Geoforum 84 (2017) 147–150

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoforum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Critical review

Climate change and forced migrations: An effort towards recognizing MARK

climate refugees
Issa Ibrahim Berchin, Isabela Blasi Valduga, Jéssica Garcia,
⁎
José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra
University of Southern Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, 219 Trajano St, SC, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The scientific community has long urged for the broadening of the refugee term, which remains identical since
Climate change the 1951 Refugee Convention, despite strong evidence showing connections between forced migration and
Refugees climate change. Even though the concept of climate and environmental refugees is not legally recognized, the
Forced migrations discussion concerning these definitions is increasing. Furthermore, with the intensification of global climate
Natural disasters
change, a more specific subcategory of refugees began to be popularized: climate change refugees. A climate
change refugee is any person who has been forced to leave their home, or their country, due to the effects of
severe climate events, being forced to rebuild their lives in other places, despite the conditions to which they are
subjected.

1. Introduction
Rapid population and economic growth demands high use of natural
resources, stressing the environment and challenging the sustainable
management of countries (Headey and Jayne, 2014). Climate change
poses various threats to humanity, especially regarding global vulner-
able communities, which already suffer from severe droughts and
famine, instigating population displacement (Comenetz and Caviedes,
2002).
Climate change increases the intensity of extreme weather events,
provoking migrations and displacements; thus, climate refugees are
subject of increasing attention worldwide (Reuveny, 2007; Bettini,
2013). However, recognizing this category of migrants is not straight-
forward. This article analyzes how the international community is
dealing with the concept of climate change refugees, an emergent and
undeniable reality.
2. Refugees and internally displaced people: from persecution to
legal protection
In the twentieth century, after the end of World War II, governments
and institutions worldwide had the urge to set guidance around the
status and definition of migration and refugees (Newman and van Selm,
2003). In 1948, the United Nations proclaimed the Universal Declara-
tion of Human Rights. For the first time, an international legal
document stated that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in
other countries asylum from persecution” (United Nations General
Assembly, 1948, Article 14).
In 1951, the United Nations assembled a Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees as a result of the massive forced migration flows
caused by the war. There was a necessity to provide these refugees a
definition and status, hence, the Convention defined a refugee as
any person who owing to well‐founded fear of being persecuted for
reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his na-
tionality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail
himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a na-
tionality and being outside the country of his former habitual re-
sidence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is
unwilling to return to it.
United Nations, 1951, Article 1
The 1951 Refugee Convention is still a central feature on the in-
ternational refugee regime (United Nations, 2008; McFadyen, 2012).
Yet, the concept is now under discussion, considering that the last
events on the international scenario may have created different types of
refugees, signaling the narrowness of the prior definition.
In addition to the international framework, some countries often
formulate their own refugee definition to create subsidiary protection
to its citizens. Domestically, countries may also expand some aspects

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: issaberchim@gmail.com (I.I. Berchin), bebelavalduga@gmail.com (I.B. Valduga), jessica.sgarcia@outlook.com (J. Garcia),
baltazar.guerra@unisul.br (J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.06.022
Received 24 March 2017; Received in revised form 9 June 2017; Accepted 25 June 2017
0016-7185/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I.I. Berchin et al.
within the scope of the refugees’ status, since the 1951 Convention fails
to recognize: risk of torture, capital punishment, state of armed conflict,
environmental disasters, lack of natural resources, family ties, illness
and gender related persecutions (Worster, 2012). These adaptations
allow broadening the legal definition, leaving space to address people
who should receive subsidiary protection, expanding the possibility of
recognizing different migrants’ categories, such as economic, humani-
tarian refugees, and environmental and climate refugees. The last two
categories will be further discussed in this paper.
