In all cases, people displaced by disasters have needs and vulnerabilities to solve. People who have already been displaced for reasons other than natural disasters, including refugees, stateless people and displaced persons, often live in climate change « hotspots » and may be exposed to secondary displacement. In addition, similar effects on their regions of origin may hinder their ability to return safely. The outcome of the Paris negotiations is the creation of a task force to « develop recommendations for integrated approaches to avoid, minimize and combat population displacement in the context of the negative effects of climate change. » For those who opt for migration, they need strategies to ensure regular migration routes, legal protection and economic integration. For the ILO`s Michelle Leighton, this means: « We must stop seeing migration as a failure of development, and we must start by seeing it as a possibility and a possible solution for a climate-changing future. » Leighton noted that migrants bring skills and skills; with the right opportunities, they can fill labour shortages and contribute to the savings they penetrate. A coordination facility could be unspeakably adapted to the specific needs of climate change-related migration as the issue develops. Early on, the facility could conduct studies to determine which areas are most conducive to large-scale migration. The facility could also serve as a guide for negotiating bilateral and regional migration agreements, avoiding some political obstacles to a global rights-based agreement, and allowing cultural self-determination, which remains an essential tenant of international law. Finally, for those hoping for an agreement based on rights on climate change migration, the coordination facility could evolve to meet these needs. Before considering a solution, it is interesting to note that migrants are in a state of legal suspension under current refugee law. For traditional conflict refugees, the 1951 Convention provides protected legal status.
But, as it is currently written, Article I of the 1951 Convention refers only to persons fleeing persecution by their own government on the basis of « race, religion, nationality or belonging to a certain social group or political opinion. » In normal cases, people fleeing climate change will not fit this definition. Originally, the draft agreement for the Paris climate talks contained the recommendation to set up a coordination facility for climate travel to ensure « organized migration and planned relocations » and financial compensation for people displaced by climate change. It was then removed from the document, mainly because of Australia`s opposition. The proximity of the islands of Tuvalu, the Solomon Islands, Kiribati and their vulnerable populations undoubtedly played a role. Although Canberra has spent about $50 million on climate change projects in the Pacific and provided $200 million to the Green Climate Fund, it may not want to lose its ability to deal with the issue on its own terms. Australia is unlikely to be alone because of the increasing impact of climate change on human migration and other challenges.