The latest data show that of the 344 million people displaced by extreme weather and natural disasters between 2008 and 2021, only 2% did not return to the region or place from which they were displaced.

The international community must immediately focus on mitigating the negative consequences of climate change and developing adaptation measures so that people in affected areas are not forced to leave their homes and can secure their livelihoods.

As Adam Reuben (Adam Reuben) and I argue in a recently published briefing paper, creating a new legal basis for “climate refugees” would be as ill-advised as preparing for the commencement of mass human displacement due to environmental degradation. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees does not include climate change as a reason for the persecution of individuals.

Why should the Refugee Convention not be revised? Firstly, any attempt to revise this international document will inevitably end in failure. Discussions prior to the adoption of the Global Compact for Migration five years ago clearly showed the reluctance of states to expand their legal obligations.

Given that 146 countries are parties to the Refugee Convention and 147 countries are signatories to the additional protocol, the world may only receive a less satisfactory document than the current one.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the term “climate refugee” will disrupt the legal status quo, degrading the international consensus on what constitutes asylum.

The call for developed countries to prepare for the arrival of “climate refugees” and to expand the UN Refugee Convention accordingly is ill-conceived and, worse, counterproductive.

Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its sixth assessment report in March 2023, world attention has been focused more than ever on the impact of climate change on humanity. There is increasing mention of the possibility that drought, floods and environmental degradation caused by climate change could lead to mass migration to the so-called “Global North”.

However, a quick glance at the IPCC report reveals what climate scientists have been saying for some time: we do not know how climate change will affect mobility. The IPCC report itself mentions forced migration as a potential consequence of climate change, but it does not attempt to quantify the impact of global warming on cross-border migration – neither now nor in the future.

A recent study commissioned by the Swedish government found that disaster scenarios involving mass migration due to climate change are scientifically unsubstantiated.

Analysing data prepared by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, the study points out that of the 344 million people displaced by extreme weather and natural disasters between 2008 and 2021, only two per cent did not return to the region or place from which they were displaced.

Regarding future scenarios of climate migration, the scientific community has so far not established a causal link between climate change, conflict and migration. In contrast, existing scenarios suggest that climate change is likely to reduce the emigration of people with the lowest income levels, as a lack of resources will reduce mobility.

The current refugee protection regime is designed for people who are unlikely to return to their homes or can only do so in the long term. Those who advocate for expanding the legal definition of a refugee ignore the fact that the vast majority of migrants affected by climate change are displaced within their own countries. In such situations, international protection is not applicable.

Some experts also argue that climate change is man-made, and therefore, under the law, the polluter becomes the persecutor. It is indeed perhaps a proven fact that developed countries in the Global North have been the largest polluters for some time.

However, proponents of this argument forget that expanding the convention to account for climate change would force the persecuted to seek refugees from the persecutors, thereby shattering the international order regarding refugees. Relevant international organisations, such as the International Organization for Migration, agree with this scepticism regarding the codification of the complexity of human mobility and climate change into a legal principle.

Instead of beginning to prepare for climate-induced cross-border movement of people, governments need to engage in building resilience against environmental shocks and gradual environmental degradation, and, of course, reduce the pace of global warming.

Expanding the Refugee Convention or creating a specific legal status for climate change would be a disservice to those living in areas affected by climate change.

About the author:
Vit Novotny is a senior research officer on migration at the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, the official think-tank of the European People's Party.