Climate-Induced Displacement: Establishing Legal Protections for Climate Refugees

Author: Megan Scopp, LLM

February 5, 2025

[Image credit: Shutterstock via Vermont Law Review]

Introduction

Climate change has become a pressing global issue in recent decades. The effects of the environmental changes emerging from this global phenomenon have accelerated the frequency and intensity of ecological disruptions resulting in millions of people being forced to migrate. Predominant effects include rising sea levels swallowing entire communities, extreme weather events such as hurricanes and droughts displacing populations, and resource scarcity resulting in conflicts over water and arable land. Findings from the International Displacement Monitoring Centre indicated that over 23 million people were displaced by climate-induced events in 2021, this figure is expected to rise exponentially in the next few decades.

The Global South bears the brunt of these impacts, with developing nations facing the most severe climate disruptions despite having minimal contributions to the climate crisis. Notable examples lie with the small island nations of Kiribati and Tuvalu, which are at risk of becoming uninhabitable due to rising sea levels. Further, regions of sub-Saharan Africa are afflicted by extreme droughts that devastate livelihoods. These developing communities face a unique double burden when compared to developed nations. They are not only disproportionately affected, but they also have insufficient resources to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change adequately.

Despite the prevalence of this crisis on a global scale, there are significant gaps in international legal protections for individuals displaced by climate change. The exclusion of climate-related displacement from the 1951 Refugee Convention leaves climate-displaced persons in legal limbo where they are unable to access the rights and protections provided to conventional refugees, a gap that this paper aims to address. Without a reform of the legal frameworks and mechanisms in place for refugees, millions of people will remain vulnerable to human rights violations, particularly those forced to return to unsafe conditions.

This research aims to bridge the gap between international law and the realities of climate-induced displacement. Through the analysis of the limitations of current legal frameworks, it aims to highlight the urgent need for reform and propose actionable solutions. This project will explore how human rights principles, such as those enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), can be leveraged to address these gaps.

Additionally, this research will advocate for the recognition of climate refugees as a distinct legal category and propose a rights-based framework to ensure their protection. The framework would integrate climate-induced displacement into existing international treaties or establish a supplementary protocol to address the unique challenges faced by affected populations.

By emphasizing collective action and equitable solutions, this project underscores the shared responsibility of the international community to protect the rights and dignity of those displaced by climate change. It calls for a paradigm shift in how we approach migration, human rights, and environmental justice, urging policymakers, legal scholars, and advocacy groups to prioritize the development of comprehensive protections for climate refugees.

Legal Gaps in Current Frameworks

1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol form the cornerstone of international refugee law. However, the legal definition of a refugee under these frameworks fails to recognize climate-related factors as qualified grounds for refugee status. Under Article 1(A)(2) of the 1951 Convention, a refugee is defined as ‘someone who has fled persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.’ This definition does not extend to those forced to flee their homes due to rising sea levels, extreme weather events, or resource scarcity, essentially abandoning climate-displaced individuals and denying them access to the rights and protections normally granted to a conventional refugee.

Expanding the scope of the 1951 Convention to incorporate climate-induced displacement would face significant legal and political challenges. For international law, broadening the definition would require renegotiating an international treaty, a process with many logistical and diplomatic challenges. For international politics, many countries would fear the recognition of climate refugees’ effect on increased migration, placing additional pressure on their national resources and infrastructure. This reluctance is primarily evident among developed nations, which often bear the brunt of asylum claims.

When addressing the needs of populations displaced by climate change, the insufficiency of the current legal framework becomes clear. Some prime examples are Kiribati and other small island nations, which are facing extreme rising sea levels and whose nationals are forced to flee persecution as well as the existential threat of losing their homeland due to climate change. Without proper legal recognition, climate-displaced persons are left without access to asylum mechanisms and remain at risk of human rights violations and a forced return to unsafe environments. This legal gap exemplifies the urgency of reforming international refugee law to encompass the realities of climate-induced displacement.

