16 February 2026

From low-lying coastal communities facing sea-level rise in Papua New Guinea and Panama, to remote mountain communities facing dwindling water supplies in Nepal, the sobering reality of entire communities relocating to less disaster-prone sites in their countries was raised by governments and civil society representatives during many – if not all – of the regional consultations that fed into the Nansen Initiative Protection Agenda. Yet, back in 2015 when the Protection Agenda was endorsed by more than one hundred governments, there was little guidance – let alone conceptual clarity – about disaster- and climate-related ‘planned relocations’ of entire communities. While relocations away from large development projects were well known, the role of relocations in addressing the effects of climate change and disasters was new, appearing in the 2010 Cancun Adaptation Framework but not yet defined.

This article revisits how the Protection Agenda framed planned relocation and identified key gaps in knowledge, guidance and national policies. It takes stock of efforts to address gaps across relevant policy areas over the last decade and identifies future directions for policymakers and practitioners considering planned relocation as a protective tool in the Protection Agenda’s toolbox.

Revisiting the Protection Agenda’s framing of planned relocation

While the Protection Agenda’s primary focus was cross-border disaster displacement, it also examined ‘Planned Relocation with Respect for People’s Rights’ as a measure that States could take within their own territory to manage the risk of disaster displacement (para 94). Planned relocation was framed both as a preventative measure to reduce future displacement and as a lasting solution for people who were internally displaced (para 96). Importantly, it included the now ubiquitous idea that planned relocations should be considered a measure of ‘last resort’ only after other options to adapt in place had been reasonably exhausted (para 94). Finally, it made clear that planned relocations should be undertaken with full respect for human rights, and with participation and consultation of all affected people – including host communities (para 97). 

Accordingly, the Protection Agenda recommended that enhanced action was needed to address:

• gaps in knowledge and data on planned relocation processes (para 113D);
• gaps in guidance on when and how planned relocation should be implemented (paras 95, 98); and
• gaps in national policy and capacity, particularly around transparent and inclusive consultation and inclusion of adequate livelihoods, infrastructure and social supports (paras 95, 98).

The next sections examine developments in the intervening decade.

Progress to address knowledge and data gaps

A decade ago, there were no global datasets on planned relocation in the context of disasters and climate change, and the limited research that did exist focused on specific case studies (eg in Alaska and the Pacific). While anecdotally, we knew that planned relocations were happening, we lacked the empirical evidence to say where, how often and with what outcomes. This data deficit in part meant that planned relocation was considered a theoretical future risk, rather than something that was already happening and that demanded policymakers’ attention.

Since that time, there have been important developments towards a systematic global mapping. An important contribution in 2021 and 2022 was the release of the Leaving Place, Restoring Home dataset, reports I and II, and regional snapshots – a collaboration between the Platform on Disaster Displacement (PDD), UNSW’s Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ). By reviewing 400+ disaster-related planned relocations across 78 countries, this initiative provided the first global baseline of the phenomenon. It shattered the misconception that planned relocations were isolated events and revealed them as a global practice in every region. Crucially, this enhanced evidence base has begun to reveal structural patterns, including that policies and standard operating procedures are rare, and that there are often significant delays in implementation. Additional global mapping efforts (such as those by Ajibade et al, Balanchandan, Olhansky and Johnson and Martyr-Kenyon) have also addressed global knowledge gaps and similarly found that planned relocation is a global phenomenon with unique challenges across different geographic and governance contexts.

Progress to address gaps in guidance at international and regional levels

Since 2015, the absence of guidance on planned relocation has largely been addressed. In that year, Guidance on Protecting People from Disasters and Environmental Change through Planned Relocations was finalized. It embedded the key framings of the Protection Agenda, including that planned relocation be considered a measure of last resort undertaken with full respect for human rights and only after consultation with all affected people, including host communities. (A recent article examines the guidance’s ongoing legacy.) The guidance was followed in 2017 by A Toolbox: Planning Relocations to Protect People from Disasters and Environmental Change, which sought to operationalize it. In the years since, the Protection Agenda’s framing of planned relocation has been integrated into other relevant frameworks including the United Nations Disaster Risk Reduction’s 2019 Words into Action on Disaster Displacement, the 2024 Disaster Risk Governance Guidelines by the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC), and the 2024 report by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, the first UN special procedures report dedicated specifically to planned relocation.

