We’ve written about so-called “climate refugees” 31 previous times (see our archive here) and noted that there is an on-going kerfuffle between the environmentalists who want to use the term “climate refugee” and humanitarians who don’t want to sully the word “refugee,” or more precisely don’t want to go too far astray from the definition of a refugee as a person who is persecuted under the  Geneva Convention.

So, here is an interview with a woman who works for the International Organization for Migration (IOM) which is also basically a federal contractor that processes refugees overseas before they come to the US.  In the interview Ms. Ionesco dances around the “climate refugee” term and in the end makes clear that they must find a jazzy term for “environmental migrants” to build public relations around.

From Deutsche Welle:

Dina Ionesco has been working at the International Organization for Migration (IOM) since 2011 in the field of climate change and the environment. She coordinates IOM’s participation at international climate negotiations, establishes partnerships with other institutions or training programs and writes for IOM’s publications.

The Geneva-based IOM fights for the rights of migrants around the world. The organization’s predecessor was founded in 1951 to address migration issues following World War II. Today, the IOM includes 151 member states.

Global Ideas: Ms. Ionesco, a man named Ioane Teitota from the island of Kiribati has sparked a global debate because he’s the first person ever to seek asylum for his family as climate refugees. He says his family has no future in their country because of rising water levels. Now, New Zealand has to decide whether to grant him asylum in a landmark case. You work for the International Organization for Migration (IOM), one of the most important global aid groups for migrants. Would the IOM recognize Ioane Teitota as a climate refugee?  [We discussed the New Zealand case here.—ed]

Dina Ionesco: New Zealand will have to decide based on the case. It’s the prerogative of the state to decide what is considered a reason to grant asylum. Our organization is only there to offer a platform for countries to discuss issues and also to work together to innovative solutions and bring things to the agenda.

We, at the IOM don’t use the ‘climate refugee’ terminology because it’s not directly in the Geneva Convention which officially lays down when somebody is recognized as a refugee. It would be an interpretation and we can’t do that. What matters for us is that in a case like this, the rights of a person are recognized, that the best solution is found for the rights of the migrant. Refugee is a term from the Geneva Convention that has to show persecution for gender, for religion, for conflict, war – it’s very specific.

[…..]

[Global ideas] Still, the IOM does make clear that climate change can be a driver of migration. Your member states agreed back in 2007 to use the term ‘environmental migrant’ right?

[Ionesco] Yes, this definition is the result of 20 years of hard work. It’s now used often in the international debate but it’s also criticized a lot.

[Global ideas] The IOM maintains that its definition doesn’t carry any normative consequences, but rather describes what an environmental migrant is. If it doesn’t have any consequences, why do you need a term for it?

[Ionesco]  We need it in order to sensitize people that environmental changes play a huge role in triggering human migration. And we need it as an advocacy tool so that environment matters and migration are given more importance on a political policy level.

It is incredible that throughout human history people have moved due to changing environmental conditions and it is only now we must figure out who is going to pay for this—-either financially or through a loss of sovereignty (the bottomline of the so-called advocacy)—otherwise, why does anyone care what terminology is used.