Climate shocks as drivers of migration might be long present in the environmental narrative, but they are hardly being addressed on a policy level. According to MEP Pier Antonio Panzeri, the lack of a legal definition of ‘climate refugees’ effectively excludes the issue from international agendas – and creates space for generalized scepticism.
It is high-time that analysts, researchers and politicians involved in migration report the impossibility of drawing clear boundaries between the various types of migrants. There is a distinction between political and economic migrants, but the situation is much more fluid than that. In fact, there are also migrants of a climatic nature, people forced to abandon their lands temporarily in the event of environmental stress, or permanently, when irreparable natural disasters occur or when the resources needed to support the populations have been exhausted. The vulnerable populations are often the ones that pay the price in this devastating process, even though they are the least culpable, and they are forced to leave their lands. In fact, an estimated 25.4 million people are being displaced each year due to extreme weather-related disasters.
We started talking about climate refugees almost 50 years ago, but there is not yet a legal definition that guarantees the protection of those vulnerable categories. That means there is no tool that would allow us to face the challenge represented by climate-induced migration. Today, these subjects do not have any legal recognition on an international level. We need to build an itinerary that allows us to consider the situation of climate migrants as an important topic for discussion at the international level.
“There is no tool that would allow us to face the challenge represented by climate-induced migration.”
At the European Parliament, we discussed the Global Compact on Migration extensively. I insisted on adding a paragraph about the necessity of a juridical definition of “climate refugee”, however, my proposal was ultimately declined. A significant portion of the Parliament still think that migration is a kind of accident in our history, and that climate change is a pathology that emerged from left-wing politics. This part, which we could identify in right-wing parties, is not at all in favour of a reception policy. In their opinion, establishing a new refugee definition for people escaping climate impacts would make it easier for migrants to be accepted in Europe. This is why they push for adopting the expression "climate migrants" instead of "climate refugees". In fact, it seems that "refugee" creates obligations for the state, while the term "migrant" does not. But this is clearly incorrect, because migration means voluntary displacement and this is not the case for people who are displaced by climate impacts. We want to fight the ignorance through a political and cultural jolt.
Pier Antonio Panzeri is an Italian politician and Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the S&D Alliance. He currently holds the Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and has been a member of the ‘Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union’ since 2009, where he held the Chair for 7 years. His main activity as an MEP encompasses deliberating on human rights issues in North Africa and the Middle East.
Ignoring cross border impacts of large infrastructure projects will spark conflict along rivers, argues Peter King. National level environmental impact assessments that ignore cross border impacts are likely to create conflict between countries.
Peat areas have played a pivotal role in conflicts globally, and have also been a point of contention during post-conflict recovery. Communities in Southeast Asia as well as in the countries of the Congo are facing challenges as finding political solutions for this problem.
On a visit at short notice to Germany, Russian President Vladimir Putin has met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss a range of bilateral and international issues, including the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine, and the future of the controversial gas pipeline project Nord Stream 2. The pair met for the second time within just three months to talk about the project.
Australia’s new prime minister will not walk away from the Paris climate agreement, although his new policies now make it unlikely the country will meet its emissions reduction goal. Ongoing trade talks with the EU could also hinge on how climate policy continues to develop.