Australia and Tuvalu have signed a world-first climate refugee agreement, presenting compelling reasons for other nations to follow suit.
In the lead up to COP28, Australia and Tuvalu agreed to a never-before-seen climate refugee agreement, guaranteeing up to 280 citizens of the low-laying Tuvalu access to Australian residency every year. In the agreement, known as the Falepili Union treaty, Australia pledges to implement migration pathways for Tuvaluans amidst growing existential threat of rising sea levels. The cooperation illustrates a new solution in a world which isn’t on track to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal to cap the global temperature increase. According to NASA, most of the Pacific Island nation’s territory will be swallowed by ocean by 2050.
Tuvalu is not the only country that might need similar options. Other small island nations have sought to find land elsewhere to resettle their citizens. In 2007, the Maldives announced that a part of their budget would be reserved for purchasing land abroad for its population. In 2014, the Kiribati government introduced the “migration with dignity” concept to upskill their citizens for voluntary labor migration to neighboring countries like Australia and New Zealand.
As the impacts of climate change intensify, the relevance of agreements like the Falepili Union treaty might be increasingly indispensable. Human mobility has become a prominent topic of discussion in relation to climate change everywhere. The UN has started several initiatives focusing on the issue, such as the Task Force on Displacement. But progress is taking time and two sticking points are how to define clime refugees and who should take responsibility for their relocation.
Whilst international deliberation and law are playing catch-up, the speed of global warming indicates that several small island nations may be uninhabitable soon. Pacific islands are acutely aware of this – as the Maldives underwater cabinet in 2009 exemplified – and countries with a presence in the region should manage this proactively. The overall estimated numbers of displaced people from the Pacific Islands vary between 665 000 to 1,725 000 by 2050.
That being the case, Australia and Tuvalu are leading the way by establishing the first migration pathway explicitly for the ongoing resettlement of climate displaced people. The treaty has already made history in recognizing the enduring statehood of Tuvalu, regardless of the impacts of rising tides. Providing direction through the unknown, the world will be paying attention to the Falepili Union treaty’s development.
The devil is in the details. Since the announcement of the treaty, the specifics have been wildly debated in Tuvalu. The former foreign minister, Simon Kofe, has expressed concerns with protecting his country’s sovereignty in light of the agreement. Other relevant questions are if Tuvaluans will be able to move wherever they want in Australia, if they can they bring their families, and if there should be a threshold which each person applying for a climate refugee visa needs to meet. These details are important from a human rights perspective, but also to preserve the culture and the essence of small island nations. The implementation of the treaty can deter or inspire other Pacific Islands to pursue similar options.
Those who are forced to relocate are likely to experience devastating loss of tradition and lifestyle. Therefore, Australia need to be prepared to allocate funding to assist Tuvaluans accommodate to a new political system, climate, and economy. Preserving culture and language is most effectively achieved by providing flexibility to relocated individuals, enabling them to reside close to family and friends. At the same time, resettling many Tuvaluans in the same area can lead to negative segregation and local grievances.
Despite these mentioned challenges and costs, leaders may find compelling reasons to adopt similar treaties. The Pacific Island nations bear the brunt of the consequences of climate change, even if their greenhouse gas emissions are negligible in size. Thus, Australia and high-polluting countries have a moral duty to offer solutions to small island nations. Supporting adaptation initiatives and presenting migration solutions are examples of loss and damage compensations recognized by the UN.
Beyond that, the increasingly complex security environment makes the destiny of Pacific Islands of particular interest. China and the US both vie for influence among the islands, and tensions were heightened in 2022 when the Solomon Islands entered into a security agreement with Beijing. This is why Tuvalu, in return for a migration pathway, has agreed to not make any other international security arrangements without consolidating Australia. The treaty prevents the potential establishment of Chinese military bases in the region. Overall, the Pacific Islands’ climate crisis, moral duty, and China’s influence, may serve as a catalyst for US and allies to walk the same diplomatic path as outlined in the Falepili Union treaty.
Western reactions have been positive. The US, as well as the EU, have responded favorably to the Australia-Tuvalu security agreement. American ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told the Guardian that the treaty was a ‘positive response’ to displacement, adding that the Pacific Islands are extra vulnerable to climate change. Already, the US has opened migration corridors to three Pacific countries: the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau. Under the arrangements, citizens of all three states can migrate indefinitely to work or study without visa. Although the founding of the agreements pre-21st century had little to do with climate considerations – rather it had to do with the fact that the countries came under US responsibility after the Second World War – they now offer alternatives for individuals displaced because of climate change.
While the security clause that prevents Tuvalu from entering other security arrangements has faced criticism, it is important to recognize that security arrangements are made to address security needs of multiple parts. Tuvalu’s most urgent threat is climate change, whereas Australia contends with the challenge of great power rivalry. For Tuvalu, which maintains strong ties with Taiwan, the pursuit of enhanced relationships with allies of the US is a natural continuation of its foreign relations. For Australia, it is important to minimize the influence of its rivalries in the region. In the end of the day, the treaty is now up for public scrutiny in both Australia and Tuvalu, should modifications be needed there is time for change.
Change is certainty required on the highest level. International law does not cover how states should respond to the physical vanishing of territory. UN law only contemplates the disappearance of states through succession, meaning that one country ceases to exist only when another one takes its place. There is no acknowledgement of a void of territory. At the same time, Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention determines that statehood is characterised by a defined territory and permanent population. This raises questions about what will happen to small island nations as they potentially submerge. Tuvalu has expressed the idea of creating a digital ‘copy’ of the nation in cyberspace, ensuring governmental functionality even if citizens were displaced. But how could, if at all, the international order integrate cyber nations?
Ultimately, most people want to stay at home. The number of displaced people depends on the successfulness of adaptation initiatives as well as the effectiveness of activities to limit global warming. Disappearing states is a tragic worst-case scenario, however, national leaders and global stakeholders have reasons to address this possibility sooner rather than later.
[Photo by Gabriella Jacobi, via Wikimedia Commons]
Nathalie Majdek Mathisen is a journalist and master’s in international relations by research at Curtin University. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
