Disaster Displacement and the New Disaster Treaty: A Gap We Cannot Not Ignore

Disasters are all too often accompanied by displacement. Across the world, cyclones, floods, bushfires and rising seas are forcing people from their homes. In some cases, movement is temporary: people evacuate, shelter elsewhere and then return once the immediate danger has passed. For many others, however, displacement can stretch into weeks or months or even become permanent when return is unsafe or there is simply no home to return to.

The numbers confirm the scale and significance of disaster‑related displacement. In 2024 alone, an estimated 65.8 million internal displacements were recorded globally, with almost 70 per cent triggered by disasters rather than conflict. Many of these began as evacuations – a phenomenon we tend to think of as life-saving, rather than displacement-generating.

The Asia‑Pacific is among the most affected regions, and Pacific Island States, in particular, face compounding risks from both sudden‑onset hazards, such as cyclones and floods, and slower‑onset processes, including coastal erosion and sea‑level rise. Closer to home, both Australia and New Zealand have experienced large‑scale evacuations and prolonged displacement following bushfires and floods.

As climate change is predicted to increase the frequency and severity of disasters worldwide, States are currently in the process of negotiating the first ever global treaty on disasters: the Treaty on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters (PPED). The PPED treaty seeks to fill a longstanding gap in international law by clarifying States’ duties relating to disaster risk reduction, preparedness, response and international cooperation. Yet the treaty negotiations to date reveal a striking lacuna: the absence of displacement as a key concern of disaster management.

The PPED Treaty

The proposed PPED treaty has its origins in the work of the International Law Commission (ILC). In 2016, the ILC adopted the Draft Articles of the same name, with the purpose ‘to facilitate the adequate and effective response to disasters, and reduction of the risk of disasters, so as to meet the essential needs of the persons concerned, with full respect for their rights.’ The Draft Articles outline a range of principles relating to disaster risk reduction and response, addressing issues such as the role of affected States, the duty to cooperate, and the facilitation of humanitarian assistance.

In 2024, the UN General Assembly decided to consider the elaboration of the Draft Articles into a legally binding treaty. States were invited to submit proposed amendments by the end of 2025, which were then considered at a session of a dedicated Working Group of the Sixth Committee in early April 2026. The process is now moving towards a consolidated draft text expected by September 2026, with the stated aim of adopting the treaty at a diplomatic conference scheduled for January 2027 in the Philippines.

This negotiation process represents a rare and potentially transformative opportunity to shape how the world understands, prepares for and responds to disasters in a warming world. Yet as negotiations progress, a critical issue risks being overlooked: the risks and incidence of disaster‑related displacement.

The Absence of Displacement in the Draft Treaty

Despite the centrality of displacement in contemporary disasters, it has received remarkably little attention in the development of the PPED treaty to date. In the Draft Articles, ‘mass displacement’ appears only once, listed as a possible consequence within the definition of a ‘disaster’ (in draft article 3). Even this single reference is now under pressure: some States have proposed removing this reference, which would erase displacement from the treaty text altogether.

Some States, including Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, Indonesia and Switzerland, have drawn attention to the scale and implications of disaster‑related displacement in discussions on the PPED treaty. Portugal, for example, expressed support for ‘finding ways to improve the text prepared by the International Law Commission, for instance with regard to the human rights protection – including in connection with displacement of people in the context of disasters – and disaster risk reduction aspects’. Yet this has not yet resulted in any concrete proposal to bring displacement into the draft text.

The silence on displacement is not merely a technical oversight; it represents a significant weak spot in the emerging treaty. Disaster‑related displacement is one of the most common and consequential outcomes of disasters, shaping how individuals, communities and States experience, respond to and recover from emergencies. Neglecting it in the treaty risks overlooking the lived realities of millions of people, now and into the future.

Moreover, failing to recognise displacement also risks placing the PPED treaty out of step with developments in international law. Since the ILC adopted the Draft Articles in 2016, States have begun to acknowledge disaster‑related displacement as a core feature of disaster risk rather than a peripheral concern. In the Pacific, governments have committed to integrating climate‑related mobility, including displacement, into disaster risk reduction and climate planning, such as the Pacific Regional Framework on Climate Mobility that was endorsed by Pacific Leaders in 2023. Similar trends are evident in regional action plans implementing the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, which increasingly address human mobility alongside prevention, preparedness and response. For example, the Cartagena +40 process in Latin America includes operational programmes dedicated to disaster displacement, while African States have endorsed stronger cooperation on this issue through the Kampala Ministerial Declaration.

