Research Questions:

1. Who are Climate refugees? How to define them?

2. What differentiates them from other migrations? Is it necessarily international
migration?
3. What is the demographic profile of these refugees? What is the economic profile of
the countries that see outmigration?
4. How are countries tackling the displacement?

Paper: Swimming Against the Tide: Why a Climate Change Displacement Treaty is Not the
Answer
Author: Jane McAdam
Publication Details: International Journal of Refugee Law Vol. 23 No. 1 pp. 2–27
(doi:10.1093/ijrl/eeq045)
Publication Date: Jan 10, 2011

Extreme Climate Change events globally have always brought in calls for an international
treaty to deal with Climate displacement on the lines of the international Refugee
Convention- which requires states not to return refugees and further grant them domestic
legal status. Against this backdrop, Jane McAdam makes a case for a more nuanced study of
Climate, People and Movements. The author reiterates the universal practice of moving as a
result of environmental and climate changes. However, the underlying anthropogenic causes
and its relative speed add to the 'newness'.
Jane McAdam relies on her vast fieldwork in Kiribati, Tuvalu and Bangladesh to refute the
appropriateness of an international Treaty as the silver bullet to tackle climate displacement
by highlighting variation in the conceptual understanding of ‘ International Movement’ due to
geographic, political and cultural diversity. The slow onset of climate events like sea-level
rise provides a rare opportunity to plan;  rather than resorting to remedial measures of flight.
The treaty and negotiations get bogged down by linguistic detail, becoming an excuse for
inaction than immediate measures which could allow people to stay within their homes.
Jane identifies inspiration for treaty calls to Refugee Convention, UNFCCC Copenhagen
2009 and initiatives by Maldives, Bangladesh and Australia which aimed to define ‘climate
change refugees’, ‘guarantees of assistance, shared responsibility, etc with an underlying
‘rights-based framework’
The paper details empirical research to state that migration may mostly be internal, gradual,
short-term rather than spontaneous flight and thus may not necessitate an international
response as seen in the disaster-response of Bangladeshis. The peculiarity of such a response
is also due to the poor socio-economic conditions of the people- that impairs them from
making cross-border journeys. Jane thus identifies regular and lawful movement as an option
exercised by wealthier and low skilled but financially stable demographics. At the same time,
internal circular migration provides people alternative livelihoods and a way to send back
remittances. Jane also highlights innate human attachment to land and culture as an inhibiting
factor to movement. Reliance on traditional knowledge and physical adaptation like raising
houses on the plinth and adjusted farming techniques prevails in these conditions.
The paper warns of the conceptual and empirical flaw of the simplistic ‘cause and effect'
relationship between climate change and migration. Citing a Kiribati Government official, the
author highlights how climate change compounds the pre-existing pressures of poverty,
overcrowding, unemployment, etc. may provide a ‘tipping point’ that would not have reached
in its absence.
The paper further highlights practical issues in attempting to differentiate movement due to
economic pressure and climate change. Jane voices her doubt over the use of the term
‘survival migration’ moving away from causal focus to include multiple stressors as it may
render it conceptually indistinct and practically unworkable. Defining ‘climate Refugees’
may also harden the distinctions without according dynamics of time effect, geography,
differential impact and own needs of the people. Refugee convention relies on evidence of
the intensity, severity and nature of harm to an individual, which is a complex territory in the
realm of Climate change science.
The limits of a treaty-based solution are also due to a lack of political will and coordinated
efforts which render such ideas hollow. Even if seen through the end, ratification,
implementation, and enforcement do not come easy. Despite an international law, treaty and
institution (UNHCR), the question of millions of refugees lies in limbo.
Some countries have been encouraging planned migration options. Kiribati has family
migration options to secure merits-based access to neighbouring countries like Australia and
New Zealand. In a way, state support intends to create pockets of Kiribati culture and
tradition to enable gradual resettlement and helping the rest to stay back in the country. Such
movement reinforces historical migration patterns. Bangladesh intends to export trained
labour to benefit from remittances. However, those who migrate in these cases may not be
climate-affected but just wealthy enough to leave the countries.
The author concludes that disciplinary constraints of the International Law regime that raise
the ‘particular’ to ‘universal’ are an impediment. She prefers regional or bilateral efforts
aimed at targeted outcomes. She further calls for dispassionate empirical research to discern
between a rights-based framework to a ‘needs-based approach. Finally, she clarifies the intent
of the paper is not to reject a treaty-based solution but only to caution against squeezing all
forms of ‘forced’ movement into a protection paradigm.
The major limitation of the current research is the lack of coherent alternatives on the
methods to identify 'Climate Refugees' even in the context of local responses. The paper stops
short of suggesting ways by highlighting the current efforts undertaken by people and states.
It does not assess their efficacy empirically. The research also fails to consider the varying
capacities of the state to address the issue and the societal stresses resulting from internal
migrations.