20 July 2026

Addressing human mobility in the context of disasters, climate change and environmental degradation is a shared priority for global migration governance. The 2018 Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) reflects this clearly, including through commitments to minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their homes (Objective 2), expand the availability and flexibility of regular migration pathways (Objective 5), and strengthen international cooperation (Objective 23).

In the eight years since the GCM’s adoption, human mobility in the context of disasters, climate change and environmental degradation has gained greater visibility, policy traction and programmatic attention. These developments have been facilitated, in part, by the foundational efforts of the State-led Nansen Initiative, the conceptual clarity provided by its Protection Agenda, and the sustained policy engagement of the Platform on Disaster Displacement (PDD).

Yet, much more remains to be done, particularly in relation to the development and implementation of safe, regular and accessible migration pathways. This is where the GCM and its related review mechanisms can make a distinctive contribution by tracking and connecting national, regional and global developments; identifying emerging priorities, including along specific migration routes; and building cooperation, capacity and political support for action.

The next four years, leading to the third round of GCM Regional Reviews and then the third International Migration Review Forum (IMRF) in 2030, present a critical opportunity. As the primary global intergovernmental platform for States and stakeholders to review progress in GCM implementation and identify areas requiring stronger action, the IMRF can help focus attention on where targeted efforts are most needed. The GCM’s architecture and tools should be used more deliberately to advance migration pathways, accelerate implementation, strengthen accountability, and deliver more tangible outcomes for people facing risks or moving in the context of disasters, climate change or environmental degradation.

Why this matters: The GCM’s promise and potential

When States adopted the GCM in 2018, they elevated human mobility in the context of climate change, disasters and environmental degradation as a shared priority for global migration governance. This commitment is anchored especially in Objectives 2 and 5: reducing risks and adverse drivers that compel people to leave their countries of origin while expanding regular migration pathways for those compelled to move. Objective 23 reinforces these commitments by underscoring the importance of international cooperation as a foundation for effective implementation.

Since then, the architecture, tools and processes for supporting implementation of GCM Objectives, including the commitments in Objectives 2 and 5, have continued to evolve. States, regional actors and other stakeholders have developed initiatives and practices in response. Meanwhile, the first and second IMRFs, and their respective first and second Progress Declarations, have demonstrated the GCM’s promise as a platform for sharing experiences, canvassing progress and identifying areas where more concerted efforts are needed.

Yet, considerable untapped potential remains, particularly in relation to Objective 5 on migration pathways. This is where the GCM, Regional Reviews and the IMRF are uniquely placed to make a difference. They provide spaces where States and stakeholders can move beyond general recognition of the issue and begin to identify where implementation is advancing, where gaps remain, and where more targeted cooperation and support are needed, including along specific routes.

With two rounds of Regional Reviews and IMRFs now behind us, it is time to consider how to drive the next phase of work on this agenda. The commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Nansen Initiative Protection Agenda also provides a timely opportunity to take stock of a decade of policy development on human mobility in the context of climate change, disasters and environmental degradation – recalling the invitation in the GCM to take into consideration recommendations from State-led consultative processes such as the Nansen Initiative Protection Agenda and the PDD – and to connect those advances with the GCM's implementation and review architecture. Against this backdrop, the following discussion considers what needs to happen over the next four years – and beyond – to translate GCM commitments into more systematic, practical and measurable progress, and to turn political recognition into sustained action and tangible outcomes for people affected by disasters, climate change and environmental degradation.

Looking back: What has happened since the GCM was adopted

Developments over the past eight years, building on the strong foundations set out in Objectives 2 and 5 of the GCM and its broader framework, demonstrate that human mobility in the context of disasters, climate change and environmental degradation is no longer marginal to GCM implementation or to global migration governance. The issue is now more visible and more firmly embedded across the wider GCM architecture, tools and processes, and beyond.

It has been recognized in IMRF Progress Declarations and UN Secretary-General’s reports on GCM implementation; reflected in statements and pledges by States and other stakeholders; advanced through the GCM Champion Countries Initiative; supported by the UN Network on Migration through dedicated workstreams, tools and guidance, and the dissemination of effective practices; and included in programmatic support through the Migration Multi-Partner Trust Fund (MMPTF). The topic is also reflected in a growing number of State voluntary reviews.

This body of work is significant. States, international organizations, other stakeholders and the UN Network on Migration have built political support, policy momentum and practical responses for people affected by disasters, climate change and environmental degradation.

The next phase must carry forward a stronger ambition: to deepen political commitment, practical action and accountability over time, while maintaining at least the same level of specificity and ambition reflected in the GCM itself. A review of efforts between 2018 and 2025 suggests that progress has not always been linear or consistent. Research, technical guidance and tools have advanced, and political attention has increased. However, greater visibility has not always translated into more specific or operational commitments and efforts.

In some cases, human mobility related to climate change, disasters and environmental degradation continues to be acknowledged in general terms, while migration governance questions – such as migration pathways, admission and stay arrangements, status, evacuation-related cooperation, return and reintegration – remain less developed. The challenge ahead, therefore, is not simply to reaffirm and reiterate existing GCM commitments, but to operationalize them more effectively and systematically.