Paris Agreement and UNFCCC

The Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledges the link between climate change and human mobility through its Task Force on Displacement. The Task Force, established under the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, aims to develop recommendations for managing climate-induced displacement. This task force is a significant step in international law recognizing the effects of climate change on displacement but ultimately lacks the authority to enforce binding legal protections.

The non-binding nature of the Paris Agreement further limits its effectiveness in addressing climate-induced displacement. While the agreement has made strides in promoting international cooperation and national-level policies, it fails to implement legal obligations on signatories to enforce protections for climate refugees. The gap in this framework essentially leaves the enforcement of protections for climate-displaced individuals to voluntary measures, which can vary in scope and implementation across countries.

Regional efforts to implement UNFCCC principles demonstrate localized responses to climate-induced displacement. For instance, the Kampala Ministerial Declaration on Migration, Environment, and Climate Change in Africa emphasizes data collection, capacity building, and resource mobilization to address migration driven by desertification and land degradation.[1] Efforts such as these are promising, but they lack the scale and enforceability needed for extensive comprehensive protections for climate-displaced populations.

Global Compact for Migration

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) is one of the first international agreements to explicitly recognize climate change as a ground of displacement. Objective 2 of the Compact encourages states to address the causes of forced migration, including environmental degradation and climate change. However, much like the Paris Agreement, the non-binding nature of the GCM limits its capacity to implement enforceable protections for climate refugees as it also relies on voluntary measures for implementation.

Despite the limitations surrounding enforcement, the GCM emphasizes proactive strategies to address climate migration, aligning with initiatives like Kiribati’s 'Migration with Dignity' policy.[2] Such approaches, while comprehensive, depend on international cooperation and funding, which are often inconsistent.

The recognition of climate migration embedded in the Compact is a crucial step in international policy, but the non-binding nature and the lack of a monitoring mechanism cause a reliance on voluntary commitments. The Compact’s ability to protect climate refugees could be cemented through the implementation of binding commitments or regional agreements.

Regional and Domestic Policies

African Union’s Kampala Convention illustrates one of the few examples of a legally binding framework that addresses climate-induced displacement. This Convention, in practice, recognizes climate-induced environmental factors as causes of internal displacement and compels member states to adopt measures for the prevention and management of environmental displacement. The regional framework further provides a model for integrating climate displacement into legal instruments but remains limited to internal displacement, whereas international frameworks could address cross-border displacement.

Likewise, in the Pacific, initiatives like New Zealand’s Pacific Access Category (PAC) Scheme provide annual residency quotas for citizens of climate-vulnerable nations such as Kiribati and Tuvalu. The PAC presents a partial solution to the growing issue in the island nations of the Pacific, but its small-scale nature and lack of explicit connection to climate-induced displacement render it insufficient to address the full scope of the issue.

Kiribati’s 'Migration with Dignity' policy represents a proactive approach to addressing climate-induced displacement. This initiative focuses on equipping its citizens with education and vocational training to facilitate voluntary migration as a long-term adaptation strategy. By investing in human capital, the policy ensures that citizens are prepared to integrate into host countries, while also serving as a model for other nations to consider. Much like current international frameworks, New Zealand’s Immigration Act 2009 integrates international refugee protection obligations into regional law but fails to recognize climate change as a ground for asylum.[3] This gap highlights the need for national frameworks to explicitly recognize climate-induced displacement and develop policies to address it effectively.

Integrating climate-induced displacement into national legal frameworks remains a significant challenge. Countries must balance domestic concerns with international obligations while addressing the unique vulnerabilities of displaced populations. Coordinated global action and regional agreements are essential to filling these gaps and providing meaningful protections for climate refugees.

Human Rights Principles and Climate Refugees

Key Rights Under Threat

Fundamental human rights are largely at risk due to the unprecedented scale of climate change-induced environmental events. The right to life is guaranteed under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), while the right to an adequate standard of living, including housing, is guaranteed under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). For vulnerable populations in the Global South, these rights are threatened by environmental degradation due to the climate crisis.

