Global exodus: How climate change is forcing hundreds of millions of people to relocate

In November 2023, Australia and Tuvalu signed the bilateral Falepili Union agreement — the first international document to explicitly recognize climate change as sufficient grounds for migration and to establish an institutional mechanism for carrying out relocations. The arrangement is based on the concept of Falepili — a Pacific tradition of neighborliness, care, and mutual respect.

However, the relocation wave will be strictly limited. Under the agreement, up to 280 Tuvaluan citizens will be able to receive visas and move to Australia each year on a competitive basis. The Tuvaluan government aims to avoid a sharp population decline or a “brain drain.” The island nation intends to preserve its culture and political agency even in the face of climate threats through “mobility with dignity,” not flight.

What is climate migration? What makes it confusing?

The case of Tuvalu's first relocants marks the emergence of a new approach to climate migration, one that is so far limited to a single bilateral agreement between two countries. The international legal framework has no widely recognized official status for people forced to move due to climate change, and existing mechanisms for migrants and refugees address fundamentally different circumstances.

The international debate on climate migration gained serious momentum after the case of Ioane Teitiota, a citizen of Kiribati. In 2010, Teitiota sought asylum and recognition as a climate refugee in New Zealand, citing the threat of rising sea levels and deteriorating living conditions on his home islands. The court denied his claim, noting that international law does not recognize climate change as sufficient grounds for receiving refugee status — the 1951 UN Convention is focused on protecting people fleeing war and persecution.

In 2020, the UN Human Rights Committee did not consider the denial a violation of international law, since Teitiota’s life was not in imminent danger. However, it highlighted a crucial argument: returning people to countries where climate change endangers their lives can be regarded as a human rights violation. This marked the first instance of climate being recognized as a factor requiring political and legal consideration.