It has been about three months since the catastrophic wildfires broke out on January 7, 2025, devastating the US city of Los Angeles. The fires destroyed thousands of homes and displaced their residents. These wildfires also highlighted the many facets of climate migration: the urgency of the climate crisis, manifold reasons why people move, and the crucial role of cities, not just as sites of climate impacts but also as actors in addressing climate migration. Amid a rather abstract discussion about climate migrants, cities offer the chance to address the needs of people on the move because of the climate crisis more substantially and practically.
Following the LA wildfires, multiple news media reported that many victims had lost home insurance coverage shortly before the wildfires due to the increasing risk linked with climate change. As a result of climate change, dry seasons have become dryer and storm seasons more devastating. In many cases, home insurance providers suspended the coverage or increased premiums so much that homeowners could no longer afford coverage. This implies that not all affected residents will be able rebuild their homes and continue living in familiar neighborhoods. Instead, they may be forced to move to different locations in or out of California, where home ownership and living costs are comparatively affordable. As a result, the fires might have made Los Angeles even more economically exclusive than before.
What is Climate Migration?
The recent LA wildfires are vivid examples of an interplay between the impacts of climate change and human migration, which experts often call ‘climate migration’. They are stark reminders that it is not just a distant issue that occurs in the Global South. However, displacement during or after an extreme weather event is not the only aspect of climate migration. Permanent relocation to places where victims can afford to start over following such events is also an instance of climate migration. Similarly, climate migration may refer to instances where affected populations decide to relocate after repeated exposures to extreme weather events and environmental changes that have developed over the years (also referred to as ‘slow-onset events’). These instances make it more challenging to attribute migration solely to climate impacts because the decision to move is often entwined with other circumstances.
Although climate change is omnipresent in the context of migration and our daily lives more broadly, climate migration remains an elusive issue. There is no formal terminology for climate migration. Instead, various definitions are applied in reports (e.g., climate refugees, climate-induced migration, climate-related migration, environmental migration, environmental refugees, and climate mobilities, to name a few). Similarly, there is no consensus on who climate migrants are. No dedicated agency or comprehensive international framework addresses climate migration challenges, and the 1951 Refugee Convention does not apply to those forced to move due to climate-related reasons. This means affected populations could easily fall into protection gaps.
Globally, these political and legal landscapes are changing, albeit slowly. The ruling of the UN Human Rights Committee regarding Teitiota v. New Zealand opened doors for the future application of the principle of non-refoulement to individuals who have left their home country due to climate-related reasons. Furthermore, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration explicitly includes climate migration in its objective 5(h), although it is not legally binding. The only legally binding instrument available today is the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention), which was adopted by the member states of the African Union. This convention made the application of the principles on internally displaced persons possible for those who have fled their homes due to natural disasters or climate impacts. Lastly, Colombia’s Constitutional Court recognized the legal status of “displacement due to environmental factors” in 2024. It now remains to be seen if state actors have the political will to comply with these decisions.
Emerging Interests in Cities as the Destinations of Climate Migration
Another development in recent climate migration discourse is the emerging consensus – evident in numerous reports and studies – that cities are the primary destinations of climate migration, regardless of the type of climate impacts and migration scenarios. In this regard, the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) urges the German Government to fund adaptations in cities expected to receive significant climate migration, and the Mayors Migration Council (MMC) has been leading local action on climate migration for the past several years. A closer look into some associated local practices presents a fascinating picture of how climate migration has been transformed into action.
For example, the city of Durban/eThekwini in South Africa is said to be the top destination for climate migrants. One of the major concerns is that those who arrive are undocumented and often unhoused. These individuals are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events that the city suffers—for example, recurring floods, such as the catastrophic rainfall, floods, and landslides in April and May 2022. According to the country’s Department of Economic Development, Tourism, and Environmental Affairs, eThekwini was “most severely affected” when it came to the number of lives and homes lost. To respond to the situation, the city received funds from the MMC and built the “Karibu Care Centre” to enable migrants to access public and socioeconomic services, ranging from legal assistance and documentation support to housing.
Another example is São Paulo, Brazil. By 2050, the city is expected to experience a significant increase in the number of new residents arriving in the city, placing it at the forefront of climate-induced migration. Both the MMC and the city government promote São Paulo’s Municipal Plan of Policies for the Immigrant Population 2021-2024, which foregrounds the empowerment and inclusion of migrants and refugees in the city, which does not limit the scope to those who arrived in town due to climate-related reasons. A report by MMC features this plan and the city’s subsequent implementation measures. Outcomes of the plan have included the training of civil servants to prevent discrimination, raising awareness of the challenges posed to the city by migration, and improving and expanding existing program for migrants’ economic integration.
Beyond the MMC framework, the city of Buffalo, New York, presents an intriguing example. In 2019, the then-mayor of Buffalo declared in his annual State of the City address that Buffalo could be a “climate refuge city” because of its relative safeness from hurricanes in the country’s Southeast and wildfires in the West. Buffalo has experienced a decline in population and local economy over the past decades. Promoting itself as a climate refuge city was a strategy to revitalize the city. However, the subsequent measures the city took were not limited to those who moved due to the impacts of climate change. Namely, the city aimed to become a migrant-welcoming place and implemented measures, such as establishing the Office of New Americans, which is dedicated to welcoming and integrating migrants and refugees into local communities.
From ‘What is’ Climate Migration to ‘What it is About’
In these examples, the scope of local measures needed to be expanded to encompass migrants and refugees more broadly. In other words, instead of making efforts to address climate migration, an abstract issue without a formal name and criteria, cities engaged directly with the question of what climate migration is about, relative to their particular circumstances. This development has significant implications for the further advancement of climate migration discourse and policy. Namely, merely positioning cities as destinations does not suffice to develop local policies and measures. Instead, future reports and analyses should consider local officials and practitioners and encourage donor organizations to connect with local governments. Without such engagement and the relevant resources, cities risk becoming merely provisional ‘catch-all’ solutions to unresolved problems. Climate migration, in this sense, may not only be the Crisis of the Century, but also an opportunity for experts and policy-makers to rethink how international cooperation and assistance are conducted.
Fumie Nakamura