3. Refugees and global environmental changes
Lester Brown popularized the term “environmental refugees” in
1970; nonetheless the discussion concerning the category started in
1985, when El-Hinnawi (1985) published a paper on the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP). He claimed that environmental re-
fugees are “those people who have been forced to leave their traditional
habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of a marked environ-
mental disruption (natural and/or triggered by people) that jeopardize
their existence and/or seriously affects the quality of their life” (El-
Hinnawi, 1985, p. 4–5). Myers (1997) considers environmental re-
fugees as the people who feel extremely unsafe on their own territory
because of climatic hazards, e.g. droughts, deforestation, and have no
other option but to flee to somewhere secure, with few expectations to
go back to their homelands.
Environmental disruption caused by natural disasters or human
intervention, normally renders human life unbearable and consequently
leaves no option to its victims but to flee from their homeland. Other
categorizations of environmental refugees are: those displaced tem-
porarily due to local disruptions, such as avalanche, earthquakes; those
who migrate because environmental degradation poses threat to their
livelihood and/or health; those who resettle because of land degrada-
tion, resulting in desertification and/or permanent changes in their
habitat; those victims of “environmental conflict”, e.g. disputes for land
and water resources; and those displaced by sea level rise (Jacobson,
1988; Black, 2001).
Myers (1993) also noted that deforestation, desertification, food and
agriculture, unemployment, poverty, global warming and population
rise is likely to force migration due to environmental issues, and fore-
casts 150 million environmental refugees by 2050. Myers concludes
that environmental displacement is not only an environmental issue but
an economic, political and social issue, and its exponential growth
promises to be one of the most disastrous human crises society will face
on the 21st century.
The concept of “environmentally displaced persons (EDPs)” arose as
an attempt to avoid the term refugee, which has emotional appeal,
characterizing them as the people who are endangered by environ-
mental and ecological disruptions. The upshot is that they end up being
forcedly displaced from their territory (Gorlick, 2007). Currently what
mostly concerns advocacy groups, social scientists and researchers re-
garding environmental refugees is not a lack of a precise definition, but
a lack of legal status and normative protection. This lacuna impacts on
their ability to address the forced displacement due to environmental
distress as well as promote measures to improve the lot of groups ex-
posed to displacement risk (IOM, 2009).
Even though the definitions created by El-Hinnawi (1985) and
Jacobson (1988) are broad and simplistic, both authors designed three
different categories of environmental refugees and identifies triggering
mechanisms. The first concerns people who were “temporarily dis-
placed due to temporary environmental stress but who return to their
habitat once the area has been rehabilitated, such as following a natural
hazard or environmental accident” (Williams, 2008, p. 506). The
second category includes refugees who had to leave their territory
permanently due to anthropogenic disturbance on their environment
and climate. Finally, the third category of environmental refugees
concerns people who decide to migrate seeking a better livelihood,
148
Geoforum 84 (2017) 147–150
because of environmental disruption. This often represents a more
subjective classification, since it regards a decision made mostly by the
refugees themselves, who will have to learn how to adapt to the new
reality (El-Hinnawi, 1985).
4. Climate change and livelihoods
The 2007/2008 Human Development Report on fighting climate
change, analyzed deeply the implications and projections of climate
change and forced migrations, suggesting that climate change has an
enormous anthropogenic interconnection, exacerbating the existing
environmental, economic and social vulnerabilities (Brown, 2007). The
concept of climate refugees is considerably new and it is still emerging;
consequently, the discussion surrounding this term emerges as climate
changes intensifies. Therefore, new perspectives regarding the defini-
tion appear, such as the idea of “Climate Change Displaced People” –
defined as people whose habitat is threatened or is already at risk of
being extinguished due to climatic change (Hodgkinson et al., 2009).
Displacement occasioned by climate change is a form of coerced
migration, meaning that these people and their land are both affected
by the damaging and irreversible effects of climate change. Therefore,
they have to involuntarily flee from their homeland, receiving the
status of climate refugees (Hodgkinson et al., 2009). There is also a
discussion whether this category should be labeled as “climate re-
fugees” or “forced climate migrants”. According to Brown (2007), the
word refugee provides an emotional sensitivity and openness to the
public, whereas the word “migrant“ has an adverse implication, sug-
gesting these people move spontaneously seeking for a considerably
better quality of life.