Why Displacement Matters for Australia and New Zealand

Displacement is not a distant concern for Australia and New Zealand. Both countries are already grappling with the realities of disaster‑related displacement at home, which are only expected to increase due to climate change. The 2019–20 summer bushfires in Australia displaced around 65,000 people, while in New Zealand in 2023, Cyclone Gabrielle triggered 11,000 displacements – ten times more than all storms in the previous five years combined.

Regionally, the stakes are even higher. Many Pacific Island countries face existential threats from climate change, particularly sea‑level rise, coastal erosion and intensifying extreme weather events. For these States, the risk of displacement – whether internally or across international borders – is a central concern that goes to the heart of identity, belonging and self-determination.

Displacement is also a key foreign policy concern for both Australia and New Zealand, and there is considerable support for initiatives on climate mobility and investing in resilience, adaptation and disaster preparedness across the Pacific. Together with the other members of the Pacific Islands Forum, Australia and New Zealand have declared that they ‘individually and collectively, bear an important responsibility for ensuring protection of our people, and are committed to protecting such persons affected by climate change-related sea-level rise, including with respect to human rights duties, political status, culture, cultural heritage, identity and dignity, and meeting essential needs’.

As part of the Pacific Regional Framework on Climate Mobility, Australia and New Zealand have also expressed their commitment to ‘[i]ncorporate measures into regional disaster risk reduction activities to avert and minimise displacement’, ‘[s]trengthen regional collaboration to assist and protect people at risk of internal displacement in the context of climate change’, and ‘explore opportunities to strengthen, harmonise and expand policies and practices concerning humanitarian admission and stay of … people displaced in the context of climate change and related hazards and disasters at the regional and/or sub-regional levels’ as well as ‘longer-term stays’. The Falepili Union between Tuvalu and Australia provides another example of how displacement concerns are already factoring into agreements in the region, with a special human mobility pathway enabling up to 280 Tuvaluans to migrate to Australia each year.

Against this backdrop, Australia and New Zealand have a clear interest in ensuring that the emerging PPED treaty reflects the displacement dimensions of disasters.

A Window of Opportunity

To date, neither Australia nor New Zealand – nor any Pacific States – have submitted formal proposals to amend the PPED draft text. But there is still time. States may submit proposed amendments until 15 May 2026, ahead of the preparation of a consolidated draft text that will inform negotiations through to the anticipated adoption of the treaty in early 2027. This window offers a chance to shape the PPED treaty and ensure that displacement is recognised.

In a 2025 Policy Brief, we set out a series of targeted amendments that would better recognise displacement within the existing structure of the Draft Articles. These proposals do not seek to expand the treaty’s scope but rather clarify and strengthen existing provisions in line with established State practice. Proposed amendments include incorporating references to displacement in the preamble, recognising evacuations and planned relocations as forms of disaster risk reduction, and clarifying that international cooperation may encompass human mobility measures, such as assistance with evacuation and access to humanitarian or temporary protection visas. These measures reflect what States are already doing in practice.

Taken together, these relatively modest adjustments could have meaningful effects. Explicit recognition of displacement in the PPED treaty could support more coherent legal and policy frameworks at the national and regional levels, including in areas such as evacuation planning, shelter management and long‑term recovery. It could also enhance coordination in international disaster responses and help direct funding toward more inclusive disaster risk reduction strategies that take mobility into account.

More fundamentally, recognising displacement would reinforce the treaty’s central objective: the protection of persons in the event of disasters. Displacement is not a peripheral or secondary effect. For millions of people worldwide, it is one of the primary ways disasters are experienced. A treaty that seeks to protect people affected by disasters cannot afford to overlook that reality.

A Champion on Disaster-Related Displacement

As negotiations on the PPED treaty gather momentum, there is a critical opportunity for Australia and New Zealand to help shape the outcome. This engagement could take many forms: submitting written proposals for amendments, actively participating in Working Group discussions, coordinating positions with regional partners and civil society, or engaging in diplomatic outreach to build broader support among States. Australia and New Zealand are well placed to become champions of the issue of disaster‑related displacement and to be leading voices on an issue of critical importance to the region.