At the regional level, global principles have been translated to resonate with regional geographies and values. For instance, in the Pacific, IOM and the PDD are developing guidance on internal planned relocations for the Pacific to implement part of the 2023 Pacific Regional Framework on Climate Mobility. In the Americas, a parallel effort led by the PDD and the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights will see guidance that prioritizes gender and intersectionality, responding to key social themes in the region. IOM in Latin America and the Caribbean has pioneered a Toolkit to help governments budget for the comprehensive costs of relocation, including non-economic costs like psychosocial support. And in the Asia Pacific, the IFRC has developed a guide for national societies supporting planned relocation. This regionalization reflects a maturing governance landscape.

Progress to address gaps in policy and capacity at national and sub-national levels

There has also been considerable progress to strengthen national and sub-national policy and capacity on planned relocation. This is most visible in countries that have created dedicated, standalone frameworks – pioneered by Fiji in 2018 with its Planned Relocation Guidelines, followed by the Solomon Islands in 2022. These instruments are significant not just for their existence, but for their content, including the principle that relocation must be a ‘measure of last resort’ after all other adaptation options have been exhausted. In the Americas, developments include Peru’s 2015 and 2017 amendments to its population resettlement law and Uruguay’s 2018 operational regulations for its national relocation program. Panama, Guatemala, Niue and Papua New Guinea are currently developing their own instruments on planned relocation, often using key terminology and framing from the Protection Agenda.

Not all countries approach the governance of planned relocation through a standalone policy, however. At least 16 instruments mainstream it into policies on disaster risk reduction, climate adaptation, or internal displacement. Vanuatu, for example, addresses planned relocation within its 2018 National Policy on Climate Change and Disaster-Induced Displacement, framing it as a durable solution, while the Marshall Islands integrates it directly into its National Adaptation Plan.

There are also other efforts to address capacity gaps ongoing at national and sub-national levels. For instance, the Santiago Network of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage may provide technical support for governments and communities grappling with policy and practice on planned relocation. In addition, a global community of practice – the Coalition on Dignified Climate Relocation (CDCR) – is dedicated to supporting more community-led, rights-based and dignified planned relocation policies and practices. Launched in June 2025, this global coalition spearheads the next phase of the recommendations in the Protection Agenda: capacity building at the community level.

Ways forward

Despite this meaningful progress, challenges remain. In line with the original recommendations of the Protection Agenda, further action is needed in the following areas:

(a)  Knowledge and data gaps

While the last decade has seen progress in global mapping of where planned relocations have occurred (their incidence), a critical gap remains: what happens to relocated communities over time? We still lack robust longitudinal data on how these communities fare five, 10 or 20 years after they move, and what this means for their wellbeing and protection. Among other research gaps identified elsewhere, addressing this ‘outcome gap’ is a next frontier for researchers.

(b)  International guidance gaps

While the 2015 guidance on planned relocations was comprehensive at the time, several areas have since emerged that may require further international and regional direction. As discussed elsewhere, this may include supporting community-led and locally-led protocols or frameworks for community relocation, as well as ‘translocal’ lifestyles where residents split their time between new and old sites. New guidance could also address the challenges of planned relocation in urban settings, including a focus on businesses and livelihoods, not just homes.

(c)   Finance gaps

More funding for planned relocation is urgently needed, as identified in a recent study. There is also a need for communities to have direct access to financing so that they can make  decisions on their own terms and timelines. Moreover, funders (including multilateral development banks and climate funds) should recognize the unique considerations of climate-related planned relocations, including necessary safeguards to ensure that funding prioritizes community consent and does not replicate the human rights failures often associated with development-related relocations.

(d)  Policy gaps

Few countries have national policies on planned relocation, and even fewer expressly incorporate human rights protections. Experience shows that addressing planned relocation in a holistic and rights-respecting way requires strong and well-resourced frameworks. As the CDCR advocates, ‘every country with a coastline’ should follow the leadership of Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Panama and develop a national policy or normative framework that addresses planned relocation. Such a framework should be anchored in human rights principles, ensure that planned relocation is a measure of last resort, and create mechanisms for meaningful consultation and the participation of all affected people. Relocation should not take place unless people’s rights can be respected and fulfilled in the new site(s).

(e)   Capacity building and technical support gaps

The international community, including through initiatives like the CDCR, should provide capacity building and technical support to communities and governments. Such efforts are needed to ensure that planned relocations are truly a ‘measure of last resort’ and as community-centered, rights-respecting and dignified as possible.

Erica Bower is a Researcher on Climate Displacement and the co-convener of the Coalition on Dignified Climate Relocation, launched in 2025.