The state of rising sea levels is jeopardizing small island nations of the Pacific, such as Kiribati and Tuvalu. Furthermore, environmental degradation in the Global South is rendering homes, agricultural land, and water sources unusable. These adverse effects of the climate crisis are directly infringing on the right to housing under ICESCR Article 11, as communities are forced to flee their homes and livelihoods. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and droughts, have a further disproportionate effect on the Global South, as these communities have weaker infrastructure and fewer resources to address these environmental impacts. As the Global South is left more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, the dignity and stability of these communities are greatly affected, violating the right to life.

Eita settlement in Tarawa, Kiribati in 2020. The islands are under pressure from rising sea-levels, and the country’s president has proposed raising the islands out of the sea to secure the nation’s future. [Image credit: Jonas Gratzer/LightRocket via Getty Images]

Case Studies and Legal Precedents

The legal recognition of climate change’s impact on human rights is evolving through landmark cases:

Teitiota v. New Zealand (2015) [4]

Ioane Teitiota, a citizen of Kiribati, sought asylum in New Zealand, arguing that rising sea levels and environmental degradation posed existential threats to his life if he were forced to return. He stated that the environmental conditions in Kiribati such as the loss of habitable land, freshwater resources, and overarching environmental viability ultimately violated his right to life under Article 6 of the ICCPR.

The courts of New Zealand ultimately rejected his asylum application, claiming that the risks he faced did not meet the persecution threshold under the 1951 Refugee Convention. However, just five years after this ruling, in 2020, the HRC issued a landmark ruling recognizing environmental degradation and the effects of climate change could trigger non-refoulement obligations under the ICCPR in certain circumstances. Despite the HRC upholding New Zealand’s decision in Teitiota, citing insufficient eminent risk, it did establish the precedent that returning individuals to circumstances where climate change poses a threat to life or dignity could constitute a human rights violation.

This precedent demonstrated a significant advancement in international law, acknowledging the intersection of human rights and environmental protection. It further paved a new path for future climate asylum claims and emphasized the need for comprehensive legal frameworks to address climate-induced displacement.

Urgenda v. Netherlands (2015) [5]

The Dutch Supreme Court’s decision in Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands marked a turning point in climate litigation. The Court’s ruling required that the Dutch government reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% from the levels in 1990 by the year 2020. This decision cited the obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to protect the right to life and family life.

The ruling in this case exemplified the crucial role of domestic courts in enforcing climate action based on human rights principles. It further served as a demonstration that governments could be held liable for failing to meet climate targets, setting another precedent for using human rights law to drive climate action.

Billy and Others v. Australia (2022) [6]

This case, brought by the Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders, marked a significant milestone in climate and human rights law. The Islanders claimed that the Australian government’s inaction on climate change violated their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), specifically Articles 17 (the right to private and family life) and 27 (cultural rights). They argued that climate-induced effects, such as rising sea levels and other environmental impacts, posed existential threats to their communities, cultural heritage, and way of life.

The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) ruled in favor of the Islanders, finding that Australia’s failure to address climate change had indeed violated their rights under the ICCPR. The decision emphasized the obligation of states to take preventative measures to protect individuals from foreseeable environmental harm. This ruling set a significant precedent, demonstrating how international law can hold governments accountable for climate inaction under human rights frameworks. It underscored the critical responsibility of states to mitigate climate risks and safeguard vulnerable communities.

Portillo Cáceres v. Paraguay (2019) [7]

In this case, the HRC ruled that environmental harm caused by pesticide contamination violated multiple human rights of the ICCPR, including Article 6, the right to life, and Article 17, the right to private and family life. The decision of the court illustrated how state inaction in preventing environmental degradation can directly infringe on individuals’ rights, thus setting a precedent among states to address climate-related human rights violations.

Children’s Rights and Climate Change Case (2019) [8]

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child ruled that states have an obligation to protect children from foreseeable harm caused by climate change. This case was brought forth by 16 children hailing from 12 countries, including youth climate activist Greta Thunberg. The diversity amongst the youth claimants illustrated the disproportionate impact of climate change on young and vulnerable populations.

