2 September 2026

Most of those who move in the context of disasters and climate change will do so within the borders of their own countries. Some will move voluntarily, but many will be displaced by the impact of extreme weather events or slow-onset phenomena such as sea-level rise, drought and coastal erosion. For example, the World Bank’s flagship Groundswell report estimates that up to 216 million people will migrate internally by 2050 if steps aren’t taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Nansen Initiative’s Protection Agenda identifies managing disaster displacement in the country of origin as one of its three priority actions, including the need for laws and policies on internally displaced persons (IDPs). Since its inception, the Platform on Disaster Displacement (PDD) has played an important catalytic role in advancing knowledge and policy responses on internal displacement for the past decade. This makes sense. Most of the actions needed to respond to cross-border displacement, such as disaster risk reduction, also are applicable to internal displacement. In the last few years, PDD has been particularly active on planned relocations – as an important last resort measure to move communities out of harm’s way.

A lot has happened with internal displacement in the past decade. There is more data on internal displacement in the context of climate change and disasters and almost all initiatives to address internal displacement now include those displaced by disasters and climate change. Governments have adopted new laws and policies to protect and assist IDPs and have taken steps to include IDPs in their development plans at both the national and sub-national levels. Important regional initiatives have been taken, notably in Africa and the Pacific. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of IDPs has issued a report on the impact of adverse slow-onset climate events on internal displacement and another on planned relocations. The UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Internal Displacement (2017–19) called for much more attention to finding solutions for protracted displacement – a phenomenon that affects those displaced by conflict and by disasters. The appointment of a UN Special Advisor on Solutions to Internal Displacement (2019–22) catalysed the international community to work more intensively on the question of solutions and led to a number of UN agency initiatives, including the establishment of the Global Solutions Hub. Development actors have begun to incorporate internal displacement into their work and are encouraging governments to do the same. While governments and international actors alike have stressed the importance of IDP participation, the engagement of IDPs in policymaking has been uneven.  On the one hand, the creation of a Global IDP Advisory Group has been an important step – and in some cases, such as Ukraine, IDP Councils have assumed important policy-making roles, On the other hand, however, much more remains to be done.

Legal developments

While international efforts to respond to internal displacement in the context of climate change and disasters have been impressive, policies at the national and sub-national levels have a far greater impact on the lives of IDPs, and there has been progress on this front as well. The Global Protection Cluster reported in 2025 that 49 countries had adopted a law on internal displacement (22 at the national level and 27 at the sub-national level), while 77 countries had adopted national-level policies on internal displacement and 20 at the sub-national level. 

For example, Mozambique not only developed a National Policy on Refugee-Returnees and Internally Displaced Persons, with the National Institute for the Management and Reduction of Disaster Risks charged with overseeing implementation of the plan. Somalia has put together a host of laws and policies on IDPs, including the 2014 Policy Framework on Displacement within Somalia, the National Solutions Pathways Action Plan (2024–2025), and several other States have developed ambitious IDP policies and strategies at the sub-national level. Increasingly, these policies are focusing on the always thorny issues of solutions for IDPs, buttressed by increasing evidence that many of those displaced in the context of disasters have no intention of returning to their communities of origin but plan to remain where they are. Fiji, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands have all adopted guidance on planned relocations with several other countries in the process of developing policies.

As other blogs in this series have recounted, important initiatives have been taken at the regional level to respond to displacement, including internal displacement, in the context of climate change and disasters. Some of these initiatives have focused on reducing the risk of displacement, such as the African Union’s Programme of Action for the Implementation of the Sendai Framework in Africa (2015–2020) and the Kampala Ministerial Declaration on Migration, the Environment and Climate Change. The Pacific Regional Framework on Climate Mobility includes many specific references to internal displacement and can serve as a model for other regions seeking address climate mobility. The PDD has played an important role in supporting these regional initiatives.

These are impressive efforts, although it is difficult to assess their outcomes of these initiatives – have more IDPs in fact found solutions to their displacement? And we know that there is always a gap between the adoption of a law or policy and its implementation. But in comparison with the situation a decade ago, there is much more awareness at national and international levels about internal displacement caused, at least in part, by the adverse impacts of disasters and climate change. Overshadowing many of these positive developments, however, is the current bleak reality of the decline in funding for humanitarian work.

The bad news

Since early 2025, the humanitarian system has been in a state of shock and contraction due to the 40% decrease in international funding. The US administration’s cuts to humanitarian funding and closure of USAID (which was responsible for assistance for IDPs) was followed by lesser but consequential cuts by other donors. Local organizations, including refugee-led and women-led initiatives, have been particularly hard-hit. At least 250,000 humanitarian workers have lost their jobs, programmes have been shut down or severely curtailed, and clinics and schools have been closed. Important work in data collection and analyses has been decimated, making it difficult to assess the impact of the budget cuts on the displaced. While these reductions have impacted all those living in crisis-affected areas, IDPs have been particularly vulnerable. 

The UN and aid agencies have worked to reset the system by 'hyper-prioritizing' immediate life-saving aid over longer-term investments. In this context, the gains in recent years of focusing on solutions for IDPs are threatened. Programmes to support livelihoods and to foster local integration have been reduced in favour of more traditional humanitarian work of providing food and medical care – but even those programmes have been cut back or eliminated. In an era where food rations have been cut by half, it is hard to make the case for time- and labour-intensive efforts to replace IDP documentation or provide secure land tenure to IDPs in need of stable livelihoods. This is despite the evidence that even during acute crises, there is positive support among affected communities for long-term strategies.

Observations

Current humanitarian funding shortfalls and programme cutbacks challenge governments and other actors to move in two directions – both of which have been recommended by many in the past decade. 

First, prioritize local action, including direct service delivery but also advocacy and support for policy initiatives. IDPs themselves have always had much to offer in this regard, and this is an opportune time to encourage their action. In some cases, IDPs are organized into associations which can channel their suggestions to policymakers. Where these don’t yet exist, IDPs can be encouraged to come together to assess community needs and to propose solutions to both their governments and international aid providers. National human rights institutions can monitor displacement, collect evidence and take the initiative to develop new policies – as can local universities and civil society groups.

Secondly, engage development – and not just humanitarian – actors. Development agencies – both national and international – have already undertaken important initiatives to support solutions for displacement. They have also been hit hard by budget cuts – particularly in health and agriculture. But as both humanitarian and development actors are facing difficulties financing their separate initiatives, this could be an inducement to pool resources, consolidate programmes and break down some of the silos which have long characterized responses to internal displacement in the context of disasters and climate change. This also might be an opportune time to increase synergies between the climate change adaptation and disaster management architectures and to encourage more joint efforts to support solutions for those displaced by disasters and climate change.

Internal displacement is perhaps the most obvious manifestation of the adverse impacts of disasters and climate change, and efforts over the past decade by governments, regional organizations and international agencies have managed to put the issue squarely on the political agenda. Current funding challenges threaten that progress, but also offer opportunities for governments to step up and exercise their responsibilities to protect, assist and support solutions for those displaced by factors outside their control.

Elizabeth Ferris is a Senior Fellow at Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of International Migration.