An Argument for Granting the Legal Refugee Designation to “Climate Refugees”

Introduction

Stories about the  impacts of climate change on humans have come to dominate the media, leading to the creation of the term “climate refugee.” A climate refugee is a person who has been displaced because of climate change-related disasters, such as droughts, monsoons, and sea-level rise. Though this term appears frequently in news articles about climate change, climate refugees are not currently considered refugees in the legal sense. Refugees are distinct from internally displaced persons; to be a refugee, one must cross a national border. As such, the legal status of refugees falls under the jurisdiction of international law,  mainly overseen by the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR). According to the legal definition adopted by the UNHCR at the 1951 Refugee Convention, a refugee is “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”

In the generally accepted legal interpretation, climate refugees do not fulfill the legal definition of refugees because it does not appear that they are actively persecuted by some group. In other words, hurricanes do not discriminate based on race or nationality; as non-sentient beings, the harm they inflict cannot be considered persecution. However, because of the intentional decision to produce massive amounts of pollution, whether through CO2 emissions or by exporting waste to developing countries, multinational corporations, along with complicit local governments, indirectly persecute those in developing countries based on their nationalities, meaning climate refugees could be considered refugees under the existing legal framework. 

A Definition of “Developing” Countries 

Let us first establish that pollution does, in fact, adversely affect developing countries in uniquely acute ways. To do so, we must come to a common understanding of what it means to be a “developing” country.

The word “developing” commonly refers to countries that, to put it simply, are poor. Countries in Subsaharan Africa and parts of the Caribbean, Latin America, and the Middle East thus fall under this categorization. Poverty is typically measured in terms of gross domestic product (GDP), the number of people living below the poverty line, or the unemployment rate. “Developing” may also refer to countries that have low levels of institutional capacity; this is characterization preferred by dominant sociologists and economists. According to the Brookings Institution, institutional capacity refers to the effectiveness of governance, rule of law, provision of public services, and economic policies. However, poverty and institutional capacity are often related; the Brookings Institution writes, “Enhancing the institutional capacity of developing countries [will allow them] to better manage their macroeconomic and social sector policies. Without the ability to manage these policies, poor countries often cannot absorb external resources.” In other words, we can understand poverty and low institutional capacity as symptoms of each other.

With this understanding of development in mind, we can now turn to why the polluting practices of modern corporations target developing nations, preying on both their poverty and institutional instability.  

How Corporations Target Developing Countries

Pollution, for this argument, will be understood in two different ways: the production of waste in specific locations, and emissions that occur at many discrete locations. In both cases of pollution production, corporations knowingly endanger the health and wellbeing of those living in developing nations. Let us turn first to the most visible case. 

Waste at Specific Locations: Exports to Developing Countries

In a now-infamous memo that circulated to the press in the early 1990s, Lawrence Summers, the World Bank’s chief economist at the time, wrote, “A given amount of health-impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages...I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.” This memo exposes something fundamentally true about the way that corporations have traditionally operated. 

Western corporations that produce large amounts of waste have historically drawn ire from the media; a convenient solution to this unfavorable press is to export this waste to developing countries. Due to the poverty and weak economic institutions previously discussed, these countries are not in a position to reject an influx of jobs. In a summary of her recent study, Yue Maggie Zhou, a Professor of Strategy at the University of Michigan, writes, “I found that a significant number of US firms reduce their pollution at home by offshoring production to poor and less regulated countries. The greening of US manufacturing over the past several decades may be partially caused by a growing flow of ‘brown’ imports from poor countries.” According to Zhou, as U.S. factory emissions have decreased since the 1990s, imports from developing countries have substantially increased, particularly in textiles, rubber, and plastic. Thus, companies within developed nations can achieve the appearance of sustainability by exporting their waste to developing nations, essentially doing what Summers so bluntly described in his infamous memo.

The intentional decision to export waste has a tangible impact. For example, wastewater runoff contaminates ecosystems, destroying key water and food sources for coastal communities. Additionally, disease outbreaks caused by contact with pollution strain already feeble healthcare systems. This results in thousands of people fleeing unlivable conditions for a chance at a better life in neighboring countries. These people were deemed expendable by multinational corporations, who target developing countries as suitable hosts for their polluting activities. Furthermore, these people were deemed expendable by local governments, who are desperate to achieve economic development. And yet, these people are legally considered immigrants, not refugees.

General Emissions: The Disproportionate Impact of Severe Weather and Sea-Level Rise 

While the sinister impacts of pollution that occur directly in developing nations are clear, how do we account for the countries that do not house factories? Take, for example, the small island nation of Micronesia, or Haiti. Though these countries are not hubs for polluting industries, pollution in any location contributes to climate change-related phenomena, which harm developing nations more acutely than developed nations.

