Questions and Answers on New Zealand’s “climate change refugees”
Has the era of the ‘climate change refugee’ begun? That’s the question some have been asking following news that a Tuvaluan family has been granted residency in New Zealand after citing climate change impacts as a reason to migrate.
But the details of the case are complex, and the implications more limited than some media reports have suggested. Here are answers to some of the questions the case raises.
Did the court grant the family refugee status because of climate change?
No. The family was granted residency in New Zealand after a complicated court judgement. Although the impacts of climate change in Tuvalu were part of the family’s case, they made several legal arguments for why they should be allowed to stay in New Zealand. The case contained refugee, human rights and humanitarian elements. The claim for refugee status because of climate impacts was rejected, as were several human rights claims.
The family made two arguments for residency on humanitarian grounds. The first was that climate change had created a humanitarian situation in Tuvalu that the family could not return to.
The second was that the family had strong family connections in New Zealand. The court decided that the family connections in New Zealand were enough to give the family residency.
So climate change had nothing to do with it?
Not quite. Having given the family residency the court went on to determine that it is possible, in general, that natural disasters could create a humanitarian situation. In the case of Tuvalu which is threatened by rising sea levels, there clearly could be a climate change dimension to natural disasters. But the court did not take this into account when granting residency – the family’s connections were enough.
Can anyone affected by climate change now claim refuge in another country?
No. First, a decision made by a court in New Zealand does not create an obligation for any other country. Secondly, the ruling was “discretionary”, which means that it doesn’t create a legal precedent, even in New Zealand.
Headlines claiming that the “era of climate refugees has begun” are misleading. But this doesn’t mean that the case is internationally irrelevant. While courts in other countries are under no obligation to consider this ruling, they could find the logic of the arguments persuasive.
Has this altered the Refugee Convention?
No. Because this case didn’t grant refugee status, it has no bearing on how New Zealand deals with refugees in the future. It also has no effect on the Refugee Convention – the piece of international law guaranteeing certain rights to refugees – which is international law.
But the case has reignited a debate about whether the Refugee Convention should be altered so that it does protect people fleeing the impacts of climate change.
A newly reformed Refugee Convention could protect people forced to move by climate change. But this raises some tricky issues. Identifying who has moved because of climate change is difficult, so it would be very challenging to define who would be covered. Renegotiating anything also comes with risks. There is always the possibility that the protection afforded to existing refugees could be weakened during the negotiation process.
Are rulings like this a good way of addressing migration and displacement linked to climate change?
In part, maybe. Many other measures will also be needed. The vast majority of people affected by climate change this century will move internally, within their countries. Development practitioners are focused on ensuring that states respect the rights of people who are displaced internally and allow people to move freely within their own country to cope with climate change impacts.
In the Pacific islands many communities are taking steps to plan for relocation. The legal status of the people who move is only one element of a relocation plan. A lot of evidence suggests that the success or failure of relocations depends on deep consultation with the moving and receiving communities.
Others may want to move but will be trapped by degraded livelihoods. It could be that a big part of dealing with the migration challenges climate change may bring will be actually creating opportunities for people to migrate out of harms way. In all of these cases the legal status of people who move is only one part of the jigsaw.