Even though the “climate refugees” category may sound more
amicable, people who stand under the protection of the definition do
not fulfill its legal requirements and cannot have their rights protected
under the 1951 Refugee Convention. According to the Convention, the
main requirement to classify a person as a refugee is his urge of fleeing
political persecution (Eckersley, 2015), which is not the case for “cli-
mate refugees” since they arise as an eminent natural cause. In other
words, the “forced climate migrant” is the increasing phenomena of
non-voluntary population displacement (McNamara and Gibson, 2009).
According to the Citizen’s Guide to Climate Refugees (Friends of the
Earth, 2007), extreme weather events’ (e.g. droughts, sea-level rise)
intensification will lead to an augmentation of climate change refugees.
These conclusions reinforce Myers’ (1993) predictions regarding the
exponential growth of environmental refugees until 2050.
One of the main stressors threatening the earth’s ecosystem and
impelling entire communities to migrate is climate change (Williams,
2008; IOM, 2009). In recent years, a severe economic crisis and one of
the worst droughts the Horn of Africa region has ever faced char-
acterized this grave scenario and consequently, increased forced mi-
gration flows (Ďurková et al., 2012; Tierney et al., 2015). However, the
environmental issues surpass droughts, not only in the Horn of Africa
but also in the East, where desertification, flash floods and land de-
gradation are likely to be intensified by climate change (UNHCR, 2008).
These environmental changes led to a problematic food crisis at the
beginning of the 21st century (Myers and Kent, 2001). Migration oc-
casioned by climate change may occur both temporarily (e.g. when
people flee a severe storms or droughts), or permanently (e.g. when the
territory – a community, a city, or even a country – became unin-
habitable), as it may happen in small island states (Docherty and
Giannini, 2009).
On a global scale, the extreme weather event that has been moti-
vating more people to migrate nowadays is sea level rise (Williams,
2008). The most vulnerable and affected areas by this condition con-
cern the “Small island developing states (SIDS)” in the Pacific due to
their topography, low elevations as well as coastal erosion, increased
incidence of drought, coral bleaching, and storm surges (IPCC, 2007).
These pacific islands are threatened to complete submersion, becoming
I.I. Berchin et al.
uninhabitable (McAdam, 2011). Kiribati and Tuvalu are vivid examples
of SIDS, which “frequently feature in the media and NGO reports as
‘disappearing States’ that will be uninhabitable by 2050, with their
people becoming the world’s first ‘climate refugees’ (McAdam, 2011).
Studies also suggest that the Maldives could see significant parts of its
capital flooded by 2025, even though sea level rise causes preoccupa-
tion concerning the SIDS; other events, such as storms or water
shortages, also pose significant risks to small island states (Docherty
and Giannini, 2009).
Another country threatened by severe degradation as a consequence
of climate change is Bangladesh (Friedmann, 2009), being subjected to
“water related climatic hazards” (Mollah et al., 2014). Although sea-
sonal migrations are not new, there is intensification of migrant flows
due to environmental events and the country’s social and economic
constraints.
While the east and horn of Africa suffer severe droughts, Bangladesh
faces increasing floods; thus, climate change is an important ag-
gravator, as studies show that monsoon precipitation is a consequence
of enhanced greenhouse effect (Mirza, 2013). The number of displaced
people due to floods and erosion in Bangladesh reaches nearly one
million each year and among these displacements, there is illegal cross-
border movement to India (Bose and Lunstrum, 2014; Elahi et al.,
1991).
5. Conclusions
At the start of the 21st century, the discussion of refugees and their
categories arose for multiple reasons; during this period, the definition
of environmental refugees began to emerge. One of the first definitions
regarding environmental refugees arose in 1985, when El-Hinnawi from
UNEP qualified these migrants as people who are affected by any kind
of environmental disturbance and consequently forced to leave their
habitats, threatening their lives (El-Hinnawi, 1985). Since then several
other definitions have emerged; thus, the necessity for categorizing this
iterant population also became important.