The ruling affirmed that states have a duty to safeguard the rights of children and thus must take proactive measures to mitigate climate risks. While this particular ruling is in the context of children’s rights, its reasoning can be extended to other vulnerable populations, including climate-displaced individuals. The decision itself emphasizes the universal applicability of the state’s obligations to protect any and all individuals from foreseeable climate-induced harm.

Regional Case Studies from the Global South

Guna Community Relocation in Panama

The Guna community of Gardi Sugdub, located in the San Blas archipelago off Panama’s Caribbean coast, faced rising sea levels that posed existential threats to their homes and livelihoods. As a response to this imminent threat, the government and community organized a managed retreat to the mainland, marking this migration as Latin America’s first organized climate-induced relocation.

The proactive adaptation measure was complex as it had to provide a safe and managed retreat that preserved cultural heritage, secured adequate funding, and addressed potential logistical challenges.[9] The Guna community relocation underscores the importance of integrating community-led solutions into national and regional climate policies to ensure equitable and effective outcomes while preserving the cultural heritage of the communities at risk.

Flood-Induced Displacement in Brazil (2024)

Catastrophic flooding in multiple regions of Brazil in 2024 resulted in a displacement of over 650,000 people and billions of dollars in damages. Exacerbated by climate change, the floods disproportionately affected low-income communities with limited access to disaster response infrastructure.[10]

The flooding and its subsequent events underscored the vulnerability of developing nations to climate-induced disasters. It also highlighted the pressing need for comprehensive legal frameworks to include investments in disaster preparedness, capacity-building, and international cooperation to wholly address the realities of climate-related displacement in Brazil.

Proposed Framework for Legal Protections

Key Elements of the Framework

Recognition of Climate Refugees

The most fundamental step towards addressing climate-induced displacement is formally recognizing climate refugees as a distinct legal category under international law. The 1951 Refugee Convention remains the cornerstone of international refugee protection yet, the narrow scope of a refugee leaves a legal void for climate-displaced individuals who are fleeing existential threats rather than targeted persecution.

To address this limitation, the framework proposes the development of clear criteria for defining and identifying climate refugees. These criteria must account for:

1. Sudden-onset disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods) and slow-onset events (e.g., sea-level rise, desertification).

2. The inability of displaced individuals to secure safety or an adequate standard of living in their home country.

3. Acknowledgment of both internal and cross-border climate displacement to ensure consistent legal protections across jurisdictions.

By codifying these criteria into international law, international and national frameworks can account for climate refugees in the overarching scope of refugee protection.

[Image source: Campaign Against Climate Change]

Expansion of Non-Refoulement

The principle of non-refoulement is traditionally applied to prevent the return of individuals to places where they face persecution or torture. However, it is increasingly recognized as relevant to climate-induced displacement. Under the ICCPR, Article 6 (the right to life) and Article 7 (protection from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment), this principle has already been interpreted to encompass environmental harm in cases like Teitiota v. New Zealand.

Scholars like Jane McAdam have argued for the scope of non-refoulement to extend to environmental harm, arguing that severe climate risks, such as rising sea levels or uninhabitable living conditions, constitute life-threatening circumstances. This ideology aligns with the UNHCR’s Legal Considerations (2020), which state that the principle of non-refoulement may be applied to situations of disaster, particularly where there is an intersection of environmental factors and vulnerabilities within populations.

Building on this precedent, the framework advocates for:

1. Integrating non-refoulement obligations into existing international treaties such as the ICCPR and ICESCR to protect individuals from being returned to uninhabitable environments.

2. Encouraging national courts and legal systems to adopt expanded interpretations of non-refoulement in line with evolving human rights norms.

3. Developing guidelines under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to assist states in implementing non-refoulement protections for climate-displaced persons.

The expansion of the principle of non-refoulement will guarantee that victims of environmental harm have access to legal protections thus integrating human rights principles into the realities of climate displacement.

Integration into Existing Frameworks or Supplementary Protocol

The tertiary step in addressing climate-induced displacement is integrating climate displacement protections into existing legal instruments rather than creating entirely new treaties. The rights to life, health, housing, and an adequate standard of living are already guaranteed through treaties like the ICCPR and ICESCR but are still at risk of the effects of climate change. Through the recognition of climate-induced displacement within these existing frameworks, states can leverage current legal obligations to ensure accountability and enforcement.

