View previous stories
	Climate change victims by Vesselin Popovski United Nations University   Humans can be victims of other humans — in wars and crimes. Humans can be victims of nature, and suffer from earthquakes and other hazards. Nature can suffer from humans — as the impact of excessive over-consumption of the planet’s resources provokes climate change. And humans can suffer from climate change — ironically, from the suffering of the nature, inflicted by humans.   Human-induced disasters have a clear guilt/responsibility and a clear victimhood. Natural disasters have a clear victimhood, but unclear direct responsibility as they result from the “anger of mother-nature” (though indirect responsibility can be attached to governments). When it comes to climate change disasters and victims, we witness an interesting situation. Everybody — governments, the private sector and even individual people with luxurious over-consumptive lifestyles — could be the victimizer, but also everybody could be a potential victim.   The various types of disasters can be inter-connected. Diseases and epidemics can spread as a consequence of armed conflicts or devastating earthquakes. A natural disaster can be a catalyst for conflict resolution (Aceh 2005). People in the aftermath of massive disaster can cooperate to survive (Tohoku 2011). But natural disaster might also unleash violence (Hurricane Katrina 2005). Climate change can intensify otherwise natural disasters, bringing a human-induced element in them, and accordingly, such natural disasters become less “natural”, expanding humankind’s responsibility.   In a forthcoming article in Sustainability Science Journal (January 2012), I introduce this new type of victimhood in an effort to open opportunities for further research on possible prevention, accountability measures, environmental tribunals and compensation mechanisms to remedy climate change victims.   I argue that climate change victims are:   • different from the victims of violent crimes, which are committed by clearly identifiable perpetrators and dealt with by the law enforcement and criminal justice systems. With climate change victims, in contrast, the perpetrators are not identifiable and traditional criminal justice, based on investigating crimes and prosecuting perpetrators, would not work;   • different from environmental victims, as with these — for example, in the case of industrial pollution or oil spills — corporate responsibility can normally be associated, investigated and prosecuted. There is a linkage between the two victimizations: the industrial over-exploitation of natural resources and the consequences to ecosystems provokes both environmental catastrophes and climate change. Environmental law has developed litigation for dealing with corporate polluters and compensating victims, and it will be interesting to explore whether this may serve as groundwork to develop compensation mechanisms for climate change victims;   • different from victims of natural disasters or events unaffected by human activity. Climate change victims are individuals and groups not necessarily damaged by a single natural hazard — rather they are gradually victimized by deteriorating climate change-induced conditions;   • possibly victims of human rights violations, perpetrated by States, through action or inaction. There is a growing recognition of the right to live in a clean and healthy environment and have access to related information. A state’s failure to warn people of a natural disaster and facilitate their evacuation has been successfully litigated in the European Court for Human Rights (ECtHR), with Budayeva v Russia finding violations and awarding compensation to the victims. It will be interesting to see whether human rights law and court practice can be utilized in the future with regard to climate change victimhood;   • not necessarily displaced people, though much of the literature has been focusing on this. Climate change victims might not be migrants — on the contrary, I argue that migration itself could be a major de-victimizing force, an adaptation strategy.   As the first two differentiations are clear I will focus on the last three below.   Climate change victims are not natural disaster victims   Although circumstances, conditions, outcomes and perceptions might appear to be similar, there are differences between victimhood as a direct result of singular environmental events (earthquakes) and victimhood arising from a continual human-induced climate change. Catastrophic natural events that impact large groups of people have been recorded for time immemorial, whereas human-induced increased frequency of extreme weather events, resulting from climate change, is only a recently elaborated victimizing force. However, if a pure natural disaster occurs today, those who have experienced it most probably would attribute the causes to human agencies — usually a governmental agency; and this may even be more so, when the frequency of natural disasters increases. The catastrophic firestorms in Australia (2009) and Russia (2010) have been attributed — not only in popular conception, but also among scientists — to human-induced climate change.   As the science develops, and governments grow stronger and we develop global governance institutions, victims of natural disasters are becoming (and correctly so) more demanding. What produces the victimization is not so much the cause of the disaster, but rather the lack of early warning, inadequate preparedness and a lack of capacity of government agencies to respond to the disasters. What makes people victims are not just acts of “mother-nature” — victimhood derives from poor governance, negligence, lack of early warning and early responses to disasters — and therefore such victimizations are regarded as human rights violations.   