Nowadays, even though the concept is not legally recognized, dis-
cussions concerning these definitions are mounting, which is mainly
due to the intensification of global climate change. Consequently, a
more specific subcategory of these refugees began to be popularized:
climate refugees. A climate refugee is one who has been forced to leave
their home or country, due to the effects of severe climate events, which
exposes them to the perception of insecurity and force them to seek
asylum in other regions or countries. They are forced to rebuild their
lives in other places, despite the conditions through which they are
submitted.
Despite the efforts to address climate change, there is a lack of
commitment from the international community to resolve the dis-
placements issues, especially concerning the climate refugee dilemma.
Moreover, the recognition of the climate change refugee concept could
lead to the construction of a proper protection regime, regulating them
with clear and specific measures. In this regard, the legal acceptance of
climate refugees is undeniably vital, so that those who are unable to
return to their habitat due to climate related hazards receive necessary
assistance.
Acknowledgements
This study was conducted by the Research Centre on Energy
Efficiency and Sustainability (Greens), from the University of Southern
Santa Catarina (Unisul), in the context of the project BRIDGE (Building
Resilience in a Dynamic Global Economy: Complexity across scales in
the Brazilian Food-Water-Energy Nexus), funded by the Newton Fund,
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa
Catarina and the Research Councils United Kingdom (RCUK).
149
Geoforum 84 (2017) 147–150
References
Bettini, G., 2013. Climate Barbarians at the Gate? A critique of apocalyptic narratives on
‘climate refugees’. Geoforum 45, 63–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.
2012.09.009.
Black, R., 2001. New Issues in Refugee Research. Environmental Refugees: Myth or
Reality. Available at: < http://www.unhcr.org/research/working/3ae6a0d00/
environmental-refugees-myth-reality-richard-black.html > (accessed 18/08/2016).
Bose, P., Lunstrum, E., 2014. Introduction: environmentally induced displacement and
forced migration. Refuge 29, 5–10. Available at: < http://refuge.journals.yorku.ca/
index.php/refuge/article/view/38163 > (accessed 07/02/2017).
Brown, O., 2007. Fighting Climate Change: Climate Change and Forced Migration:
Observations, Projections and Implications. Human Development Report: Geneva
(Switzerland). Available at: < https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2008/climate_forced_
migration.pdf > (accessed 29.07.2016).
Comenetz, J., Caviedes, C., 2002. Climate variability, political crises, and historical po-
pulation displacements in Ethiopia. Environ. Hazards 4, 113–127. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.hazards.2003.08.001.
Docherty, B., Giannini, T., 2009. Confronting a rising tide: a proposal for a convention on
climate change refugees. Harvard Environ. Law Rev. 33, 349–403. Available at: <
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol33_2/Docherty%20Giannini.
pdf > .
Ďurková, P., Gromilova, A., Kiss, B., Plaku, M., 2012. Climate Refugees in the 21st
Century. Regional Academy on the United Nations. Available at: < https://
fusiondotnet.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/climate-refugees-1.pdf > (accessed
07.02.2017).
Eckersley, R., 2015. The common but differentiated responsibilities of states to assist and
receive ‘climate refugees’. Eur. J. Polit. Theory 14, 481–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/1474885115584830.
Elahi, K., Ahmed, K., Mafizuddin, M., 1991. Riberbank Erosion, Flood and Population
Displacement in Bangladesh. Jahangirnagar University, Riverbank Erosion Study,
Dhaka.
El-Hinnawi, E., 1985. Environmental Refugees. United Nations Environment Programme,
Nairobi. Available at: < http://rfmsot.apps01.yorku.ca/glossary-of-terms/
environmental-refugee/ > (accessed 20.10.2016).
Friedmann, L., 2009. How Climate Change is Making Refugees in Bangladesh. Available
at: <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-bangladesh2/>
(accessed 08.08.2016).
Friends of the Earth, 2007. A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Refugees. Available at: <https:/
www.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/CitizensGuide2007.pdf> (accessed 28.11.2016).