Miami and small island nations are both threatened by sea-level rise. However, Miami has the infrastructure and available land space to handle, at least in the short term, land loss; small island nations do not. For example, some islands belonging to Micronesia have completely disappeared, swallowed by the ocean, within the past decade. This has led Micronesians to congregate on larger, more populous islands, but this solution will only last so long. The sea level in the Western Pacific is rising at two to three times the global average rate, and reef islands in this region, made mostly of sand and gravel, are particularly susceptible to erosion. The larger islands in Micronesia, due to relatively low institutional capacity, will not be able to effectively accommodate the thousands of people who will eventually resettle there, leading many to seek refuge across national borders.

Larger nations not immediately threatened by sea-level rise are, however, still vulnerable to the effects of human-induced climate change. Haiti and the Dominican Republic, for example, share the same island, yet Haiti makes headlines far more frequently for being devastated by hurricanes than its neighbor. Weak infrastructure and unsustainable land-use practices make the Haitian side of the island more vulnerable to flooding and landslides. Haiti is 97% deforested, a phenomenon that dates to the era of colonialism, when trees were cleared to make room for French plantations. Haiti is also plagued by poverty, crime, and institutional ineffectiveness to a larger extent than most other nations. As a result, hurricanes have a far more devastating impact on Haiti: the environmental damage is far more severe, and those injured or displaced have limited access to social services. In the case of Haiti, environmental threats exacerbate already perilous conditions, leading tens of thousands of Haitians to seek refuge at the U.S. border. The media has furiously denounced the inhumane treatment of Haitians at the border; however, they are referred to expressly as migrants, not refugees. 

Thus, emissions occurring at any location contribute to the overall warming of the global climate. Those most acutely affected are those who have been historically ignored or exploited for Western gain; in other words, they are populations considered expendable. Now, with the fact that industrial pollution threatens developing nations specifically, we can return to the question of refugee designation. 

Does This Constitute Persecution?

Whether climate refugees are legal refugees hinges on whether the production of pollution constitutes persecution. The UN Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status is extremely vague in defining the term “persecution.” According to the Handbook, “There is no universally accepted definition of ‘persecution’... From Article 33 of the 1951 Convention, it may be inferred that a threat to life or freedom on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group is always persecution. Other serious violations of human rights – for the same reasons – would also constitute persecution.” This definition leaves much room for interpretation; however, the key phrase “threat to life or freedom” provides a foothold for incorporating climate refugees. Arguably, droughts that lead to crop failure, massive die-offs of fish due to contamination of oceans and rivers, and hurricanes that kill thousands all constitute a threat to life.

Rob Nixon, a Professor of Humanities and the Environment at Princeton University, supports this conception of persecution in his book Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. In the introduction, Nixon defines “slow violence” as “a violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as violence at all.” According to Nixon, if we expand our frame of reference, the effects of climate change on countries that are targets for pollution are violent. In other words, tangible bodily harm is inflicted on people living in specific countries, threatening both life and freedom. 

However, there is no legal precedent for interpreting a “threat to life or freedom” in this manner. “Persecution,” historically, has only been used to describe the actions of a specific group operating with a distinct ideological motive. Take, for example, two of the most well-publicized refugee crises of the modern era: Myanmar and Syria. 1.1 million Rohingya Muslims have fled genocide in Myanmar, while 6.8 million Syrian refugees have fled violence and persecution at the hands of both the government and radical groups. Absent from official listings of refugees are those from small island states, Haiti, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and other places acutely threatened by human-induced climate change. Currently, the refugee designation is reserved for those fleeing violence inflicted by one specific actor with an explicit agenda rather than those fleeing violence inflicted by a broadly defined global political and economic system.  

Significance of the Refugee Designation 

Should climate refugees be granted the legal refugee designation, persons displaced due to climate change would be entitled to the full protections and services offered by the UNHCR. Refugees would no longer have to fear deportation back to their home countries, as the UNHCR protects displaced people who have crossed national borders. Furthermore, refugees would have access to UNHCR caseworkers, who aid in facilitating resettlement from refugee camps in border countries to more permanent, safe residences in “third countries,” such as the United States, Canada, or Italy.

Of course, this designation would not come without its own set of drawbacks. As is, refugee camps are frequently overcrowded, unsanitary, and violent, all of which are exacerbated by hostility from the countries in which the camps are located. Additionally, the services provided by the UNHCR only actually help a fraction of the refugees in need; according to the UNHCR website, “There were 20.7 million refugees of concern to UNHCR around the world at the end of 2020, but less than one percent of refugees are resettled each year.” Though NGOs also exist to aid in the processing and resettlement of refugees, their impact is similarly nominal. Therefore, extending the refugee designation to climate refugees would put increased strain on an already overwhelmed framework for caring for refugees.

