Should
There Be Environmental Refugees?
By Tanveer Ahmed
24 October , 2004
Znet
The legal net for the acceptance of refugees
is hotly contested ground. One definition of a refugee is if a person
has a genuine fear of being persecuted for membership of a particular
social group or class. A couple from Bangladesh set a global precedent
last year by winning an appeal in the Australian High Court. The couple
was gay, deemed by the court a persecuted social group.
It appears Bangladesh
is once again testing the boundaries of international refugee law. The
country is recovering from the grip of horrific floods again, this one
the worst in twenty years. Hundreds have died but many more are in grave
danger from an epidemic of water-borne diseases as sewerage overflows
into the towns and villages.
As a result, NGOs
based in Bangladesh have renewed calls for a new class of refugee -
the environmental refugee.
A similar call was
made from leaders in the Pacific Islands last month, asking Australia
to recognise environmental refugees. The Pacific will be particularly
vulnerable to any further rises in sea level. Australia, they argue,
was the major industrial polluter in the region and a country that did
not sign up to the Kyoto protocol. As a result, the Pacific conservationists
reckoned Australia had a responsibility to shoulder the human burden
of global warming amongst their immediate neighbours.
The tiny island
of Tuvalu, which lies halfway between Hawaii and Australia, has already
conceded defeat. Their leaders have decided to abandon their homeland.
New Zealand has agreed to accept the entire population of eleven thousand
people over the course of the next decade. Australia was reluctant to
take any of them.
Furthermore, the
current Australian government has been a staunch supporter of fossil
fuels. Its latest change to its environmental policy had the guise of
a more forward outlook. John Howard allocated $700 million for research
into alternate energy development. But in the same announcement the
Australian PM revealed excises on fossil fuels would be reduced by $1.5
billion, effectively removing any incentive to use renewable-energy
sources. The short-sighted policy can only accelerate the process of
global warming.
Bangladesh is a
country at immediate risk from global warming and the resultant rise
in sea levels. There are seventeen million people who live less than
one metre above sea level. The country lies in the delta of three very
large rivers, which then flow into the Bay of Bengal. The World Bank
has published a map which shows that a rise of only 50cm in the sea
level, consistent with predictions over the course of the next half-century,
would engulf two-thirds of the country.
This will threaten
the very existence of Bangladesh in future decades.
It already has a
population of 140 million people and is one of the most densely populated
countries in the world. As usual, it is the sick, the elderly and landless
peasants who will shoulder the greatest burden. These people, though
powerless and desperate, will demand somewhere to go.
Whilst the problem
can appear quite distant to Western citizens, the reality is that the
fallout from environmental disasters in upcoming decades will be as
great if not greater than military ones.
The global environmental
think thank, the World Watch Institute, estimates there are ten million
people who have been left destitute from the effects of deforestation,
soil erosion, floods or cyclones. This makes them the largest class
of refugees, greater than those fleeing from war.
But unfortunately
there is no category for environmental refugees. The law does not recognise
their destitute status.
The ecologist Norman
Myers predicted a decade ago that we were slowly heading towards a "hidden
crisis". He was referring to those fleeing natural disaster, both
the gradual and sudden kind. He estimates their numbers will be 150
million people within the next three decades. The crisis is hidden because
there is no category for them. They are legal gypsies, without a home
in the Geneva Convention. When they do cross borders they are generally
classified as economic migrants or illegal aliens.
For example, New
Zealand calls the citizens it is accepting from sinking Tuvalu as members
of a "migration program". The government is doing its best
to keep the program as low-key as possible, concerned that conservative
groups could exploit the Tuvaluan example for political advantage.
There has been ongoing
debate within the United Nations. Only last year it decided it should
not change the law to include those fleeing natural disaster. Their
key argument was that environmental refugees were of a cyclical kind.
Natural disasters came and went. Those who flee tend to return, or should
return, when the disaster subsides, according to the argument.
The term refugee
should be protected for those people for whom their governments have
failed them.
By this argument
you can runaway from a cyclone but you won't get refugee status. Whilst
a cyclone can maim and destroy you, it can't persecute you.
The Australian government
believes it is a non issue. If the UN doesn't care, nor do we, is the
essence of their case.
But global realities
have a way of forcing the hand of the law. Like the forces of technology,
the vexed issue of climate change is likely to outpace the tortoise-like
progress of any parallel law and regulation.
Global problems
require global responsibility. Climate change is a reality. Increasing
numbers of people fleeing natural disaster is a reality. However, this
is not mirrored under international law and the impoverished nations
which are most affected will continue to suffer.
[email protected]
Tanveer Ahmed is a doctor and journalist based in Sydney, Australia.