Notably, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has issued General Comments that underscore the applicability of these rights to environmental and climate issues:

• General Comment No. 15 highlights the right to water as essential for living with dignity and emphasizes that environmental degradation affecting water access constitutes a rights violation.

• General Comment No. 14 underscores the right to the highest attainable standard of health, noting that environmental hazards such as pollution and climate change exacerbate health risks, requiring states to adopt preventive measures.

By synthesizing these treaties and comments, states can address and incorporate climate-induced displacement into existing legal frameworks, ensuring a larger scope of protection for affected populations.

Alternatively, a supplementary protocol could be developed to address the gaps left by the 1951 Refugee Convention. Similar to the CEDAW Optional Protocol or regional instruments like the Istanbul Convention, a supplementary protocol could:

1. Define the legal status of climate refugees.

2. Mandate state obligations to provide protection, resettlement, and adaptation assistance.

3. Establish monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance with protections.

A supplementary protocol could provide a practical and enforceable solution to climate-induced displacement if it is successfully created and integrated into international law and policy.

Recommendations for Global Policy

Collective Responsibility and Equitable Support

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities must guide global efforts to address climate displacement. Developed nations, which contribute disproportionately to greenhouse gas emissions, have a moral and legal obligation to support vulnerable regions disproportionately impacted by climate change. These regions are typically the developing nations of the Global South. This support includes:

1. Financial and technical assistance to help vulnerable states implement climate resilience strategies and manage displacement.

2. Regional agreements like the Kampala Convention, which successfully address internal displacement in Africa, can serve as models for localized solutions while ensuring alignment with global frameworks.

3. Encouraging stronger international cooperation through platforms like the Global Compact for Migration, which recognizes climate migration as a priority but requires more robust implementation.

Capacity-Building and Funding Mechanisms

To successfully implement protections for climate refugees into international law, solid funding and capacity-building initiatives are needed. The framework proposes utilizing existing funding mechanisms, particularly the Green Climate Fund (GCF), to support climate resilience and displacement-related projects. Specific recommendations include:

1. Establishing a dedicated funding stream within the GCF to address climate-induced displacement, including relocation, adaptation, and resettlement programs.

2. Mobilizing public and private capital to scale funding for large-scale climate resilience projects in vulnerable regions.[11]

3. Adopting capacity-building programs based on GCF’s sectoral guides, which provide actionable pathways and examples for addressing climate risks. These programs would enhance infrastructure, governance, and community preparedness in at-risk regions.

Implementation Strategies

To ensure proper accountability and success, the framework advocates for the establishment of monitoring bodies similar to those under the CEDAW. These bodies would:

1. Oversee state compliance with climate displacement protections.

2. Provide periodic reviews and recommendations for improving national and regional implementation efforts.

3. Engage civil society organizations and international bodies to enhance transparency and collaboration.

Furthermore, integrating investment frameworks like those developed by the GCF will aim to prioritize funding for projects addressing climate action and displacement. These frameworks can align national adaptation plans with international funding mechanisms, ensuring targeted and sustainable outcomes.

Conclusion

The worsening effects of climate change on the environment necessitate urgent reforms in international law to address the pressing issue of climate-induced displacement. Current legal frameworks, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, fail to consider those forced to flee environmental degradation under the status of a refugee, thus leaving millions without adequate protections. The recognition of climate refugees as a distinct legal category and the further integration of their rights into existing legal frameworks would fill this critical gap.

The implementation of a rights-based framework would offer practical benefits, including safeguarding the human rights of vulnerable populations, fostering international cooperation, and providing sustainable funding solutions. Through mechanisms like the Green Climate Fund and capacity-building initiatives, states can develop support systems to address and mitigate climate-induced displacement. However, global cooperation must address the political, economic, and logistical barriers to ensure the framework’s success.