Progress has also been uneven across the GCM architecture itself. Relevant capacity building, indicators and guidance now exist, while pledges, MMPTF programmes, national plans and State voluntary reviews show that implementation is taking shape. Yet, when it comes to human mobility related to climate change, disasters and environmental degradation, these elements do not always connect as clearly or strategically as they could.

Tools and indicators could more consistently inform national implementation plans, requests for technical support, MMPTF programming, pledge follow-up and voluntary reporting. Regional Reviews, alongside national and regional UN Network on Migration processes, could help make these connections more concrete. They could identify recurring gaps and support needs, create clearer entry points for technical assistance and capacity-building, and help align partners around implementation priorities.

These reflections do not diminish the progress already made. Rather, they point to the need to make fuller and more strategic use of the existing GCM architecture, tools and processes: to learn from past efforts, connect its different elements more coherently, and drive systematic, practical and measurable action before the next IMRF in 2030.

Where to from here: using the GCM to advance action

The next four years offer an opportunity to turn the GCM’s broad architecture into a clearer vehicle for implementation – one capable of delivering more concrete outcomes for people facing risks or moving in the context of disasters, climate change and environmental degradation. This requires building a stronger record of implementation and outcomes before 2030, while also determining where further action is both needed and feasible. It also requires connecting these efforts to the policy agendas that increasingly shape migration governance, including emerging route-based approaches. This means asking how human mobility in the context of disasters, climate change and environmental degradation is reflected in the way drivers, risks and protection needs are understood and addressed along specific migration routes.

A first step is to use evidence, review and accountability channels to take stock and identify practical needs and gaps. The Progress Declarations, Secretary-General’s reports, the GCM indicator framework, the CLIMB database, revised statistical recommendations, voluntary reviews and reporting can help move the discussion beyond whether the topic is mentioned in policy. They can help generate insights into more operational questions: do admission and stay arrangements exist and how have they been used? Are there mechanisms for flexibility of status when return is unsafe, and who has benefited? How are evacuations and relocation reflected in discussions on Objectives 2 and 5? Are these practical options accessible to affected people, and are they being refined over time as lessons are learned and outcomes assessed?

A second step is to use policy development and cooperation channels to turn recognized gaps into shared priorities. Regional Reviews, regional migration dialogues, champion countries, UN Network workstreams and GCM and IMRF-related statements can help shed light on where progress is politically and technically feasible, and where further advocacy, cooperation and support may be needed. This is especially important for progress on regular pathways, including admission and stay arrangements, temporary protection or stay, flexibility of status, evacuation-related cooperation, as well as return and reintegration. These are precisely the areas in which the GCM architecture and processes have a distinctive role to play. While closely connected to climate, disaster risk reduction and humanitarian action, they require migration governance tools and cooperation that other global policy processes – such as the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COPs), other multi-lateral platforms related to addressing climate change and Global and Regional Disaster Risk Reduction Platforms – do not consistently provide or prioritize. Regional processes may be particularly valuable. They can ground discussion in concrete mobility patterns, existing policy frameworks such as free movement arrangements and other regional and bilateral agreements, and shared climate and disaster risks. They can also help identify practical opportunities for cooperation along particular routes.

A third step is to use implementation and financing channels to support follow-through. National implementation plans, GCM pledges, the capacity-building mechanism, MMPTF programmes and relevant national and regional programming could be linked more clearly to the priorities identified through review processes. Where pledges are already linked to support, this practice could be made more systematic and visible. A pledge should ideally be paired with a clear system for support, such as technical guidance, peer learning, a capacity-building request, an MMPTF concept note, or follow-up through a regional dialogue. Similarly, gaps identified through CLIMB, the GCM indicators or voluntary reviews could more consistently inform national GCM planning and requests for technical support.

Over time, this could also help to build a stronger GCM culture around human mobility associated with climate change, disasters and environmental degradation. Just as the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework are routinely used as reference points in climate and disaster risk reduction spaces, Objectives 2 and 5 could become more consistently embedded in political dialogue, project design, capacity-building and regional cooperation where migration governance questions are at stake.

Ultimately, States bear primary responsibility for implementing the GCM and realizing its potential. Stronger action on human mobility in disaster and climate change contexts will depend on integrating these considerations into national GCM implementation plans and other relevant national frameworks. Countries are already championing this agenda nationally and regionally. The task now is to build on these efforts and translate them into wider, more systematic action in the years ahead.

The aim is not another general call for action. Rather, it is to set out a practical agenda for the period before 2030: what can move, who can move it, through which GCM channels and with what support.

Sanjula Weerasinghe is a Senior Research and Policy Associate at the Evacuations Research Hub, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Sydney; Timo Schmidt is a policy specialist and consultant working on climate change, human mobility and loss and damage, currently with UNOPS; Atle Solberg is Head of the Secretariat of the Platform on Disaster Displacement. The ideas in this article will be further elaborated in a forthcoming policy brief.