration due to extreme weather events and climate-related conditions is becoming a growing phenomenon for the states most vulnerable to climate change. As an example, Bangladesh ranks ninth in the world for climate disaster risk according to the 2023 World Risk Index. The World Risk Index, published by Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft, ranks the disaster risk for 193 countries in the world based on their vulnerability to experiencing humanitarian disaster arising from extreme natural events and the negative impacts of climate change. The IMF predicts that by 2025 17% of Bangladesh’s land surface will be lost to rising sea levels and will result in a 30% reduction in food production. Already as of 2021, more than 7.4 million Bangladeshi migrants lived abroad and an estimated 400,000 annually move internally from rural areas affected by weather disasters to the capital city of Dhaka.
As the number of people fleeing climate-related disasters is expected to grow in the coming years due to the escalating impacts of climate change, the lack of legal recognition and barriers to asylum for climate refugees remain a pressing challenge. In the case of Bangladesh, a majority of those fleeing arrive in neighboring India. In 2020, India was the most popular destination for Bangladeshis emigrating legally, with an estimated 2.5 million individuals migrating from Bangladesh. India has also insisted they house a large number of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. In 2016, then Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju put this figure at 20 million illegal Bangladeshi migrants. While this figure remains unsupported, estimates for migration to India remain high, with the Asian Development Bank reporting that migration from Bangladesh to India could be the largest international migration flow worldwide.
Nonetheless, obtaining refugee status in India remains difficult. For one, neither Bangladesh nor India are party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees which legally defines a refugee and outlines their legal protections. Without guaranteed legal protections, forcibly displaced people from Bangladesh have little hope of obtaining refugee status. Secondly, new legislation in India including the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 (CAA) makes it more difficult for Bangladeshi migrants fleeing climate disasters to pursue alternative paths to safety including citizenship status. The CAA offers an accelerated pathway to citizenship status for non-Muslim legal and illegal migrants in India, while excluding Muslim migrants from the same opportunity. As Bangladesh is an overwhelming Muslim majority state, the act excludes many Bangladesh migrants attempting to obtain citizenship.
Even in States that are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, acquiring refugee status for climate-related reasons is nearly impossible. According to the 1951 Convention, a refugee is defined as someone who is “persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group.” Climate-driven forced displacement does not fall under any of the ‘Convention grounds’ — including particular social group membership, which is often interpreted most broadly (e.g., to include gender) — and is therefore not recognized as a valid basis for refugee status under the 1951 Convention. Furthermore, the definition stipulates that the migrant must have a “well-founded fear of being persecuted.” Because it is difficult to prove a well-founded fear of persecution for climate-related reasons, many who flee for this reason are considered to have left voluntarily, making them migrants, not refugees.
UNHCR has made the case that while refugees fleeing solely for climate-related reasons may not be protected under the 1951 definition, those fleeing persecution from conflict or human rights abuses that have been exacerbated by climate disasters can be considered for refugee status. Therefore, climate change can be considered a “risk multiplier” which directly and indirectly contributes to poverty, unemployment, conflict, resource scarcity, gender inequality, and more. Viewing climate change as a contributing factor to conflict and other forms of persecution allows for the legal opportunity to grant refugee status on such basis.
Viewing climate change solely as a risk multiplier for persecution is insufficient within the legal framework of refugee status determination. Without language that directly protects those fleeing due to climate-related disasters, populations most acutely impacted by climate change will continue to suffer from inhabitable land, loss of food sources, destruction of property, decline of economic markets, and reduced access to healthcare. In order to rectify this, new language must be adopted by states to include climate refugees as a protected group under the 1951 Convention. Those whose lives are put at risk and livelihoods destroyed by the impact of climate change deserve protection when they are forced to seek safety.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.