KMS Tareq, PhD in Law Candidate and Teaching Fellow, SOAS University of London

International law lacks a mechanism for recognising and protecting cross-border climate mobility, except for some complementary protection mechanisms. The Nansen Initiative evidences that, in most cases, people take refuge in neighbouring countries when they cross borders due to the adverse impacts of climate change and disasters. Therefore, regional governance of climate mobility appears as a “promising approach” to address, in particular, cross-border climate mobility (Platform for Disaster Displacement (PDD)). This post analyses the three frameworks that have been recently adopted in three continents or regions – Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific – to address climate mobility and fill existing gaps. 

In Africa, the Kampala framework (KDMECC) was adopted in July 2022. Among the several objectives, the Member States aim to address the climate mobility of people and livestock, unplanned climate migration, and the lack of data and statistics about the movements, which hinders effective planning and response to adopt measures about climate mobility. It identifies five core areas for action and lists thirteen commitments to address these areas. This is the oldest and most influential among the three frameworks. 

The influence of the African framework can be seen, in particular, in the Ministerial Declaration signed by Caribbean States in April 2023. The Declaration aims to address people’s internal and international climate mobility challenges, and it is the framework that focuses the most on cross-border human mobility. Like the African framework, it identifies five core action areas, closely linked to the international climate mobility due to sudden-onset events, as well as the lack of data and statistics and the limitations of financial assistance. 

In the Pacific, political leaders adopted a regional framework in November 2023, focused on all forms of climate mobility, including cross-border climate movements. The framework contains several independent provisions for addressing the region’s unique challenges, and explores opportunities such as humanitarian admission, longer stays, regularisation of legal status, resettlement, and more for the people who flee their place of habitat due to different adverse impacts of climate change.  

The common objective of all three mechanisms is regional governance of climate mobility. However, there are also significant differences in their contents and approach. A first difference relates to the scope of mobility covered by the frameworks. In the Pacific framework, addressing cross-border climate mobility is only one aspect of involuntary displacement, along with internal displacement and evacuations. This mechanism also focuses on other forms of movement, including voluntary migration and planned relocation. The Pacific framework has identified an independent type of climate mobility: stranded migrants. It also covers the “right not to be returned” and provides for mechanisms to support people who cannot return to their country of origin due to exacerbated climate change. On the contrary, the African and Caribbean frameworks do not categorically distinguish between different situations of human mobility and immobility. Nonetheless, it may be inferred that they include and apply to both regional cross-border and internal climate mobility. 

In addition, recognising that the movement of animals caused by the adverse impacts of climate change is severe in the African region and requires cooperation among the States, the African framework covers climate mobility of both people and livestock. The Caribbean and Pacific mechanisms, instead, encompass only human mobility.  

Another difference concerns the strength of the commitment to bringing a solution to international climate mobility. All frameworks commit to domesticating various international treaties and protocols. The African framework commits to only the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). The Caribbean Framework, however, asks the Member States to implement and domesticate a range of international treaties, including the UNCCD, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),  and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Furthermore, in line with the Paris Agreement, the Pacific leaders commit to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 

However, it should be noted that all the frameworks are soft-law solutions, and their effectiveness from the problem-solving perspective will depend on the State parties’ willingness to implement them. In addition, the language of commitment varies across the three frameworks. The Caribbean framework has categorically committed to “develop[ing] concrete solutions for persons crossing borders in the contexts of disasters, environmental degradation, and climate change on the basis of national legislation and regional frameworks.” The African mechanism commits to taking various measures to avert, minimise, and address internal and cross—border displacement. Conversely, the Pacific framework contains the weakest commitments among the three since it merely aims to “explore opportunities” for cross-border climate mobility through humanitarian admission and shorter and longer stays of people.

Like other international frameworks, the primary concern of the regional declarations is their effectiveness. The African and Caribbean frameworks contain an implementation commitment by adopting a Plan of Action. The African declaration was started to be implemented with the formation of an Expert Working Group (EWG). The Member States of African frameworks have further adopted a Plan of Action in 2024 with a view to implementing the framework. The Caribbean countries have not yet adopted any such plan of action to implement the declaration. The Pacific framework aims to adopt a comprehensive plan to implement the mechanism. To this end, Pacific leaders held a regional consultation on the framework implementation plan in September 2024 in Suva, Fiji. 

In summary, while the frameworks share some similarities, they differ in scope, nature, and approach. Nonetheless, acknowledging that there is a void in recognising and protecting climate mobility per se at the international level, these regional frameworks could offer some solutions for the issue at the respective regions. Comparing the mechanisms outlines that the Caribbean framework is the most proactive regarding cross-border climate mobility. The countries have committed to “Develop concrete solutions” for the problem of cross-border climate mobility in the region. This commitment underscores their proactive approach to climate mobility governance, and the significance of the regional frameworks in this context. The Pacific framework, instead, is the most comprehensive instrument, covering almost all forms of climate mobility. However, it uses primarily indirect and equivocal words regarding the governance of cross-border climate mobility. The African document is also narrowly focused on the governance of cross-border climate mobility since it has emphasised resilience and adaptation more. However, the Member States of the African Declaration appear very committed to implementing the instrument. The hope is that the adoption and successful implementation of the regional frameworks will encourage and guide other regions, including Asia, Europe, and even the global community, to adopt a similar approach to protect the people who cross international borders due to adverse impacts of climate change.