Last summer, the United States Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) announced a “new approach to address the impacts of climate change on migration and displacement”. The announcement emphasized the importance of developing “humane policies” and outlined the four principal objectives of the US in addressing the impacts of climate change on migration and displacement. While a promising sign, so far this “new approach” has resulted in little substantive change, all while the US struggles to implement coherent and effective immigration and climate policy.
PRM’s first aim is to strengthen and expand protection of refugees, conflict victims, internally displaced persons (IDPs), stateless persons, and other migrants in situations of vulnerability affected by climate change, including through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
Second, the United States highlights its intention to enhance existing climate action by key humanitarian partners, including through regular dialogue with international and non-governmental organizations, as well as through engagement with affected communities by including them in climate adaptation planning and programming.
Next, PRM intends to expand US multilateral diplomacy and leadership to address the impacts of climate change on migration and displacement in international fora.
Finally, the announcement emphasizes the objective of US policymakers to strengthen coordination between migration, humanitarian, development, environmental, and other technical agencies to advance policies and programming, including to gather relevant data in support of solutions for individuals affected by climate change.
The Biden administration acknowledged migration as a form of adaptation to the impacts of climate change and, in some cases, an essential response to climate and environmental threats to livelihoods and wellbeing. PRM also emphasized the need to provide greater support for those on the move and their host communities, while paying particular attention to accessibility, child protection, disability rights, gender equity, Indigenous rights and the needs of historically and systemically excluded groups.
The announcement by PRM follows the 2021 White House Report on the Impact of Climate Change on Migration, for which Climate Refugees provided recommendations on how the United States can take a rights-based approach to climate migration and displacement.
In the context of PRM’s announcement, there are some tangible signs the US government is willing to design and implement policies aimed at promoting safe and regular migration, something that is urgently needed throughout the US immigration system. At the same time, efforts are still limited in scope and fail to address the confusing and ineffective patchwork of US immigration policy, especially as it intersects with climate policy.
For example, a policy shift announced in late April as Title 42—the mechanism used during the pandemic to quickly turn back asylum-seekers—was coming to an end has enabled partnerships with IOM, UNHCR, and various partner countries to fastrack coordinated migration to the US, including via USRAP. ‘Safe mobility offices’ in key countries accept applications from nationals of certain countries to receive support to migrate to the US (or in some cases, Canada or Spain).
The program has the potential to offer much needed protection for some, although predictably the same policy shift that has enabled it also emphasizes “stiffer consequences” for migrants who do not use “lawful pathways” and is devoid of language relating to climate change, even if the countries of origin included in the program tend to be climate-vulnerable. This carrot-and-stick approach, even as it opens pathways for a limited number of migrants, is very much in line with US attempts to externalize its borders.
In addition, while lifting Title 42 was a positive development, it does not seem to have been coordinated with measures to resource and scale up the capacities of national and local agencies that provide services to migrants and asylum-seekers. As a result, states and cities have been struggling to meet the needs of increased populations in need of services, and right-wing politicians and media are using the situation to amplify anti-immigrant sentiment in the lead up to this November’s presidential election.
Combined with the continued lack of good-faith engagement on climate policy from many on the political right - including outright climate change denial - the current outlook for progress on climate migration policy is bleak. Even many Democrats, traditionally perceived as being pro-climate action and pro-migrant, are failing to stand up for migrants - including those impacted by climate change - at a time when such support is critical. Lawmakers from both parties are doubling down on military-style border enforcement and asylum restrictions, which will undoubtedly expose more people to harm - including from climate impacts - both in unsafe countries of origin and transit, as well as the southern border. This is why Climate Refugees, as a member of RCUSA, signed onto a letter outlining the dangers of the ‘compromise’ bill while it was being considered by the US Senate.
Even amidst this disheartening outlook, the US should utilize existing mechanisms to introduce new pathways for those impacted by climate change, even if it ends up only applying to limited numbers of people. For instance, U.S. policymakers can leverage the Priority 2 (P-2) status to designate certain groups as in need of refugee resettlement if they share similar characteristics or are in a situation of concern. Examples include providing protection to South Sudanese and Ethiopian refugees in Sudan, Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, and Hondurans and Guatemalans facing persecution in addition to climate-induced hurricanes and drought.
Looking towards foreign policy, the United States should play a leading role in compensating countries for loss and damage caused by climate change, both because of its historical emissions and because adequate support to climate-vulnerable countries can help reduce pressures to migrate. Unfortunately the low appetite for climate policy engagement extends to the international stage too.
While COP28 was recognized for the historic agreement on the operationalization of the loss and damage fund (which was established the previous year at COP27), the United States committed a meager $17.5 million to the fund despite estimates that loss and damage needs amount to $400 billion per year. Though extremely disappointing, it is not surprising: the US was already falling $32 billion short of its fair share of the global $100 billion climate finance goal despite producing the highest amount of cumulative emissions since the industrial revolution. While fears of backlash in Congress are valid, the paltry US pledge is a total abdication of responsibility to address the climate crisis, and sends a dangerous signal to other countries mulling over how much they intend to contribute.
As climate impacts worsen in many regions, and as migration to the US southern border breaks records, there is an urgent need to understand the climate-migration nexus and act accordingly. If the US government fails to take immediate action to incorporate climate change considerations into its migration policies, more people on the move—many of whom are displaced by climate change to begin with—will continue to face dangerous journeys and even lose their lives while seeking protection. Extreme heat last summer contributed to a doubling of migrant deaths in the US-Mexico border’s busiest section, where more than 100 of 148 deaths recorded from May to September occurred when temperatures were at or above 100 F (37.8 C). The southern US border was also identified by IOM—using data from 2022—as the “deadliest land route for migrants worldwide on record”. Many others will be trapped in place with decreasing options and threats to their livelihoods and basic rights.
Ultimately, the United States must provide accessible and adequate safe migration pathways and protection for those displaced by climate change, as well as adequate loss and damage funding for its responsibility in creating the climate crisis in the first place. In any policy decision, climate-affected communities must be at the center of all discussions to ensure that humane and just policies and programs are developed and implemented to protect and support those displaced by climate change.
Unfortunately, for all the promising rhetoric on climate change and migration, it largely remains just that, and words will not do anything to address the urgent and growing protection needs of migrants who have no choice but to risk everything to come to the US.