What does the European Union (EU) owe the Global South on Climate-Induced Displacement?

Kaylin Fowler

Protesters in front of the EU parliament in Brussels on 25 May as a proposed law to restore nature hangs in the balance.

Via: The Guardian; From: Frederic Sierakowski/EPA.

The global refugee crisis is ever-evolving, and the existing legal framework must adapt to the challenges of the 21st century. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol narrowly define persecution and who counts as a refugee, but they fail to account for climate-induced displacement. This existing international framework, intended to protect people fleeing disastrous conditions, lacks a climate provision. Countries in the Global South, which are disproportionately affected by climate change, face growing displacement pressures without adequate international protection mechanisms. With this, the European Union (EU), given its proximity to numerous countries in the Global South, must make an effort to integrate climate-induced persons into its asylum law. 

            Since there is no legal definition of a refugee displaced by climate change, it is argued that these individuals should be referred to as “climate-displaced persons.” Any given definition must be inclusive but also narrow enough to fit in the 1951 and 1967 Protocols on Refugees. Essam El-Hinnawi was the first scholar to attempt to define what she called “environmental refugees.” For El-Hinnawi, environmental refugees are defined as “...people who have been forced to leave their traditional habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of a marked environmental disruption.” Yet, this definition is still broad, given the limits of who can fit into the fifth group of refugee status, Membership in a Particular Social Group (MPSG). Instead of calling these people forced to flee “environmental refugees,” it would be more prudent to label them as “climate-induced displaced persons.” This term takes away the inflammatory rhetoric behind the word refugee, while still completely encompassing the plight of these individuals. 

            The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has attempted to define who falls under the MPSG category. The current UNHCR definition of the MPSG category is: “persons who share a common characteristic other than their risk of being persecuted, or who are perceived as a group by society.” The characteristic will often be innate, unchangeable, or otherwise fundamental to identity, conscience, or the exercise of one’s human rights. The UNHCR has also acknowledged: “... climate change is amplifying displacement and making life harder for those already forced to flee.” These pieces of key information leave open the interpretation of how to include “climate-induced displaced persons” in the MPSG category. 

            Beyond legal definitions, there is an ethical and moral obligation to protect people's livelihoods threatened or destroyed by climate change. The places most affected by climate change are those that have been historically exploited. These regions, primarily located in the Global South, were exploited for their natural resources and labor during the colonial and post-colonial periods. This exploitation significantly contributed to the wealth of the Global North. As a result, countries in the Global South often face the worst effects of climate change and lack the resources to recover. To reconcile this disparity between the Global North and the Global South, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has suggested that wealthier nations must compensate vulnerable countries to help mitigate the climate effects they did not intend to cause. Therefore, any framework addressing climate-induced displacement must acknowledge the historical reasons that created the need for it.

The most logical option for a climate-displaced person is the European Union (EU). It is the closest group of states that uphold a person’s right to life and could potentially safeguard their existence. There is no precedent in EU law for climate refugees, but there is room for change. Arguably, the EU does owe a lot to the Global South because of the historical roots of exploitation that countries in the EU contributed to. If nothing is done to mitigate climate change, then climate-displaced persons will become an increasingly complex problem. 

            There is room for change in refugee law within the EU context. The EU has expanded its refugee protections through legal and normative precedents, setting the stage for becoming the first region to accept climate-displaced persons. While the EU is a more progressive, liberal institution, there is no legal precedent or recognition of “climate displacement” in EU Asylum law. The European Parliament (EP) has acknowledged the absence of a clear definition for a “climate refugee” under the 1951 Refugee Convention. It appears poised, however, to adhere to past precedents to recognize climate-displaced persons as refugees with official status. 

            The EU’s Common European Asylum (CEAS) does not currently recognize climate-displaced persons as having valid refugee status. Under refugee status, they list the key 5: Race, Religion, Nationality, Political opinion, and Membership of a Particular Social Group (MPSG). The EU adheres to the 1951 and 1967 Protocols and has a very liberal definition of who fits into an MPSG. Additionally, the EU has a "Subsidiary Protection Program" for people in danger in their country who do not qualify as refugees.  The key criteria for this category are “serious harm.” “Serious harm,” according to the EU, can be defined as: 1) The death penalty or execution; 2) torture or inhuman or degrading treatment; 3) A serious and individual threat to their life due to indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict.

            While the Subsidiary Protection Program is mainly for people fleeing war, there is an argument to be made that if full refugee status could not be afforded to climate-displaced persons, they could fall into this program. When a person is deprived of their right to life, their conditions are degrading, and thus their treatment becomes inhuman. The EU must consider extending protections under the Subsidiary Protection Program.

            The EU cannot afford to wait until the next humanitarian disaster to take action. As different natural and humanitarian disasters happen, climate-induced migration will no longer be optional. The EU has the means and the moral duty to lead. Recognizing climate-displaced persons under its asylum framework would not just be a legal reform; it would be a step forward for the entire planet. This statement would signal that the EU values humanity over geography, and differences could be put aside for the good of the people on this earth.