Climate change victims are victims of human rights violations   When states fail to respond efficiently, when relief efforts are ignored or delayed and people experience additional suffering from natural disasters, victims can approach courts and demand compensation. Hurricane Katrina victims were encouraged by the landmark ruling on 18 November 2009 that established the Army Corps of Engineers’ negligent failure to maintain and operate the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet properly, causing fatal levee breaches and the subsequent catastrophic flooding of New Orleans.   The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Guerra and others v. Italy (see HUDOC database) was approached by applicants living near a high-risk fertilizer factory with a history of accidents who were denied information on emergency and evacuation plans for the area. The ECtHR found violation of Art. 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights — an important precedent of establishing a right to vital environmental information. In a more serious case including loss of life, Oneryildiz v Turkey, a fire at a landfill killed members of the applicant’s family and the ECtHR, similarly to Guerra, found that ”with regard to such hazardous activities, public access to clear and full information is deemed to be a basic human right”. Taken together, Guerra and Oneryldiz decisions can frame a duty of states to inform citizens about hazards that may cause a risk to their life and well-being.   The risks associated with climate change are more diverse and difficult to identify. However, the logic of the above court’s rulings suggests that should a government be in possession of relevant information and existing contingency and emergency plans in case of climate-change-induced extreme weather events, it would be under obligation to release such information to citizens.   In two further cases, the ECtHR addressed state failure to prevent loss of life as a result of flooding (Murillo Saldias) and mudslides (Budayeva) — hazardous events very close to possible future climate change victimization scenarios. When the flooding of a campsite following a strong rain resulted in loss of life, the ECtHR in Murillo Saldias v Spain found the application inadmissible on procedural grounds (non-exhausted domestic remedies), but this nevertheless set a precedent of deliberating state responsibility to protect people from floods.   Budayeva v. Russia was successfully litigated, and the decision clearly established the state’s obligation to warn potential victims of repeated disasters. In July 2000, a deadly mudslide swept through Tyrnauz, Caucasus, killing eight people. Various types of mud-retention dams protected the town, but these had been badly damaged by earlier mudslides and never repaired, despite scientific warnings. Two weeks before the mudslide, the local Ministry for Disaster Relief again was warned by experts of imminent dangers and was requested to establish observation points to issue warnings to evacuate people, but no such measures were taken. The Court’s decision set an excellent precedent, pronouncing Russia’s “failure to discharge its positive obligation to protect the right to life”, and in particular the “omission of the authorities to implement land-planning and emergency relief policies”, despite the fact that the area was particularly vulnerable to mudslides, thus exposing the residents to “mortal risk”.   The Budayeva decision firmed and crystallized the State’s responsibility for warning citizens in the face of repeated natural disasters both in substance (lack of maintaining protective defence infrastructure, lack of warning to evacuate) and in procedure (lack of investigating negligence as criminal conduct). The decision can serve as precedent-setting to climate change victimization, because of the repeated character of the failure to mitigate the risk, give warning, facilitate eventual evacuation and investigate negligence.   Climate change victimization can be linked not only to violations of civil and political rights, but also to violations of social and economic rights. In fact, probably more often victims can refer to the latter category of rights, because they require more positive and preventative obligations by governments. A human rights-based approach should be central both to governments’ efforts to mitigate or avoid negative impacts from climate change — such as carbon tax and regulations against polluters — but also to climate adaptation policies, where the implementation of positive obligations can strengthen and sustain human security. The whole volume of social and economic rights in fact can be seen as a relevant factor to build resilience and adapt to climate change challenges.   Climate change victims might not be migrants Climate change victims are not necessarily those who migrate as a result of deteriorating climate conditions. The victims of Hurricane Katrina were mostly those who stayed, in addition to some who moved. One of the reasons the academic literature has focused extensively on “climate change refugees” is that the discipline of refugees studies — much faster than the discipline of victimology — has engaged actively in research on the links between climate change and displacement. However, I question the usage of term climate change refugees; they are not “refugees” as defined by the 1951 Convention, which covers people persecuted on political grounds. This means they are “displaced” people, so the proper term is “climate change displacement”. More substantively, I argue that climate change victims might not be those who move. On the contrary, a voluntary relocation, properly regulated and compensated, could be a major instrument for climate change adaptation.   