In some situations, you do see it impacting cross-border movements, but a large majority of the situations due to climate change, for now, are persons internally displaced in the country.
I recognize the question that was in the previous panel about the refugee definition and whether it would apply to those who are fleeing a climate disaster or event. We believe the refugee definition is sufficient as is. It does recognize certain situations in which a climate event would exacerbate a refugee movement, so a climate event could potentially see someone looked at and accepted as a refugee. For example, if someone is being discriminated against or persecuted in the distribution of humanitarian assistance because of their gender or their minority social group in the response to a climate event, they could qualify as a refugee if they end up crossing a border and making an asylum claim.
We believe states should look at larger solutions, such as other forms of complementary protection when they're looking at temporary protection or definitions that are broader than the refugee definition. The refugee definition should be kept the way it is and the law should be applied for the refugee status the way it is right now. States should look at broader solutions for those displaced by climate.