Regarding your comments. You have some very valid points, and do agree with you on several points. This is not just a question on protection.

Most people displaced by natural disaster, are displaced within their own country or immediate neighbouring region. As you correctly point out; development aid, crisis management, early warning, infrastructure investment and more is of crucial importance in order to prevent and minimize damage of natural disasters.

However, there are plausible arguments in favour that some people displaced by either immediate- or slow-onset natural disasters need some form of protection. In the aftermath of natural disaster such as Hurricane Katrina, millions of people were temporarily displaced. But even in the US, some people still haven’t been able to move home, 3 years after disaster struck. The same happened after Hurricane Mitch 1999, and people from Nicaragua and Honduras are still getting extended “temporary” stay in the US following the disaster. This indicates quite clearly, in my opinion, that temporary protection might not be enough, when disasters displace people from their country of origin.

The justification to this extension from US authorities was:
“The extension is warranted because there continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in Honduras resulting from Hurricane Mitch and Honduras remains unable, temporarily, to adequately handle the return of its nationals, as required for TPS designations based on environmental disasters. The Government of Honduras has realized some success in disaster mitigation and prevention projects, as well as in rebuilding infrastructure since Hurricane Mitch. The country, however, still faces significant social and economic stress caused by the environmental disaster.”

Temporary protection in the EU is envisaged to last for a year, with possible 6 month extensions, but maximum for 3 years. You also have less rights and possibilities than with subsidiary or refugee status. My point is that some people, who are displaced by environmental disasters, cannot move back to their country of origin, either because the state cannot or will not provide with adequate protection. It is in these cases I believe that there should be an opening to attain more permanent protection, for example through subsidiary protection.

Some states such as Finland and Sweden already has provisions in their legislation to accommodate victims of natural disasters who cannot return to their country of origin.

In a longer perspective, other forms of legal migration should be considered to relieve the migratory pressures that are likely to increase as a result of climate change. Have a look at my latest entry on the blog about resettlement programmes.

The whole concept of refugees and asylum is based on a protection from individual persecution, either with the state as the persecutor or where the state is not able or willing to provide protection for the individual.

Firstly, natural disasters are geographically limited and, except in cases of island states, seldom cover an entire territory in the same way as state authority and responsibility does (thus the state can protect the persons, ie internal flight alternative). Secondly they are limited in time. For disasters I believe the temporary protection directive is much more relevant.

For environmental degredation, the first point of geographical limits remains valid, opening the internal flight alternative, while there still is a link to subsidiary protection and situations of “generalized violence”.

I note that the quote from the EP mentions poverty and environmental degradation in the same sentence, and calls for protection for people fleeing of these reasons.

The EPs wish of granting protection to these people, is a just and applaudable wish, but it would undermine the entire concept of asylum as it sadly, are just too many people that are covered by the definition.

Without expanding the definition, we already have 25 million internally displaced persons in the world, many eligable for subsidiary protection, but unable to knock on the walls of Europe. Getting immigration sceptical Western Countries to up their quotas for UNCHR transferred refugees is a much higher priority on my list.

For environmental refugees, other policy tools than asylum should be concidered. Maybe temporary protection in case of huge emergencies, maybe a expansion of UNHCRs mandate for “in the field” protection.

The point is that traditional refugees have no choice, they have to leave their country, environmental and economic refugees don’t have much of a choice either, but they can stay in their country and thus be adressed by other policy tools; development aid, crisis management etc.