The time for action is now. Policymakers, international bodies, and human rights advocates must prioritize the development and implementation of legal protections for climate refugees. Capacity-building programs should be adopted to strengthen infrastructure and governance in climate-vulnerable regions, particularly in the developing nations of the Global South.

Investments in data collection and research are equally essential to anticipate and proactively manage future displacement trends. Collective and equitable action within the international community can ensure that climate-displaced individuals are protected with dignity and justice. The necessary collaborative effort is not just a legal imperative but a moral one, reflecting the shared responsibility of nations in the face of a global crisis.

---

Glossary

• 1951 Refugee Convention: An international treaty defining the status of refugees, outlining their rights, and establishing states' legal obligations to protect them. It does not recognize climate-induced displacement.

• 1967 Protocol: An amendment to the 1951 Refugee Convention that removed geographical and temporal restrictions, expanding refugee protections globally.

• Climate-Induced Displacement: The forced migration of individuals due to environmental changes caused by climate change, such as rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and resource scarcity.

• Global Compact for Migration (GCM): A UN framework that addresses international migration, including the acknowledgment of climate change as a factor for displacement, though non-binding.

• Green Climate Fund (GCF): A financial mechanism established under the UNFCCC to support developing nations in addressing climate change impacts and transitioning to sustainable economies.

• Human Rights Committee (HRC): A body of independent experts that monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): A multilateral treaty guaranteeing fundamental civil and political rights, such as the right to life and protection from inhumane treatment.

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR): A multilateral treaty ensuring rights related to adequate living standards, health, education, and work.

• Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand: A landmark case where the UN Human Rights Committee recognized that environmental degradation could trigger non-refoulement obligations under the ICCPR.

• Non-Refoulement: A principle in international law that prohibits returning individuals to places where they face persecution, torture, or life-threatening conditions.

• Paris Agreement: An international accord under the UNFCCC aiming to limit global warming and strengthen countries' capacities to deal with climate change impacts.

• Shared but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR): A principle of international environmental law recognizing that while all nations are responsible for addressing global environmental issues, developed nations bear greater responsibility due to their historical contributions to emissions.

• Task Force on Displacement: A body under the Warsaw International Mechanism of the Paris Agreement that develops recommendations to address displacement caused by climate change.

• UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change): An international environmental treaty aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change.

• Urgenda v. Netherlands: A Dutch Supreme Court case mandating the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect citizens' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

• Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage: A framework under the UNFCCC addressing loss and damage associated with climate impacts, including displacement.

---

Footnotes/Sources

[1] For the UNFCCC report providing an overview and significance of the Kampala Convention, see also: https://unfccc.int/kampala-ministerial-declaration-on-migration-environment-and-climate-change 

[2] For a comprehensive overview of this policy, see also: https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Kiribati%20National%20Labour%20Migration%20Policy.pdf and https://devpolicy.org/kiribati_migration_climate_change20120112/ 

[3] See section 129 and Part 5 section 124

[4]  For an overview of the case and its implications for future climate-related asylum claims, see also: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/01/historic-un-human-rights-case-opens-door-climate-change-asylum-claims 

[5] For an overview of the case, including its background, legal arguments, and implications, see also: https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-the-netherlands/ 

[6] For the OHCHR Press Release, see also: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/09/australia-violated-torres-strait-islanders-rights-enjoy-culture-and-family 

[7] For an overview of the case, highlighting key aspects and implications, see also: https://ccprcentre.org/decision/16994 

[8] Also known as Sacchi et al. v. Argentina et al. See also: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25007&LangID=E 

[9] See also: https://debatesindigenas.org/en/2024/08/01/overcrowding-and-climate-change-in-panama-relocation-of-a-guna-community-from-their-island-to-the-mainland/ and https://www.climate-refugees.org/spotlight/2024/7/08/guna-planned-relocation 

[10] See also: https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-made-the-floods-in-southern-brazil-twice-as-likely/ and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-68968987.amp 

[11] See also: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/scaling-up-the-mobilisation-of-private-finance-for-climate-action-in-developing-countries_17a88681-en.html and https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/05/mobilizing-private-investments-for-climate-adaptation/