AUSTRALIA-TUVALU FALEPILI UNION AND THE FUTURE OF CLIMATE MOBILITY  

Aashish Yadav 

December 2025 

The Pacific island state of Tuvalu has long been the face of the irreversible impacts of climate change. With most of its land barely metres above sea level, estimates suggest that all of Tuvalu would be submerged by 2050 and its population would become ‘climate refugees’, seeking shelter in neighbouring states such as Australia. However, this framing both mischaracterises the law, and fails to capture the mobility concerns faced by Tuvaluans who are coming to terms with the reality of climate change which may require them to leave Tuvalu and settle elsewhere. To facilitate this eventual movement, the Tuvaluan government has entered into the Falepili Union treaty with Australia, providing a mobility pathway for Tuvaluans to move to Australia. 

This commentary examines the misconceptions around the term ‘climate refugee’ and argues that climate mobility must be understood beyond the asylum framework. It explores the specific nature of climate mobility, before analysing the Falepili Union treaty as the world’s first bilateral agreement on climate mobility. I conclude by suggesting that mobility pathways designed to address displacement in the context of climate change offer the most effective tools for voluntary, dignified movement.   

There is no ‘climate refugee’ 

The term ‘climate refugee’ is widely used in media and advocacy to describe people displaced by the sudden (natural hazards such as floods, storms) and slow impacts of climate change (coastal erosion, desertification, droughts). Tuvalu and other Pacific countries often feature in such reports, which claim that their landmass will be inundated by rising sea levels and their populations will become climate refugees. But labelling them as climate refugees is misguided, as their mobility does not neatly fit into the refugee law framework provided under the 1951 Refugee Convention. 

This is because the Convention defines the ‘refugee’ as a person fleeing persecution (deliberate targeting by a government or a group) based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Given that displacement in the context of climate change is multi-causal, it does not fully align with the individual risk of persecution on the above grounds that requires human agency, as demanded by the Convention. The nature of the mobility in the context of climate change is different since it needs to be pre-emptive and planned in response to the slow-onset changes that will impact the entire populations of the small Pacific island nations. 

However, refugee law is still relevant in this context. The UNHCR has clarified that some persons displaced across borders due to climate change may be recognised as refugees. For instance, environmental defenders, activists and journalists, or marginalised persons facing discrimination or exclusion from government adaptation efforts against slow impacts of climate change. While there are calls for a new multilateral treaty to address climate displacement, legal scholar Jane McAdam has warned against it since it may not garner enough international support and would result in rigid understanding of climate mobility that would dilute protection for impacted persons. 

Beyond refugee law, persons impacted by climate change may also receive international protection under the obligations of non-refoulement in international human rights law, which prohibits return to a country where their life or liberty may be at risk. In Teitiota v New Zealand, the UN Human Rights Committee established that countries cannot return people to places where climate change endangers their right to life, as affirmed by the International Court of Justice. 

But the refugee law framework is not tailored to address mass population movements, especially the mobility driven by the slow impacts of climate change, which requires thinking beyond refugee law. Planned relocation of affected populations emerges as a policy measure of last resort for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. However, planned relocations are complex and difficult to scale for the entire population of countries while respecting their right to self-determination in making choices about their future. The Falepili Union serves as a good example that provides a climate mobility pathway not centred on asylum. 

Falepili Union: a new approach to climate mobility 

The first-of-its-kind agreement creates permanent residency visas for Tuvaluans to live, study and work in Australia without requiring them to prove persecution or meet asylum criteria. The agreement also positions itself as supporting Tuvaluans to remain in their country with ‘safety and dignity’ and enabling ‘mobility with dignity’ to ensure respect for the voluntary and informed relocation choices Tuvaluans would be making as their country is slowly submerged by the rising ocean. 

Recognising that Tuvaluans are deeply connected to their land, sea and culture, the agreement provides that citizens of Tuvalu migrating to Australia would retain their Tuvaluan nationality while acquiring Australian nationality. To facilitate this, Tuvalu amended its nationality laws and Australia guaranteed the recognition of Tuvaluan statehood irrespective of ‘the impact of climate change-related sea-level rise’. 

Although there are only 280 visas available for Tuvaluans every year, the inaugural visa ballot closed in July 2025 with over 5,000 applications – more than half of Tuvalu’s population. These numbers demonstrate that Tuvaluans seek to keep their options open and make informed decisions about whether to remain or move to Australia. The first group under this migration pathway arrived in Australia in December 2025. 

Conclusion 

The Falepili Union treaty demonstrates that addressing climate mobility requires different legal tools tailored to mass population movement, rather than the individual-centric refugee law framework. By providing migration pathways that enable people to make voluntary decisions and preserve their links with their country, agreements like Falepili Union would allow countries to respond to climate mobility issues without undermining the refugee protection available to those fleeing persecution. 

Therefore, the blanket use of the term ‘climate refugee’ for all persons migrating due to climate change distracts from the solution. As climate change accelerates and drives displacement, the international community must propose mobility pathways to address the specific patterns of movement in the context of climate change. 

Aashish Yadav is a PhD Candidate and Research Assistant at the Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness, Melbourne Law School. His doctoral research examines how cross-border displacement in the context of climate change and disasters impact the nationality status of affected persons.