Movement on climate mobilities: developments from the Pacific Islands Forum
Movement on
climate mobilities: Developments from the Pacific Islands Forum
WRITTEN BY LIAM MOORE
29 November 2023
As the 52nd Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) drew to a close in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, on 10 November, it was clear that climate change had again been one of the main points of discussion and contestation. What was especially significant about this meeting was the range of world-leading agreements that were reached on climate mobility issues — both within and bilaterally on the fringes of the forum. In particular, attention should be directed towards the Pacific Regional Framework on Climate Mobility, as well as the Falepili Union treaty between Australia and Tuvalu. These agreements will have far-reaching implications for both domestic and regional politics in the Pacific — although the nature of the framework means it is up to states to ensure these ideas are adopted and implemented.
The PIF is an annual meeting of the leaders of Pacific states, for the purpose of developing collective responses to regional issues. This year’s meeting also offered these leaders an opportunity to collaborate and plan for the upcoming COP28 meeting that will be held in Dubai in December. In addition to Pacific state leaders, there was a strong international presence at the meeting, with the new head of the International Organisation for Migration, Amy Pope, attending alongside senior envoys from the United States, China, India, the United Kingdom, Germany, Singapore, Japan, and others. In total, 21 countries sent representatives as Forum Dialogue Partners (not including representatives from non-government organisations).
Movements in climate mobility
This year, climate-related issues and resolutions dominated the traditional Forum Communique. This included the leaders welcoming and endorsing the Implementation Plan for the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. The strategy has an entire section dedicated to climate change and disasters, including their effects on human mobility — including “relocation migration and displacement”. Other headline issues included the endorsement of the Declaration on the Establishment of the Pacific Resilience Facility, commitments to implement the Paris Agreement and transition away from fossil fuel usage, aspirations for a just and equitable transition to a fossil fuel-free Pacific, and calls for development partners to provide “substantially greater levels of climate finance, technology and capacity to accelerate decarbonisation in the Blue Pacific”.
While alarmist reports of massive numbers of people potentially fleeing across borders because of climate change are incorrect and misunderstand the dynamics of migration, mobility — both within and between states — is a reality in the Pacific.
One of the most significant developments was the endorsement of the Pacific Regional Framework on Climate Mobility, a ‘global first’ agreement that “aims to provide practical guidance to governments planning for and managing climate mobility”. Jane McAdam, who was involved in drafting an early version of the framework, said the hope is that it will inspire the establishment of “other concrete mobility mechanisms to ensure Pacific peoples have dignified pathways to move when they wish, as well as support and assistance to remain in place when possible”.
While alarmist reports of massive numbers of people potentially fleeing across borders because of climate change are incorrect and misunderstand the dynamics of migration, mobility — both within and between states — is a reality in the Pacific. Thousands of people are displaced by hazards and disasters in the region every year. Fiji has conducted several planned state-led relocations already, and this all exists against the background of a long history of adaptive and cyclical mobility across the Pacific. The foreword of the framework reflects this reality, noting that, as irreversible changes are occurring in the region, Pacific states must now adopt “a proactive and planned approach to climate mobility”. This is what the framework sets out, “to guide Pacific Islands Forum governments, communities, non-state actors and partners in ensuring rights-based and people-centred movement in the context of climate change”.
Planned relocations are an area of particular interest in the framework and the region more broadly. Three Pacific states now have domestic policies that directly deal with climate-related planned relocations — Fiji, Vanuatu, and the Solomon Islands. The framework reflects similar principles established in these policies and repeats that planned relocations will only be used as a “last resort” when all other alternatives have been exhausted.
A novel development, however, is that the framework calls for regional collaboration on cross-border relocations and for regional planned relocation guidelines to be developed in consultation with affected member states and communities. While historical relocations in other contexts have occurred across borders in the Pacific, climate-related relocations have generally been seen as domestic issues of internal displacement to be solved by domestic solutions. This framework raises the potential for Pacific states to cooperate to relocate displaced or vulnerable communities across state boundaries if required.
Linked to this, the discussion of cross-border displacement calls on states to “expand policies and practices concerning humanitarian admission and stay […] in the context of climate change and related hazards and disasters”. Part of this includes exploring opportunities for longer-term stays in host states. This further suggests that the future of humanitarian cross-border mobility for those affected by climate change lies not in refugee-style asylum protections but in other forms of complementary protection or valid migration pathways. While the number of people displaced across borders will be significantly less than the number of those who move within states, those who leave their states will still require solutions to be made available.
