TO: Minister of Environment & Forests, Mr. Jairam Ramesh, and Minister of Social Justice & Empowerment, Mr. Mukul Wasnik
FROM: Ellen Mackall
As the myriad effects of climate change become more pronounced and grow in importance to the global community, India faces a challenge beyond and within its borders posed by rising sea levels and increased flooding. After Cyclone Laila of 2010, as well as destructive cyclones in the previous three years, it is clear that India’s neighbor, Bangladesh, is being severely affected by not only natural disasters worsened by climate change, but also by the country’s vulnerability to other impacts of climate change. Many Bangladeshis have been displaced from their homes due to environmental disasters and climate change, and India must be prepared for a potential influx of climate refugees from Bangladesh.
Bangladesh is certainly not the only country faced with the problem of climate displacement. The Norwegian Refugee Council has estimated that over twenty million people worldwide were displaced by natural disasters related to climate change in 2008 alone, including 800,000 displaced by Cyclone Nargis in nearby Burma. Such hydro-meteorological natural disasters are only becoming more frequent and severe due to climate change, which is also contributing to slow-onset disasters such as drought and rising sea levels; these combined will surely displace even more people. While climate change is causing flooding in some areas, there are increased and more severe droughts in other places. There is also increased melting of ice and snow, and a rise in sea level due to the melting; increased meltwater flow from glaciers and thermal expansion of the oceans further contribute to the sea level rise. The IPCC estimates that there is potential for 150 million climate refugees by 2050.
The unique coastal geography of India’s neighbor, Bangladesh, leaves it particularly affected by rising sea levels, as the country itself is a mega-delta. As Bangladesh is the most vulnerable country in the world to cyclones, and the sixth most vulnerable to floods, the country has been affected by tidal floodwater levels that have risen upwards of six meters since 2004. In fact, the BBC notes that it is possible that as climate change worsens, the monsoons in Bangladesh could become concentrated into a shorter time period, leaving the country vulnerable to more extreme floods as well as longer times of drought. Increased melting of Himalayan glaciers that feed Bangladesh’s rivers could increase river erosion and add to the number of displaced people. The group Towards Recognition estimates that 325,000 Bangladeshis have already crossed the border to become international climate refugees (largely to India), and that three million Bangladeshis remain displaced in their country. These numbers are only expected to rise, as there exists potential for thirty to fifty million Bangladeshis to be displaced by 2050 if 17% of the country goes below sea level, which could rise up to a meter within the century. The Environmental Justice Foundation estimates that Bangladeshi climate refugees could possibly outnumber all current refugees. Even Dhaka was hit by severe flooding in 2004; most of the country is no more than ten meters above sea level. This is particularly serious in Bangladesh, as the country has one of the highest population densities worldwide.
Other countries are also facing crises of climate migration, including a community seemingly worlds away in Shismarek, Alaska; there, an Inupiat village of 600 has been forced to relocate twenty-two miles inland, away from rising seas and increasing erosion. The world’s first official publicized climate refugees, from Carteret Atoll off the coast of Papua New Guinea, have begun to relocate their entire population. When the IPCC suggested more than twenty years ago that the “gravest effects of climate change may be those on human migration,” they foreshadowed events such as these. However, Bangladesh has fewer resources, less capacity, and a far larger population than the aforementioned examples; it is clear that India must create a comprehensive strategy to take in Bangladeshi climate refugees as they move to a country with already-crowded cities and a large national population.
India must first consider the legal situation of climate refugees. Most people displaced by climate change remain within national borders, becoming internally displaced persons; the definition of this specifically includes those displaced by climate change, according to the UN. The UNHCR states that internally displaced people should receive protection under the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, and the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) estimates that two-thirds of climate migrants are internally displaced people. However, those who do cross borders face legal hurdles. The 1951 Geneva Convention sets out the legal definition of a refugee, but it does not account for environmentally displaced persons. In 2006, the Maldives called for the Convention to be changed to allow for climate refugees, but the UNHCR rejected the proposal; UNHCR felt it could be politically dangerous to renegotiate the entire convention, with a risk of undermining overall refugee protection in the political climate at the time. Thus, the terms “climate refugee” and “environmental refugee” are not legally recognized by the UNHCR; people who are not officially refugees are considered asylum seekers in international law. The UNHCR states that “[w]hile environmental factors can contribute to prompting cross-border movements, they are not grounds, in and of themselves, for the grant of refugee status under international refugee law. However, UNHCR does recognise that there are indeed certain groups of migrants, currently falling outside of the scope of international protection, who are in need of humanitarian and/or other forms of assistance.” India must play a role in determining when climate refugees need international protection, and how this humanitarian protection can be acquired.
