Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
EU member states have not supported the idea of including a new category of
migrants in the EU
s international agreements or policy frameworks, as many
developing countries urge. A systematic stakeholder consultation on the Global
Approach to Migration carried out in 2010
'
11 revealed that over 80 per cent of
respondents favoured strengthened policies aimed at climate-induced migration and
revealed that member states were not supportive of a new legal category of envir-
onmental refugee, wary of recognising any new obligation to accept such
migrants.
49
Governments argue that if climate migrants were given the status of
refugees this could prejudice the reception and resources given to those
-
eeing
really acute political violence as a matter of absolute urgency. The aim is more
modestly to get climate factors incorporated into international rules on internally
displaced persons. DG Home has suggested a status of
'
permanently forced migra-
tion
as a new category to get around the refugee problem. The April 2013
working document makes no commitment to consider any new legal status for
climate-related movements; indeed, it argues there is no need for
'
'
refugee-type
protection
cally on climate-related grounds.
50
Many Green MEPs have been pushing for a decade for the EU to recognise
climate refugees; the breadth of this campaign in the EP has expanded to other
parties. Many meetings involving several hundred NGOs have been held in the
parliament. Several Scandinavian states and the Belgian senate have considered how
protection might be enhanced for those escaping climate-related events on a
pragmatic basis. However, Finland is currently the only member state with a
temporary protection provision that speci
'
speci
cally o
ers help for those
eeing from
'
although in practice, this has not been used. The EU
Temporary Protection Directive does not explicitly o
environmental catastrophe
'-
er help related to climate-
induced disasters. In short, moves opening the scope for accepting climate-related
migration remain scattered, tentative and ad hoc.
Conclusion
Climate change has entered the lexicon of con
ictprevention.Asyetithasnot
produced any major strengthening of European con
ict prevention programmes,
in either quantitative or qualitative terms. Climate security is mostly judged to be
agenericpartofcon
orts to increase the resi-
lience of developing societies to social and political tensions are also taken to
constitute preparedness for the more intense e
ict policies; that is, very broad e
ects of climate change. Some
more climate-speci
c dimensions have gradually been added to the range of EU
con
ict prevention initiatives. However, these are not yet of a magnitude to
suggest that a high priority is attached to this area of policy or that
'
climate
con
ict
'
is perceived as a particularly urgent risk. Under- rather than heavily