Gorlick, B., 2007. Environmentally displaced persons: a UNHCR perspective. Presentation
at Environmental Refugees: The Forgotten Migrants Meeting, New York. Available
at: < http://www.ony.unu.edu/seminars/2007/16May2007/presentation_gorlick.
ppt > (accessed 10.09.2016).
Headey, D.D., Jayne, T.S., 2014. Adaptation to land constraints: is Africa different? Food
Policy 48, 18–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.05.005.
Hodgkinson, D., Burton, T., Young, L., Anderson, H., 2009. Copenhagen, climate change
‘refugees’ and the need for a global agreement. Publ. Policy 4, 155–174. Available
at: < http://www.hodgkinsongroup.com/documents/Copehagen_And_CCDPs.
pdf > (accessed 18.11.2016).
IOM [International Organization for Migration], 2009. Migration, Environment and
Climate Change: Assessing the Evidence. Available at: <http://publications.iom.int/
system/files/pdf/migration_and_environment.pdf> (accessed 19.11.2016).
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], 2007. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F.,
Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Available at: < https://
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4_wg2_full_report.pdf > (accessed
18.11.2016).
Jacobson, J., 1988. Environmental refugees: a yardstick of habitability. Bull. Sci. Technol.
Soc. 8, 257–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027046768800800304.
McAdam, J., 2011. Swimming against the tide: why a climate change displacement treaty
is not the answer. Int. J. Refugee Law 23, 2–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/
eeq045.
McFadyen, G., 2012. The Contemporary Refugee: Persecution, Semantics and
Universality. Special Issue: The 1951 UN Refugee Convention – 60 Years on, pp.
9–35. Available at: < http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_234569_en.
pdf > (accessed 18.11.2016).
McNamara, K., Gibson, C., 2009. ‘We do not want to leave our land’: Pacific ambassadors
at the United Nations resist the category of ‘climate refugees’. Geoforum 40, 475–483.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.03.006.
Mirza, M.M.Q., 2013. Climate change and extreme weather events: can developing
countries adapt? Clim. Policy 3, 233–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1469-
3062(03)00052-4.
Mollah, K., Molla, N., Alic, G., Fungladda, W., Wongwit, W., Tomomi, H., 2014.
Quantifying disease burden among climate refugees using multidisciplinary ap-
proach: a case of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Urban Clim. 8, 126–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.uclim.2014.02.003.
Myers, N., 1993. Ultimate Security: The Environmental Basis of Political Stability.
Myers, N., 1997. Environmental Refugees. Popul. Environ. 19, 167–182. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1023/A:1024623431924.
Myers, N., Kent, J., 2001. Food and hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environmentalist 21,
41–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010642205043.
Newman, E., van Selm, J., 2003. Refugees and Forced Displacement: International
I.I. Berchin et al.
Security, Human Vulnerability, and the State. UNU Press, Tokyo, Japan.
Reuveny, R., 2007. Climate change-induced migration and violent conflict. Polit. Geogr.
26, 656–673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.05.001.
Tierney, J., UmmenHofer, C., Demenocal, P., 2015. Past and future rainfall in the Horn of
Africa. Sci. Adv. 1, 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500682.
UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees], 2008. Protecting Internally
Displaced Persons: A Manual for Law and Policymakers. Available at: <https://
www.brookings.edu/research/protecting-internally-displaced-persons-a-manual-for-
law-and-policymakers/> (accessed 18.11.2016).
United Nations General Assembly, 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Available at: <http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/> (ac-
cessed 19.11.2016).
150
Geoforum 84 (2017) 147–150
United Nations, 1951. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Available at:
<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx>
(accessed 19.11.2016).
United Nations, 2008. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Protocol Relating to
the Status of Refugees. United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law.
Available at: < http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/prsr/prsr_e.pdf > (accessed 16.08.
2016).
Williams, A., 2008. Turning the tide: recognizing climate change refugees in international
law. Law Policy 30, 502–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2008.00290.
Worster, W.T., 2012. The evolving definition of the refugee in contemporary international
law. Berkeley J. Int. Law 30, 93–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z38ZP90.