The legal concept of forced return must also be considered. The principle of non-refoulement, part of customary international law, states that a country cannot force the return of refugees if there still exists a risk of human rights violation or if their basic needs cannot be met in their home country. India must not send back climate migrants whose lives continue to be at risk due to a lack of food, clean water, and shelter in Bangladesh. It must also be taken into account that after a major natural disaster, a state may be unable to advocate for its people across borders. Some countries allow for a temporary “humanitarian” stay of asylum seekers; this is a policy that India could consider for Bangladeshis displaced by a climate disaster who wish to return to Bangladesh afterward. Overall, the migration management system of India should allow for entry and protection of climate refugees who cannot stay in Bangladesh (or other countries facing deleterious effects of climate change), and protection must continue if return to the refugees’ home country is impossible. A rights approach, advocated by the NRC, is essential in addressing climate refugees in India and globally.
To promote the rights of climate refugees on an international level, India can also advocate for an international agreement on climate refugees at the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to foster consensus by the international community. India should follow what was set forth at COP-16 in Cancun, that countries should adopt “[m]easures to enhance understanding, coordination and cooperation with regard to climate change induced displacement, migration and planned relocation, where appropriate, at national, regional and international levels.” A protocol to the UNFCCC has been proposed by academics; it would include provisions for voluntary and planned resettlement (not only in response to disaster), treatment for climate refugees as permanent immigrants if return is impossible, support for national governments to protect their populations, and protection of climate refugees as a global responsibility. An international agreement such as this would allow climate refugee policies to be harmonized and could bring international support to countries such as India that may take in significant numbers of climate refugees. Additionally, this could allow India to support Bangladesh in promoting their own national climate migration strategy to help Bangladeshis to stay within their country.
It is clear that climate change is a fundamental threat to human rights, and that it goes well beyond the ability or scope of any one country. Indeed, the Finance Minister of Bangladesh has said in an interview with The Guardian that “We are asking all our development partners to honour the natural right of persons to migrate. We can’t accommodate all these people—this is already the densest [populated] country in the world.” The ethical dilemma deepens further when one considers that climate change is by and large not caused by countries with a significant population of climate refugees such as Bangladesh; half of the population of Bangladesh already lives below the poverty line, and one third of the people suffer from hunger or malnutrition. Bangladesh’s greenhouse gas emissions are approximately 0.9 metric tons per capita, while those of the US and Canada are around twenty times more (23.5 and 22.6 metric tons per capita, respectively). In fact, the Global Humanitarian Forum believes that developing countries overall will likely bear more than 90% of the burden of climate change. Thus, the rest of the world must do what it can for the situation of climate refugees globally. India is uniquely positioned to do so in the case of Bangladesh, as its neighbor with greater resources, more land, and a larger economy. Naturally, India’s own burgeoning population must be taken into account, along with other factors important to India, in deciding how India can support climate refugees; yet it is clear that it is ethically imperative to take part in a solution to the situation faced by climate refugees.
The ethics of India and Bangladesh’s situation is further complicated by India’s need for national security, particularly in border regions where tensions already exist because of concerns of illegal immigration. The four thousand kilometer long fence on the border of the two countries must be used only to promote national security by fighting true crime and smuggling and to keep out only militants. The Border Security Force must know that violence and extrajudicial killings on either side must end; instead, the BSF can be part of the solution by enforcing Indian policies that allow climate refugees into India. Additionally, the people on either side of the border are linguistically, culturally, and ethnically similar, and no artificial divisions should be permitted; India must make its best efforts to allow Bangladeshi refugees in legally. Any religious differences between the two countries or populations should not be allowed to affect policies on climate migration; every attempt should be made to meet basic human needs of climate refugees. This will certainly not be easy, but India is capable of mitigating the situation of the Bangladeshi people while maintaining its own national security.