However, it is important to note that regardless of the legal status of climate refugees, people displaced by climate change will inevitably seek refuge in neighboring countries. In other words, camps of climate refugees across national borders are going to become a more and more common phenomenon, even if comprehensive climate action is soon taken on a global scale. With the refugee designation, these people would be protected by an internationally recognized governing body. Even if that governing body has limited power to address the needs of the millions of people who depend on its services, protection from deportation will undoubtedly increase the chances for successful, legal relocation. 

A framework for protecting climate refugees already exists. It is now a matter of extending it.

References

[1] Watson, Julie, Ellen Knickmeyer, and Nomaan Merchant. “US: More Threats, More Desperate Refugees as Climate Warms.” AP News, October 21, 2021. https://apnews.com/article/climate-environment-and-nature-united-states-united-nations-natural-disasters-f9ddc62a461308bd3f1aa370bf3d8141.

[2] Ibid.

[3] UNHCR: The UN Refugee Agency. “What Is a Refugee?” Accessed November 9, 2021. https://www.unhcr.org/what-is-a-refugee.html.

[4] Silver, Marc. “If You Shouldn’t Call It The Third World, What Should You Call It?” NPR, January 4, 2015. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/01/04/372684438/if-you-shouldnt-call-it-the-third-world-what-should-you-call-it.

[5] Graham, Carol. “Strengthening Institutional Capacity in Poor Countries: Shoring Up Institutions, Reducing Global Poverty.” Brookings, April 1, 2002. https://www.brookings.edu/research/strengthening-institutional-capacity-in-poor-countries-shoring-up-institutions-reducing-global-poverty/.

[6] Ibid.

[7] “Furor on Memo At World Bank.” The New York Times, February 7, 1992, sec. Business. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/furor-on-memo-at-world-bank.html.

[8] “Toxic Memo.” Harvard Magazine, May 1, 2001. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2001/05/toxic-memo.html.

[9] Zhou, Yue Maggie. “US Manufacturers Offshore Pollution to Developing Countries.” Climate Home News, May 22, 2017. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/22/us-manufacturers-offshore-pollution-developing-countries/.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Anderson, Donald M. “The Growing Problem of Harmful Algae.” https://www.whoi.edu/, November 12, 2004. https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/the-growing-problem-of-harmful-algae/.

[12] Varkkey, Helena. “By Exporting Trash, Rich Countries Put Their Waste out of Sight and out of Mind.” CNN, July 29, 2019. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/29/opinions/by-exporting-trash-rich-countries-put-their-waste-out-of-sight-and-out-of-mind-varkkey/index.html.

[13] Nunn, Patrick D. “Sinking Islands: Sea Level Rise Is Washing Away Micronesia’s History.” Newsweek, November 9, 2017. https://www.newsweek.com/sea-level-rise-vanishing-islands-micronesia-history-706455.

[14] Ibid.

[15] ClimateLinks. “Haiti.” Accessed November 11, 2021. https://www.climatelinks.org/countries/haiti.

[16] Sennott, Anna F. “Environmental Degradation as a Result of Colonization.” ArcGIS StoryMaps, December 16, 2020. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/193e1faf0a3a46718bc3578b2e71d3d6.

[17] Ibid.

[18] ClimateLinks. “Haiti.”

[19] Alden, Edward, and Alex Tippett. “Why Are Haitian Migrants Gathering at the U.S. Border?” Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed November 11, 2021. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/why-are-haitian-migrants-gathering-us-border.

[20] UNHCR. “Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.” Accessed November 11, 2021. https://www.unhcr.org/publications/legal/5ddfcdc47/handbook-procedures-criteria-determining-refugee-status-under-1951-convention.html.

[21] Rob Nixon, Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2013), 2.

[22] Reid, Kathryn. “Forced to Flee: Top Countries Refugees Are Coming From.” World Vision (blog), June 18, 2021. https://www.worldvision.org/refugees-news-stories/forced-to-flee-top-countries-refugees-coming-from.

[23] UNHCR. “Resettlement.” Accessed November 12, 2021. https://www.unhcr.org/resettlement.html.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Karakoulaki, Marianna. “The Invisible Violence of Europe’s Refugee Camps.” Accessed November 12, 2021. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/10/22/the-invisible-violence-of-europes-refugee-camps.

[27] UNHCR. “Resettlement.”