The International Organization for Migration (IOM) is calling on governments, media, and researchers to say "climate migrants" — not "climate refugees" — when they describe people who move because of environmental change.

The distinction is more than vocabulary. It goes to the heart of who qualifies for protection under international law, and who does not.

Why the term "climate refugee" does not apply

The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as a person with a well-founded fear of persecution on specific grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Environmental degradation and climate-related disasters sit outside that definition.

Because no international treaty recognizes "climate refugee" status, people displaced by droughts, floods, sea-level rise, or storms cannot claim refugee protection on environmental grounds alone. Using the label anyway, the IOM argues, creates false expectations among affected populations about rights they do not legally hold.

The term also risks confusion among policymakers. If the public believes a protection category already exists, pressure to build one may fade. The IOM prefers precise language that reflects the actual legal gap.

What "climate migrant" covers

"Climate migrant" is a broader and more flexible umbrella. It captures people who move for many reasons tied to the environment: sudden disasters such as hurricanes and floods, slow-onset changes such as desertification and rising seas, and mixed situations where climate stress combines with poverty, conflict, or economic pressure.

The term does not promise a specific legal status. That, according to the IOM, is its strength. It allows governments and agencies to design targeted responses — humanitarian visas, planned relocation, disaster displacement frameworks — without pretending the 1951 Convention already solves the problem.

Who is affected

People displaced across borders by climate impacts fall into a protection gap. They are not refugees under the Convention, and they often do not fit classic categories of economic migrants either. Host states decide their fate case by case, with no binding international standard.

Those who move inside their own countries — the large majority of people displaced by disasters — are internally displaced persons. They remain under their own government's jurisdiction, which carries its own obligations under the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.

Why terminology shapes policy

Words determine which institutions take responsibility. "Refugee" points to asylum systems and the UN refugee agency's mandate. "Migrant" points to migration management, labour pathways, and development policy — the IOM's own domain.

The IOM position is that honest terminology forces states to confront the gap directly rather than assume existing law covers it. Several regional instruments have started to move in this direction, and discussions continue within UN climate and disaster-risk forums.

What to watch

Readers tracking this issue should follow IOM publications and announcements for updates on terminology guidance and displacement data. Any future legal recognition of climate-driven displacement would require new international agreement — a step no UN member states have yet taken.

Until then, "climate migrant" remains the term the IOM uses, and the one it asks the rest of the world to adopt.

This article summarizes the IOM's publicly stated position on terminology. It does not constitute legal advice. Individuals seeking protection should consult official government sources and qualified legal counsel.