While global attention often focuses on conflicts like those in Ukraine and Gaza, climate-induced displacement is emerging as a more significant, yet often overlooked, crisis. 

• Our planet faces ecological collapse, compelling an increasing number of people to abandon their homes and seek refuge elsewhere. 
• These individuals remain largely unprotected and unrecognised under existing international frameworks.

The Alarming Scale of Displacement

• In 2024 alone, the World Meteorological Organization recorded over 600 extreme weather incidents, with 148 being unprecedented and 289 unusual. 
• These events resulted in 1,700 fatalities and the displacement of 824,000 individuals worldwide.
• The Institute for Economics and Peace’s Ecological Threat Register warns of severe risks from droughts, floods, hurricanes, rising sea levels, and melting glaciers. 
• By 2050, 141 countries are projected to face at least one major natural disaster, potentially affecting 200 million people and leading to unprecedented levels of human mobility and migration.

Key Causes of Climate-Induced Displacement

• Temperature Rise and Global Warming: Escalating temperatures exacerbate extreme weather events.
• Population Growth: Increases the burden on natural resources, leading to scarcity.
• Resource Constraints: Shortages of essential resources like water and arable land.
• Food Insecurity: A direct consequence of environmental degradation affecting agriculture.

About ‘Climate Refugees’

• Climate refugees refer to individuals or communities compelled to migrate or seek refuge due to ecological threats stemming from climate change in their usual place of residence.
• However, there is no universally agreed-upon international definition for this term. 
• The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) prefers the term “persons displaced due to climate change and disasters”. 
• Other terms used interchangeably include “environmentally displaced migrants”, “climate migrants”, and “disaster displaced migrants”. 
• The difficulty in crafting a precise definition is compounded by the fact that environmental factors often interlink with economic, social, and political drivers such as poverty, disease, governance failures, and conflicts.

Challenges in Legal Protection of climate refugees

• Outdated Conventions: The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, which govern refugee protection globally, employ a restrictive definition. 
  • They recognise displacement due to persecution, wars, civil unrest, or conflicts but do not include environmental causes of climate-related natural disasters as valid grounds for refugee status.
• State as a Victim: Unlike traditional refugees whose displacement is often due to state persecution or failure, in climate-induced displacement, the state itself is frequently a victim of the catastrophe. 
  • Such disasters deplete national resources and infrastructure, making governments unable to adequately protect their populations, despite their intent.
• Varied Migration Types: Climate-induced migration can be temporary (e.g., during floods) or permanent (e.g., due to rising sea levels). 
  • Furthermore, it can be forced displacement (e.g., fleeing a sudden disaster) or voluntary/pre-planned migration (anticipating future ecological devastation).
  • This blurring of lines complicates legal recognition and protection.
• Case Study: In 2015, an asylum application of Ioane Teitiota, a man from Kiribati (an island nation in the central Pacific Ocean), in New Zealand was rejected. 
  • He argued that rising sea-levels and other effects of climate change were making his homeland uninhabitable. 
  • However, his application was rejected – and upheld on later appeal – citing that the 1951 Refugee Convention demands a well-founded fear of persecution or political violence – criteria that do not extend to climate-induced environmental change.
  • In contrast to Teitiota’s appeal, a contemporaneous Tuvaluan family exposed to similar sea-level threats was granted permanent residency in New Zealand on discretionary humanitarian grounds, primarily due to established kinship ties rather than under any refugee instrument. This highlights the reliance on ad hoc mechanisms for climate-displaced persons.

Impact on the Global South

The burden of climate displacement falls overwhelmingly on the Global South. These nations are more vulnerable due to their high dependence on climate-sensitive agriculture and limited capacity for adaptation.

• Central America’s Dry Corridor: Prolonged droughts and hurricanes have displaced nearly 1.4 million indigenous youth, primarily dependent on subsistence agriculture, forcing many to migrate towards the US borders.
• Sahel Region, Africa: Over two million Burkinabé were displaced by early 2025 due to advancing desertification combined with armed conflicts.
• Northeast Brazil: From 2008 to 2022, approximately 2.5 million people experienced flood-related displacements due to alternating droughts and extreme rainfall events.
• Pacific Island Nations: Low-lying atoll nations like Kiribati and Tuvalu face existential threats from rising sea levels, requiring billions of US dollars for coastal defences to safeguard their land.
• Coastal Bangladesh: By 2050, an estimated 17 percent of the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta could be submerged, endangering the homes and livelihoods of up to 20 million people. 
  • This has already activated one of the world’s largest migration corridors, with many migrating to neighbouring India.

Current International and Regional Frameworks

 In the absence of a strong, legally binding international framework, soft law instruments and regional initiatives have emerged, but they lack enforcement power.

• Non-binding Initiatives:
• • The Nansen Initiative (2012) and its successor, the Platform on Disaster Displacement (PDD), focused on protecting cross-border displaced persons in the context of disasters and climate change, but they are not binding.
  • The Global Compact on Refugees (2018) and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) acknowledge climate change as a driver of displacement but are non-binding and rely on cooperation and dialogue.
• Humanitarian Visas and Regional Relocation Frameworks: These offer practical guidance but depend on voluntary state participation.
• Regional Initiatives: These show more promise but are limited in scope.
  • The Kampala Convention in Africa explicitly addresses internal displacement due to natural disasters, creating regional obligations for state parties.
  • The Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change and Free Movement Agreements promote sub-regional cooperation among vulnerable Pacific island nations.

Human Rights and the Way Forward

•  The issue of climate displacement is fundamentally a human rights challenge. 
• Landmark UN Ruling (2020): The UN Human Rights Committee ruled in 2020 that forcibly returning people to areas severely affected by climate change violates international human rights.
  • This ruling is based on the right to life under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
  • It sets a global precedent for recognising climate-related threats within human rights law.
• Risk Assessment: A collective, recalibrated risk assessment is urgently needed, alongside climate adaptation and mitigation strategies that prioritise displacement. 
  • Otherwise, well-meaning solutions like sea walls and upgraded coastal infrastructure could lead to climate gentrification.
    • Climate gentrification refers to a phenomenon where efforts to protect communities from climate change — such as building sea walls, elevating land, or improving infrastructure — increase property values and living costs. 
    • As a result, low-income and vulnerable residents are displaced, ironically creating more climate refugees.
• Addressing the Triple Gap: the global community must confront the triple gap that defines the climate refugee dilemma:
• • Conceptual Gap: The absence of a clear definition for climate refugees.
  • Legal Gap: The lack of specific international laws for their recognition and protection.
  • Policy Gap: Insufficient policies for their effective protection.
  • Unless these gaps are urgently bridged, millions will continue to live in legal invisibility, outside the systems designed to safeguard human dignity. 
• Humanitarian Approach: Addressing this silent yet deepening crisis demands a dual lens: one that upholds both human rights imperatives and legitimate security considerations of the state.

Conclusion

It is imperative to develop a global consensus and a legally binding agreement, akin to the 1951 Refugee Convention, to effectively protect the lives of millions threatened by climate change. This is not merely an ethical imperative but a necessity for our demographic and economic future.

DOWNLOAD PDF