Neo Institute Europa

Household experiencing coastal erosion on South Tarawa (November 2009). © Government of Kiribati / Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License / Free for use / Wikimedia Commons

A certain answer does not exist

Climate-induced migration is a rather recent phenomenon that has just started to make its way into national courts and into the international community. One of these first cases involves a man called Ioane Teitiota and his unprecedented dispute with New Zealand.

Ioane Teitiota is a national of Kiribati, a low-lying Pacific island state composed of thirty-two atolls increasingly threatened by rising sea levels and saltwater intrusion. He and his wife lived in South Tarawa, the overcrowded capital, where flooding, coastal erosion, and contamination of drinking water has made living conditions extremely difficult. In search of a safer environment, they moved to New Zealand in 2007 and remained there after their visas expired. When the police discovered their irregular status, Teitiota applied for asylum, arguing that he had been forced to leave Kiribati because climate change had made life there increasingly uninhabitable. His claim was rejected by New Zealand’s immigration authorities and courts at every level, which held that the effects of climate change did not meet the legal definition of persecution under the 1951 Refugee Convention. In 2015, Teitiota and his family were deported back to Kiribati.

Having exhausted all domestic remedies, he submitted a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC), alleging that his removal violated his right to life under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In 2020, the Committee acknowledged the severe environmental threats facing Kiribati but concluded that Teitiota did not face an immediate, concrete or personal risk to his life, and therefore New Zealand had not breached its obligations.

What exactly is going on in Kiribati?

The 32 atolls of Kiribati have been facing the critical consequences of climate change for years. As mentioned by the testimony of John Coran (a PhD candidate studying climate change in Kiribati) to the HRC, the population is suffering due to rising sea levels causing poor and infertile soils. Consequently, land is becoming increasingly scarce and unemployment rates are skyrocketing. South Tarawa, the capital, has seen a dramatic population increase as many Kiribati nationals, including Teitiota, relocated from other islands in search of better economic opportunities. This has led to (and worsened) a variety of different problems.

To begin with, this rapid growth alongside the scarcity of land has contributed to a boost in violent episodes, some of which have even led to deaths. Secondly, urbanization and pollution have compromised one of South Tarawa’s five underground water reserves, a situation that is further worsened by the frequent storms and breaches of sea walls that have made parts of the city uninhabitable. Thus, 60% of the population does not have access to fresh water and is forced to rely on rationed supplies provided by the public utilities board, a problem that Teitiota and his wife also faced. The list goes on: transportation difficulties, destruction of crops, family disputes over land threatened by rising seas, and serious health complications from poor water quality, all of which compounded the daily risks faced by residents like Teitiota and his wife.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), these difficulties will only worsen in the future. A 2017 report predicted that the temperatures as well as the number of heatwaves and extreme rainfall will rapidly soar by 2100, while sea levels are expected to rise from 7 to 17cm by 2030. This would further worsen the many problems faced by the Kiribati population, increasing the risk of infectious diseases like dengue fever and cholera, especially in overcrowded areas like South Tarawa.

Then why is there no risk of life for Teitiota?

As previously mentioned, the HRC decided that there is no risk of life for Teitiota upon returning and living in Kiribati, therefore, Article 6 of the ICCPR had not been violated by New Zealand. The Committee argued that in order to declare a serious risk for the applicant there should be one of these six conditions:

1. A previous involvement in a land dispute which might cause violent episodes in the future
2. The inability to find land to provide for himself and his family
3. The inability to grow food or have access to drinking water
4. ‘Life-threatening’ environmental conditions
5. An exceptional situation compared to other Kiribati residents
6. A failure of the government to support its citizens lives

Teitiota is not included in any of those, since he mentioned no direct involvement in violent fights, could still have access to some water and cultivate some land, and did not face any exceptional environmental situation. In addition, even though he claimed that in 10 to 15 years Kiribati would become uninhabitable because of rising sea levels, the HRC argued that this timeframe is enough to allow the small country to implement measures to support its residents and avoid this scenario. Kiribati is, indeed, taking action towards fighting climate change and providing support to its residents through numerous projects supported by New Zealand and Australia, which, in 2022, invested in the creation of a new desalinisation plant and other drought support initiatives.

We can then understand that, for the HRC, there is no reason to accept Teitiota’s asylum request as the case does not fulfil the criteria of “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”, which is a requirement of the refugee status, but can we guarantee that Teitiota and his family will not be harmed once they return to Kiribati?

Absolutely not. The living conditions are extremely difficult and, even though there are some chances of survival, we cannot guarantee that they will not be victims of violence or fall ill due to a lack of potable water and safe food.

The HRC has applied a very high threshold for this case, setting a dangerous precedent that could leave future climate migrants unprotected. Additionally, it did not consider neither Teitiota’s wife’s nor his children’s situations, which would have framed the case differently by enlarging its scope to also consider the disproportionate effects of climate change on women and minors.

First, including Teitiota’s wife in the case would mean highlighting the condition of women in Kiribati’s patriarchal society and its relationship with climate change. Kiribati women are traditionally responsible for securing water, food and they often sell various items in order to support their husbands’ income. However, under current conditions, they are forced to travel long distances to collect drinkable water. Furthermore, they are not included in decision-making processes, as villages are still guided by councils of men. Paradoxically, this causes the exclusion of the very people who best understand the environment due to their long established role in securing water, food, and cultivating the land. It is worth mentioning that, while it has only occurred in recent years, Kiribati women have started to advocate for climate action and play a more important role in understanding and protecting these small islands.

Secondly, including an analysis on Teitiota’s children would also help underline the suffering of Kiribati children. They are increasingly exposed to illnesses to which they are more vulnerable, such as dengue, due to rising temperatures. They also face increasing levels of domestic violence after natural disasters as well as limited access to health facilities and education due to intense weather events. Finally, many Kiribati children are forced to leave their homes due to climate impacts, which can lead to long-term psychological challenges.

The case of Teitiota includes many issues and problems that Pacific Islanders face daily. His story is just one of many that will follow in the imminent future. Most importantly, it shows the urgent need to address climate-induced migration, reconsider the scope of refugee protection, and challenge the limitations of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which was drafted in a very different context. Currently, only a handful of countries, including Italy, recognise refugee status on the basis of natural disasters. Teitiota’s story demonstrates the importance of such mechanisms and raises critical questions about how climate-induced migration can be addressed in a way that safeguards human lives while also confronting underlying issues such as gender inequality.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Neo Institute Europa. The Neo Institute publishes contributions to foster informed public debate. While articles may be reviewed and edited, the author(s) remain solely responsible for the claims, interpretations and conclusions expressed. This content is provided for informational purposes. The Neo Institute Europa shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising from reliance on this article.