Indians are well aware of the security implications of climate change. Retired Air Marshal A.K. Singh stated via Scientific American that “Low-lying coastal area flooding is a national security issue,” but he also declared that India could not absorb all of the potential refugees if one third of Bangladesh became flooded. A concern of many is that the destabilization of Bangladesh could also give radical Islamic groups more fuel in vulnerable communities, further threatening India’s national security. Yet more than just national security must be considered in policies on climate refugees.
Food security, both for India’s population and for incoming climate refugees, must be addressed so that an influx of refugees does not lead to conflicts over food. India undoubtedly already faces a difficult situation, where half of all Indian children are malnourished. Food prices for commodity crops and other staple foods remain high due to droughts in China and floods in Australia, combined with a rising demand for food in India. In fact, food prices are rising faster in India than in most other major economies. This affects the poorest and most vulnerable people the most, as much of India lives on less than $2 per day; poor Indians must spend more of their disposable income on food than people in other major developing countries. Given that in December 2010 food prices had risen 13.7% in a year (according to the New York Times), food security is a prominent issue in India.
On the supply side, agriculture in India is growing too slowly to meet the increasing demands. While it is difficult for the Indian government to directly control world food prices (though food subsidies for the poor or climate refugees would and have had beneficial effects), investment and government support in agriculture to promote reasonably priced food could go a long way in helping Indians and any climate refugees in India. Post-Green Revolution changes in agricultural policy are necessary to meet the demands of India’s population and of refugees entering the country; agricultural policies should promote sustainable and efficient agriculture to help increase productivity and supply to provide more affordable food to all. Increased food security can help prevent conflict over this type of resource throughout India.
However, agricultural needs cannot be met without adequate water security in India. For example, irrigation systems are necessary for agriculture that conserves groundwater. Two-thirds of Indian farmers have no access to irrigation, but agriculture cannot thrive and feed the people without adequate water. As groundwater, the main source for irrigation, becomes increasingly depleted, some are already calling the situation in India a water crisis. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN estimates that the amount of water available to the average Indian is equivalent to what is available for the average Sudanese. Additionally, India faces water scarcity at a regional level, as state governments are responsible for water regulation. The Indian government should call on the states to reexamine their policies and prioritize for this basic need, to ensure water security for individuals and for agriculture. This is particularly important in states where climate refugees will be most concentrated, in the largest cities and near the border with Bangladesh. India should also consider national-level groundwater pumping restrictions to allow for water tables to replenish and recharge. Additionally, more effort must be made for rainwater collection: Much water comes to India in monsoon form, and this should be captured and stored for further use. Flooding from the monsoons should also be controlled, so that India does not experience climate displacement itself.
There are many aspects of human security, beyond national security, at stake in the migration of Bangladeshi climate refugees to India. Climate change could also result in increased disease spread and burden, which has the potential to affect both Indians and Bangladeshis. Sanitation will continue to be an area of concern, particularly in crowded areas of large cities. There is also potential for conflict over increasingly scarce natural resources, as pressure on resources beyond food and water (such as timber) will increase. India must be sure that its policies reflect a commitment to human security and conflict prevention for Indians and climate refugees, as the effects of climate change become more evident.
All of this will not present an easy situation for India, as it must face security challenges in the forms of national, food, water, and human security. The migration of climate refugees from Bangladesh has the potential to provoke conflict over resources or due to longtime tensions between the two countries. These refugees face a particularly difficult situation internationally, as the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees does not include people displaced by environmental or climate events. Yet in spite of the legal uncertainty, a humanitarian and rights approach should be taken to ensure that climate refugees are protected in India and globally. Because of the vulnerability of Bangladesh, and India’s unique position to be part of an adaptation solution to the issue of climate refugees, India should enact policies that promote a humanitarian approach. Nonviolence and cooperation along the border should be enforced, and India must assess its situation to determine how it can best accommodate climate refugees. This should address agriculture and food security concerns, as well as a higher level of water security. Overall, India faces many challenges from this situation, but it has the capability to reconcile its own difficulties and needs with those of climate refugees from Bangladesh.