Advertisement
Fanny Thornton: What we saw recently in New Zealand was an applicant from Kiribati who brought a claim to the NZ Immigration and Protection Tribunal, claiming he feared the impact of climate change in his home country and was applying on that basis for refugee status. The tribunal refused to recognize that he's capable of being a refugee, because the international legal framework of how you become a refugee is not really applicable to such people.
Advertisement
At the moment, there's no mention in the draft text whatsoever about any matter to do with human mobility in relation to climate change. In the past, the outcome text of some meetings have had some mention of migration displacement and relocation, but the language has always been very vague, noncommittal, very much against any possibility to start developing any kind of legal or institutional infrastructure.I imagine that a powerful state like Australia would have opposed any such measure appearing in the draft and certainly in the final text. A lot of powerful states at this point do not really consider that the umbrella of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is necessarily appropriate for trying to resolve this issue of people displaced by climate change.There's certainly lots of the more powerful states that are keen to not develop any kind of obligation in this area.
Advertisement
We have a lot of states around the world, including Australia, who are taking a stand of wanting to limit migration of displaced people into their territory. There is this fear in the context of wanting to regulate and minimize such migration already. You don't really want to develop—in the international sphere—further commitments to people that may be displaced for example by environmental reasons.To date have there been any other international programs set in place to help people displaced by climate change?
Yes. The most promising is called the Nansen Initiative. It's a state-led process to develop a protection agenda that relates to cross-border movements in relation to natural disasters and climate change. The two early adopters of this process were Switzerland and Norway, although Australia joined relatively early.It has not developed a legal instrument, but just a few weeks ago, there was a meeting following its initial phase in Geneva and over 100 countries endorsed the protection agenda that was developed.So I guess what we need to see now is how states such as Australia react to this initiative. And see how it is socialized and developed as at least a basic instrument, even as much as a binding one that is highly relevant in the context of people movement and climate change.And if no changes take place at the international level, what's going to happen to these people?
Well people may end up moving internationally into situations that are quite precarious for them. Legally speaking they may end up in territories where they have very little legal status, which is not a good situation to be in.You might see securitization in relation to this issue, with states that are fearing they may see an influx of people impacted by the effect of climate change further increasing border security, making it quite difficult for people to then in fact move.And what isn't highlighted in this scenario is the possibility of trapped populations—populations that really need to move and should, but then become trapped because they really have nowhere to go.What would you say to the leaders at the COP 21 about climate change-related displacement, if you had the chance?
Leaders should feel encouraged to further build consensus around the issue of migration, displacement, and relocation in the context of climate change. The COP has previously agreed on principles related to this, namely to cooperate and to coordinate under the umbrella of enhanced adaptation action. It is timely to now build on those commitments and to give them expanded content.Follow Paul on Twitter.