The world's climate is changing. And at a pace that has been
increasing since the start of the industrial revolution.

Experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) have established that average temperatures in the Northern
Hemisphere were significantly higher during the second half of the
20th century than in the previous thirteen centuries. In the Arctic
region alone, average temperatures have increased at almost twice
the global rate in the past hundred years.

Although some may still refuse to recognize it, evidence shows
that human activity is largely responsible for these changes and
that they are increasingly affecting population movements.

Of course migration has always been one of the possible
adaptation strategies for people facing gradual environmental
changes or natural disasters. In some areas, it has even become a
way of life. But today, we have reached a critical point. The
international community has started to take the issue seriously, an
issue which is complex and still not well understood because it
requires bringing together several perspectives, including
environmental, climate science, sustainable development,
humanitarian action, human rights and migration.

Although we don't know how many people will migrate over the
coming decades for environmental reasons as this is very much
dependent on our capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, one
thing is certain – the number of these people will continue
to grow.

With this knowledge, the spectre of a "new human tsunami" is
just one step away.¹ It may certainly be politically
tempting to surf the "security wave" and argue that climate change
will inundate the shores of the developed countries with millions
of people in search of less hostile environments. Such arguments
could be used as a justification for even more restrictive
migration policies. Given the anxiety brought about by the current
economic downturn, such policies are likely to be welcomed by the
public.

However, such political shortsightedness does not stand up to
reality.

First of all, recent studies, albeit limited in geographical
scope, confirm that most environmentally-induced migration will be
internal, either towards the illusory promise of prosperity in
cities or towards other rural areas still able to provide
sustenance to the affected communities. Cross-border movements
might be another important trend, especially in regions where the
notion of a "border", although used by States, is not well
recognized by local populations.

Secondly, it is likely that international migration linked to
climate change will be very limited for the simple reason that
migration requires financial resources and/or community networks in
the destination countries, which the poor and the "landless" do not
usually have.

Finally, if the policies to combat irregular migration in all
its forms are to be effective, they need to be accompanied by the
opening up of regular migration channels on the conditions agreed
among the relevant partners. Without such a global and concrete
approach, clandestine channels and unscrupulous smuggling networks
are often the only option available with the dramatic and
unfortunate consequences that so often make the headlines.

A further complicating factor is the difficulty of identifying
or "labeling" environmental migrants. Except in cases when natural
disasters force people to move in order to survive, it is usually
difficult to single out climate change or environmental degradation
in a combination of socio-economic and political considerations
that are behind the decision to move. This is probably why
environmental migrants do not benefit from a distinct status under
international law.

Considering the utmost caution, not to say the reluctance, with
which most States approach the establishment of new categories of
people entitled to specific rights, this is unlikely to change in
the near future. In the migratory flows that reach developed
countries, environmental migrants are indistinct from economic
migrants and share the same fate. Asylum claims made by some are
systematically rejected.

The reason is simple. People moving for environmental reasons
are not "climate refugees", even though the media continues to use
this term because of its strong emotional connotation and the
compassion it generates. Words do have a meaning, and the 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees clearly states that
the notion of persecution is central to the eligibility of people
for this status. This limits the possibility of granting a refugee
status in the context of environmental degradation to few very
special cases. In a few countries, Temporary Protection Status
(TPS) was established to assist foreign populations affected by
natural disasters. Hurricane Mitch led the United States to offer
temporary protection, an example followed by Sweden and Finland
with different conditions of eligibility.

Natural disasters affect populations in many ways, yet it is
important to remember that 98 per cent of all deaths related to
natural disasters occur in developing countries. It is this image
that comes to mind first – human drama, hundreds or thousands
of deaths and the need for the humanitarian emergency response. In
most cases, mass displacement linked to such phenomena are
temporary and paradoxically, the returnees tend to rebuild their
homes in the same place where they lived before the disaster
struck. This despite the likelihood of something similar happening
again and the advice of the humanitarian community.

It is true that the number of extreme events has doubled over
the past 20 years, from 200 to more than 400 a year. Yet, climate
change is also triggering other, more subtle and gradual changes
that are expected to lead to more permanent displacement over the
next decades.

These changes include increased desertification, soil erosion,
deforestation, rising sea levels and the salinization of water
resources. In this context, the key word is, no doubt,
"adaptation". Yes adaptation at or close to the homes of affected
populations if feasible, but we have to accept that migration
remains today, as it has since time immemorial, a mechanism to
adapt to change.

Therefore, the international community's response must also
adapt to this new paradigm. It may be easier to raise funds to
respond to natural disasters because of the emergency nature of
such events and because of the media coverage and the political
credit such assistance can bring. However, it is much more
difficult to convince donors to invest in tackling the long-term
effects of climate change and to support adaptation as the effects
of such investments are not evident for many years. They are less
"saleable" to the public. This is particularly true in the current
difficult economic climate, where voters are more concerned about
keeping their jobs and maintaining their standard of living.

The moment of truth will come in Copenhagen, during the next
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Conference of the Parties.

As well as the need to come to an agreement on reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, the manner in which climate change
adaptation is addressed will determine our actions on the ground
for at least the next decade. Will negotiators be willing to
consider the humanitarian implications of climate change -
including migration and displacement - not just as a simple
corollary of climate change but as central to our ability to
guarantee human security?

It's a gamble – risky but worthwhile.

¹ Liberation forum (20-21
September 2008) held a debate on the theme "Climate refugees: a new
tsunami?"