To predict that climate change may produce 250 million migrants by 2050 — a figure given without any serious evidence and re-quoted even by serious scholars — may help to raise awareness and alarm governments to pay more attention to climate change. Gwynne Dyer’s book Climate Wars was such an alarm bell, but insufficiently substantiated to my mind. Global warming has been ongoing over the last 30 or 50 years, but the number of wars has actually declined in that period. People facing dangers do not necessarily fight — they may cooperate to reduce the dangers. Research, such as Marion Couldrey and Maurice Herson (2008), that determines approximate numbers of future climate change refugees, where will they come from, where will they go, and how much money they will need, remains currently hypothetical.   It is true that the number of migrants, including climate migrants, has increased globally. Looking for better jobs or better living conditions is natural for human beings and people will continue to move, enabled by globalization. The boundary between forced and unforced migration becomes blurred — people move often because of some degree of real or potential socio-economic or environmental stress, and an interesting question would be at what degree of such stress does one cross the line from voluntary to involuntary migration? People’s movement could often be half-voluntary/half-involuntary. Many would have loved to stay, work, live and die close to their hometown, but economic and environmental conditions may push them to move. In this sense economic migration is similar to climate change-induced migration.   Rather than being a problem, as we often hear, migration (voluntary, obviously not human trafficking) is a possible solution to many problems: political, economic, social, environmental. There is nothing apocalyptic, if decisions to migrate — even on the scale of millions — are made with well-informed options. Dangers to coastal areas threatened by sea-level rise can be anticipated decades in advance and people may decide to migrate or decide to stay.   I therefore detach migration when addressing climate change victims. My definition of climate change victims addresses people who have been, or are likely to be, severely affected by climate change, while at the same time having inadequate human, social and economic capital for climate change adaptation, including relocation. Certainly, displaced non-resilient people facing climate change challenges could be considered as one group of the category climate change victims.   * Climate Change and the Right to Food: A Comprehensive Study, overseen by Olivier de Schutter, a publication by the Columbia University Law School 2010 (180 pages):   http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/files/climate%20change%20report.pdf Visit the related web page
	State of the World’s Refugees 2012 - In Search of Solidarity by António Guterres UN High Commissioner for Refugees   21 June 2012   Climate change can play a role in driving people from their homes into areas of conflict and potentially across borders, according to a new United Nations report released today. “Climate Change, Vulnerability and Human Mobility,” based on discussions with around 150 refugees and internally displaced people in Ethiopia and Uganda in 2011, is published by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the UN University (UNU).   “This report confirms what we have been hearing for years from refugees,” said the High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, who introduced the report while attending the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.   “They did everything they could to stay at home, but when their last crops failed, their livestock died, they had no option but to move; movement which often led them into greater harm’s way,” he stated.   Most of those interviewed for the report, which was produced with the support of the London School of Economics and Bonn University, were farmers and pastoralists from Eritrea, Somalia and eastern Sudan. They were asked questions about the extent to which climate change contributed to their decision to leave their homes, and, eventually, their countries.   Most refugees reported that leaving their homes was a last resort and their first displacement was temporary and to an area close to home, according to a news release on the report.   The majority fled their countries after the areas they moved to were affected by insecurity or a lethal combination of violence and drought. “Cross-border movement, as a direct response to climate change, was exceptional,” the news release noted.   While many refugees described disrupted rainfall patterns in the past decade, with longer and more severe droughts than in previous years, none cited these negative shifts in weather as a direct catalyst for violent conflict, according to the report.   Some did, however, speak about the scarcity of food and crops after severe drought as exacerbating pre-existing conflicts, persecution and repression.   While most people displaced solely as a result of extreme weather conditions stay within their national borders, those that cross international borders are not necessarily covered by the 1951 UN Refugee Convention – the treaty that forms the legal foundation on which UNHCR’s work is based.   