The shift towards pursuing alternative migration pathways is reflected in the section of the framework that focuses on people who stay in place. Within this section, leaders call for establishing migration pathways, as “enabling some of our people to move may allow others to stay at home”. This is mainly focused on working visas that help migrants to support their families and communities at home. Recently published research has found that, while labour mobility schemes have faced valid criticisms, they seem to have “brought net positive impacts”, and “are widely perceived as beneficial” in Pacific states.
In a move that surprised many observers, Australia announced a new special visa category as part of a bilateral Falepili Union treaty with Tuvalu on the sidelines of the PIF. This would allow 280 Tuvaluans per year to live, work, and study in Australia. While some have legitimately criticised the deal as an instrumental use of a small Pacific state to achieve geopolitical goals — in particular, attempting to counter growing Chinese influence in the region — it is important to note that this is something the leaders of Tuvalu had been requesting for some time. Requests concerning the issue had previously been sent to Australian officials in 2001 and 2006 but were denied at the time. This time, there are contrasting reports over whether Tuvalu or Australia initiated the agreement and there is evidence that communities were not consulted before the treaty was signed.
Despite these concerns and the clear issues of impinging on Tuvaluan sovereignty and agency — the degree of which has also been contested by Tuvaluan Prime Minister Kausea Natano and Finance Minister Seve Paeniu since the agreement was announced — the deal is still an important step in facilitating voluntary adaptive mobility options. On its own, it is not a solution, nor a justification to avoid Australia’s emission reduction responsibilities, but enabling more people to have a choice over what their future looks like is a positive development.
What this means for Pacific states and the region
The implications of the Pacific Regional Framework on Climate Mobility and the Falepili Union treaty for Pacific states are twofold. At the first level, it encourages states to develop domestic-level policies to manage climate mobilities within their borders. Examples of these already exist in Fiji, Vanuatu, and the Solomon Islands, so it is likely that other states will follow their lead and adopt similar policies. New Zealand is also in the process of developing a domestic-facing policy. Having a large regional actor like New Zealand follow suit will encourage other states to fulfil their commitments under the new framework and push forward on developing domestic-level policy on climate mobilities.
Regionally, however, the second implication and major outstanding concern is how to manage movement between countries better. Although other countries such as New Zealand and the United States have agreements with select Pacific states, these are broadly related to migration and residency and do not consider climate change issues directly. The issue with pathways like this and other existing labour mobility schemes is that they are often limited in scope, and those who reside outside these states are extremely limited in their mobility options. Therefore, the Falepili Union treaty is unique in that it is the first bilateral agreement to facilitate climate mobility.
The Tuvalu-Australia agreement is an example of how to develop more accessible migration pathways moving forward — despite concerns with the attached security conditions. Climate mobilities can best be managed when opportunities are created for people to make their own decisions about their communities’ futures. Most people in places like Tuvalu wish to stay on the islands and even those who move often reject the label of a ‘climate migrant’ or ‘climate refugee’. Those who do move do so as an adaptive process, in pursuit of increased opportunities for work or education. This suggests that future provisions for cross-border mobility should broadly reflect the structure of the Falepili treaty and include permanent migration options, as well as temporary and cyclical mobility options offering labour and education opportunities. However, facilitating mobility does not exempt states from increasing mitigation efforts. Adaptation and mitigation must exist in concert with each other, and migration as adaptation must not come at the cost of in-situ adaptation or mitigation efforts; nor should mobility pathways have to be traded for sovereignty or security deals.
The Pacific Regional Framework on Climate Mobility and the Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union treaty are world-firsts in the development of climate mobility. However, they are only the required first steps. More domestic and regional agreements on climate mitigation, adaptation, and migration are required. Alongside the development of these policies, measures must be put in place to ensure they are effectively implemented in practice. The relative success of these measures will likely determine whether those faced with the prospect of moving will have a choice in what their mobility looks like and whether they will be able to find durable solutions.
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.
Author biography
Liam Moore has a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) and recently submitted his PhD in International Relations at the University of Wollongong, Australia. The dissertation examines how states in the Pacific are responding to issues of climate mobilities, displacement, and relocation in novel ways. Liam has a strong background in research on norm theory, climate change, and human mobility — particularly in the context of Pacific Island states. Image credit: Flickr/US Embassy.