As early as 2030, the low-lying nations of Kiribati and Tuvalu could be entirely underwater. As stated by the UN Panel on Climate Change, problems, including the “submergence, coastal flooding and coastal erosion due to relative level sea rise” has been observed at a growing rate. It has no longer become a question of if these countries will disappear, but rather it is a matter of when. Kiribati’s average height above sea level is 6.5 feet, although many smaller atolls and their villages have already disappeared. Tropical storms, compounding in severity and a higher sensitivity to atmospheric pressure due to the islands’ equatorial location, exacerbates the sea level rise even further. With rising populations of 110,000 and 10,000, respectively, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Kiribati and Tuvalu will soon run out of space to accommodate its citizens within their constantly shrinking territories. These people will either have to leave because they cannot survive or because there is nowhere left for them to internally migrate – whichever comes first.

There exist two issues here: the first is the unfolding humanitarian crisis that will increase exponentially in the coming years, with a massive upheaval of a substantial population in an isolated part of the world, which will leave open the possibilities for huge unregulated and unsupported migration networks. The second concern is the tendency to neglect the importance of this issue on the international agenda. The collective bargaining power of the affected states to evoke substantial change is minimal and currently, the concept of ‘climate refugees’ is invisible to international law, particularly the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. These people are not only going to have to flee their homes but will not have any legal protections under international law when they do so. The world remains unprepared and uninterested in tackling an issue that will have huge consequences for international stability.

Thus far, there has been a very disjointed and insignificant response to these problems. As for the impending humanitarian crisis and displacement of people, that is the exact issue, it has yet to reach its full effect. Due to the gradual nature of the environmental pressures forcing people to leave their homes, the migrating numbers are not immediately affecting influential neighbours, such as Australia, at this present time, therefore it is not a priority for those in the region to act decisively. Kiribati’s former President, Anote Tong, has been the sole driver of action at the local level, as he is doing his best to distribute and manage aid funds and improve the livelihood of his citizens. Currently, Kiribati is faced with dire local living conditions, and in some cases, there are now 20 people living in one home. Fresh groundwater wells are becoming overwhelmed by sea water and, The Guardian reports, that children are nine times more likely to die in Kiribati before their first birthday than in the United Kingdom. On a regional level, Tong has negotiated an agreement, which is known as the Pacific Access Scheme with New Zealand to take 75 Kiribati and Tuvalu citizens per year as a goodwill gesture. As an absolute last resort, The New Yorker reported that Tong also purchased 6000 acres (27 km squared) of land from Fiji, for when the situation worsens to the point of large-scale migration. According to an interview with VICE News, the former president also lobbied the International Conference on Climate Change, along with other Pacific island nations to lower the temperature target to 1.5 degrees, instead of the 2 degrees, which was proposed in Paris late last year. However, this limit is still too unrealistic for any noticeable change, at least for these disappearing islands, as the momentum of the environmental changes will take some time to subside, provided that this target is still met.

As for the second issue of legal protection and obligation: the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the main categorizer, of what constitutes a refugee, is still limited in scope and stagnant in reform. Currently, persecution is the primary clause that awards a person rights as a refugee, and there has been no amendment to this law to account for those fleeing environmental dangers, thereby affecting their ability to survive. In a review of the economic effects of climate change by HM Treasury in London, it was estimated that by 2050, over 200 million people will be displaced by climate change, with over 2 million of them being from the South Pacific region, which is a substantial amount for an area with a comparatively small population. This is a huge amount of people who will “fall through the cracks” of the international system, as quoted by the International Organisation for Migration.

It is of paramount importance that governments and policymakers begin planning for this massive upheaval of people in the present before it becomes an uncontrollable issue in the future. This movement of people, if not managed correctly, will create a wave of instability across the region and harm the efforts of development initiatives and stability processes to this date. We are currently observing the clear consequences of unmanageable migration networks across the globe, in Europe, Africa, and Asia. Firstly, a pragmatic, actionable and cooperative policy framework needs to be established between Asia-Pacific nations to identify and support the future migration networks that will move across the region. Capacity building in both transit and receiving states to accommodate the future influx of migrants needs to be collectively funded to make the process safe and streamlined to move these people with dignity and avoid chokes in the system respectively.

There is also an opportunity here for receiving countries, such as Australia and New Zealand to manipulate an environmental refugee crisis towards positive strategic economic benefits. Kiribati’s population is set to rise by 30,000 in the next decade, according to Kelly Wyett in her 2014 article, with a bulging youth demographic. Australia and New Zealand could promote vocational training in their required employment sectors for this booming youth population in order to then incorporate them into the national employment schemes, thereby alleviating some stress from the migration networks for those only in incredibly dire conditions. This would benefit the destination countries’ economies, help a struggling youth population find stability and work, and relieve the humanitarian visa and refugee categories for those in more pressing situations. Dr. Khalid Kosner of the Lowy Policy Institute says that Australia’s current Pacific Seasonal Access Scheme could act as a basis for expanding both quotas and eligibility. Further, a humanitarian disaster does not always have to be classified as a chaotic scramble for stability and prosperity.

Simultaneously, while this policy is being implemented, there needs to be a proactive effort to lobby for changes in both international refugee and climate change law and policy. Former President Tong accused regional partners, like Australia and New Zealand of not being “real friends” on climate change issues at a pre-Paris forum for Pacific states and he achieved the .5 reduction in global temperature change with only the help of other local nations, like Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea. The burden of responsibility needs to be placed on a collective international system, in particular, those identified as the greatest carbon emissions contributors and those with the most influential power to spark real change. In addition, there needs to be greater awareness of the plight of the people of Kiribati and the stress that these environmental changes will, not only, put on its people, but the region as a whole. Perhaps, as the security angle in most international agenda settings is seen as the most pressing, emphasis on the potential security implications that such an unregulated migration crisis would create would be the best way to gain the world’s attention and force states to act.

There currently exists a small window to act pre-emptively on this migration challenge in order to stop it from becoming an unmanageable global issue for stability and security. Unregulated migration is already a global challenge that has proven its worth to be dealt with seriously. While taking pre-emptive action now may not immediately be in many state’s interests and the costs related to action would be high, it would be significantly more affordable and manageable, as opposed to waiting to act in the future. Cooperative strategic planning and international legal and policy change must occur soon, especially, before the islands of the Kiribati and Tuvalu are the first to fall to an unprecedented environmental catastrophe and its effects are felt worldwide.