Defining Climate Migration

By Bethany Tietjen and Hallie Westlund

Section six of the new Biden Administration directive on “Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration” orders the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA) to prepare and submit to the president a report on climate change and its impact on migration, with an eye to informing the administration on the international security dimensions of climate-related migration. The order includes studying “mechanisms” for identifying individuals displaced directly or indirectly from climate change and considering options for their protection and/or proposals for how findings on climate migration might inform U.S. foreign assistance programs. The report will cover opportunities to work with international organizations, non-governmental organizations, or localities trying to respond to such migration. It is a huge but important task. The President gave his team 180 days.

At Climate Policy Lab, climate migration is one of our six research pillars. We feel strongly, like President Biden, that more work is needed on this topic. The scientific literature has struggled to define the exact relationship between climate change and migration. Work is ongoing as to how to quantify the numbers of people displaced for environmental reasons and where they move to. One large barrier to better understanding of climate migration is that it can be difficult to isolate climate change from environmental variability and events that do result in human mobility regardless of human induced climate change.

Climate change is often referred to as a threat multiplier of migration, that is, a factor that compounds other complex factors that motivate temporary or permanent movement of peoples from their communities of origin. Ongoing research confirms that there are often differing responses to the same types of climatic change events that can vary based on local, household or individual contexts. Is a preemptive move based on assessed risk a climate migration or is climate migration limited to movements following a severe weather event or other immediate manifestation of climate change? These questions help define types of movements triggered by the impacts of climate phenomenon.

We know that climate variability such as droughts, heavy rainfall, severe storms and other extreme weather events cause people to move. But there is not yet international consensus on a legal definition for a climate “migrant” or climate “refugee” under international law. Under current U.S. immigration law, people displaced by natural disasters and environmental degradation including those affected severely by climate change have not been categorized as eligible for protection in the United States as refugees. That status is normally reserved for a person unable or unwilling to return home due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

While some argue that a solution could be to expand refugee status to include people displaced by climate impacts, officials at the UN Migration Agency (IOM) who have studied climate migration for over 10 years argue that this is not the solution. Expanding the current refugee convention could weaken an already fragile system on which millions of people fleeing persecution already depend. Instead of a lengthy and bureaucratic process of creating a new international protection category for climate migrants, which can lead to further exclusion of people in need of protection, IOM recommends operating within current international migration and refugee mechanisms to provide safe migration pathways to climate migrants.

If refugee status is not the solution, then what policy responses are appropriate? The administration’s new effort will need to tackle how to address such questions. Currently, the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) rules allow for individuals to remain in the United States if extraordinary and temporary conditions, like an environmental disaster, prevent their return to their country of origin. Migrants from Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, have protections under the Compact of Free Association (CFA). But such protections are only beneficial to the small portion of climate migrants that actually make it to the United States.

Climate impacts affect people within their own countries and typically result in internal displacement before any spillover to international migration occurs. This gradual, or ‘stepwise’ migration further complicates specific designation for climate migrants. An Ethiopian farmer whose harvests are affected by drought is much more likely to migrate to the capital, Addis Ababa, than he is to immediately attempt international migration. Such internal migration can place further stress on cities that are already dealing with climate and environmental challenges of their own.

All this means that simply establishing a U.S. definition of who constitutes a climate refugee will not be easy nor even sufficient given the global context. This means APNSA will have its hands full trying to make an effective assessment of the issues. We recommend:

·       Fund cross-disciplinary R&D on climate migration: Lack of data on the how and why of climate migration is preventing organizations from understanding the nuanced impact of climate change and environmental degradation on migration. Without the data needed to understand mobility responses to climate change, establishing an appropriate legal definition and providing support for climate migrants will continue to prove challenging.

·       Support adaptation and resilience building in communities most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, both at home, in countries nearer to the U.S. border, and abroad, together with international partners and allies:  Increasing community resilience to climate hazards (both slow- and sudden-onset disasters) can prevent forced climate migration from occurring. While many people may choose or be forced to migrate permanently after a climate shock, many others wish to remain in or return to their home villages. Effective adaptation measures could allow them to have that choice.

·       Consider ways to expand access to Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for individuals dealing with climate emergencies who do not qualify for permanent asylum in the United States. An example of such action was in 1999 when the US granted TPS to people displaced by Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua and Honduras. This could also include allowing U.S. immigration to work in tandem with either U.S. allies or relief organizations who are assisting displaced persons from natural disasters and are beyond the scope of resettlement agencies. APNSA should also consider expanding the practice that limits deportations to regions suffering from climate disasters. This practice was not utilized under the previous administration.

·       Increase International Coordination on Climate Migration. APNSA will want to think through what international policy options could be available to provide emergency assistance to climate struck regions to help displaced people rebound from fires, heat waves, flooding and other extreme events. For those situations where movement is the only solution, the President should sign the Global Compact for Migration, which is the first international agreement that recognizes climate change as a structural factor in migration. The global compact provides an international framework for states to coordinate to establish safe and orderly migration pathways for climate migrants that would not strain the already fragile refugee system.

·       Resist US tendencies towards increased border enforcement as the chief way to  “manage” the migration problem. The United States should rethink resilience and humanitarian initiatives along its borders and include consideration for how to address safe and orderly resettlement of climate migrants who arrive at U.S. borders in the aftermath of severe natural disasters.

·       Prioritize emissions reductions in the United States: Future levels  of climate migration will be shaped by today’s greenhouse gas emissions. Following recommendations laid out in the recent National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report on Accelerating Decarbonization in the U.S. Energy System the Biden administration can identify the policy responses needed to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Bethany Tietjen is a predoctoral fellow at The Fletcher School, Tufts University.

Hallie Westlund is a recent graduate of The Fletcher School, Tufts University where she studied human security and gender with a focus on migration.

Subscribe to Climate Smart here.