The emerging New Zealand jurisprudence on climate change, disasters and displacement

In mid-2014, there was global media coverage of a decision by the New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal, heralded as the first legal recognition of ‘climate change refugees’. Despite the hype, the Tribunal had made no such finding. The case concerned a family of four from the small Pacific island State of Tuvalu, who argued, among other things, that the effects of climate change—in particular, a lack of fresh drinking water and sea-level rise—would have adverse impacts on them if they were forced to return home. While the Tribunal ultimately permitted them to stay in New Zealand, this was not because of the impacts of climate change in Tuvalu, but rather because of their strong family ties within New Zealand. The decision was based purely on humanitarian and discretionary grounds, not on any domestic or international legal obligation. However, since 2013, New Zealand has started to specifically and systematically delineate the legal protection framework applicable to claims based on the impacts of climate change, natural disasters or environmental degradation. While no one has yet been granted protection on these grounds, New Zealand’s jurisprudence provides the most comprehensive analysis by decision-makers to date about the scope and content of protection for people escaping the impacts of climate change and disasters. Using the recent Tuvaluan case as a starting point, this article examines the development of New Zealand’s case law and its implications for other jurisdictions.