The Convention, adopted to resolve the refugee problem in Europe after the Second World War, provides a definition of who qualifies as a refugee – a person with a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion – and spells out the rights and obligations between host countries and refugees.   The Nansen Initiative, due to be formally launched in October 2012 by Norway and Switzerland, with the support of UNHCR and the Norwegian Refugee Council, aims to address this legal and protection gap for people displaced across borders owing to environmental change and extreme weather events.   “I am convinced that climate change will increasingly be a driver in worsening displacement crises in the world,” said Mr. Guterres. “It is very important for the world to come together to respond to this challenge.”   May 31, 2012   The head of the UN refugee agency, António Guterres, warned today that factors causing mass population flight are growing and that the coming 10 years will see more and more people on the move becoming refugees or internally displaced persons.   In comments marking the launch of a flagship UNHCR book, The State of the World’s Refugees: In Search of Solidarity, Guterres said displacement from conflict is becoming compounded by a combination of causes; including climate change, population growth, urbanization, food insecurity, water scarcity and resource competition. All these factors are interacting with each other increasing instability and conflict and forcing people to move. In a world that is becoming smaller and smaller, finding solutions, he said, will need determined international political will.   “The world is creating displacement faster than it is producing solutions,” said Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Refugees. “And this means one thing only: More people trapped in exile over many years, unable to return home, to settle locally, or to move elsewhere. Global displacement is an inherently international problem, and as such needs international solutions - and by this I mainly mean political solutions.”   The State of the World’s Refugees: In Search of Solidarity details these and other changes to the environment for the displaced since 2006 when the previous edition of the book was published. It presents a decidedly gloomier outlook: larger and more complex displacement challenges, increased threats to the safety of humanitarian workers, and states needing to strengthen their cooperation.   Notable among these changes is the emergence of internal displacement as a dominant challenge. Today most of the world’s 43 million forced to flee their homes are not refugees but people who are displaced within their own countries. Globally, some 26 million people fall into this category, compared to around 15-16 million refugees and a further million asylum seekers. For humanitarian workers, an ensuing implication is that helping the displaced is becoming more costly and dangerous. In countries such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, or Iraq, getting help to internally displaced populations means working in environments where access is difficult and conflict or criminality can present deadly risk.   The State of the World’s Refugees: In Search of Solidarity looks at these problems and the state of cooperation among countries. “The space for humanitarian intervention is shrinking exactly when the need for humanitarian help is increasing. Pressures on the international protection system are clearly growing. In some industrialized countries in particular we see fortress mentalities that serve only to shift responsibility and compassion elsewhere. In a world where societies are becoming multi-cultural and multi-ethnic, it is essential to promote the values of tolerance and to fight the manifestation of xenophobia,” said Guterres.   Several chapters in the book look at emerging challenges, including the growing numbers of urban refugees, and displacement from climate change and natural disasters. It notes that more people are already displaced annually by natural disasters than by conflict. And it carries a warning about gaps in international protection when it comes to people who flee across borders to escape climate change impacts or natural disasters. They are not recognized as refugees under international law.   The book describes how UNHCR and its partners have developed many innovative practices in response to evolving displacement challenges. However, it also elaborates the struggle UNHCR often faces in promoting state compliance with customary international law as it relates to the forcibly displaced, or the compliance of signatory states to their obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. It also looks at the problems of the world’s estimated 12 million stateless people - without citizenship of any state, they are often trapped in legal and human rights limbo.   Eighty per cent of today’s refugees live in the developing world. Greater international solidarity is needed to address this challenge, the book concludes in its last chapter. This encompasses providing more resettlement opportunities for refugees in the industrialised world, focusing development cooperation projects to foster sustainable voluntary return or local integration, and supporting host communities. A new deal in burden and responsibility sharing is needed in the whole cycle of refugee protection from prevention of conflict to solutions. Visit the related web page
	View more stories