Earlier this week, The Guardian newspaper inaccurately reported that the Refugee Council of Australia had called on the Australian government to recognize a new category of "climate refugee" under the Refugee Convention. This is not the position of the Refugee Council, nor does it reflect the opinion of majority of forced migration experts around the world. While it is true that people are already being displaced by natural disasters and the impacts of climate change, this does not necessarily mean that the best solution is to widen the application of the refugee definition. Protection and assistance are essential, but they need to be appropriately targeted and attuned to context in order to be properly responsive. Respecting the views of communities in affected countries of the Pacific, it is clear that we need to strike a balance between enabling people to remain safely in their homes when this is their desire, and at the same time building managed migration pathways for those who wish to move. Policymakers need to understand that migration is one form of adaptation to climate change. First, the bulk of evidence shows that in most cases, movement is likely to be internal rather than across international borders. This has implications for policy interventions, including appropriate legal frameworks. The Refugee Convention only applies when someone crosses an international border, and it will not assist those displaced within their own country. For the majority of people, more important interventions will include effective early warning systems for disasters, disaster risk reduction schemes, careful urban planning, sensitive development, and so on. Of course there will be some cross-border movement, but we are unlikely to see millions of people departing their countries en masse. Secondly, a lot of movement will be gradual, not sudden. In other words, this movement will be very different from refugee "flight." The international community is relatively good at mobilizing around "emergencies," drawing in donations and channelling humanitarian aid and assistance, but it is not so good at addressing longer-term, systemic problems. The challenge is how to respond to people who do not flee from a sudden disaster, but instead face the slow deterioration of their home environment, which may at some point become uninhabitable. This is the situation facing our Pacific neighbours in countries such as Kiribati and Tuvalu, and it requires sensitive, longer-term planning rather than a remedial response. Thirdly, it is conceptually problematic and empirically flawed to suggest that climate change alone causes people to move. Certainly, climate change is already contributing to displacement, but in conjunction with other underlying factors - things like population pressures, the fragility of certain environments, poor development practices, and poverty. Climate change exacerbates pre-existing pressures, such that people who are already vulnerable become more so. If the Refugee Convention were to include a new "climate refugee" category, then how would we ascertain if that was the cause of displacement? From a human rights perspective, this is a misplaced question, since protection should focus on the harm feared if returned, not the cause of that harm. Indeed, this has led some to argue that a "climate refugee" category would privilege those displaced by climate change over other forced migrants (such as those escaping poverty), perhaps without an adequate (legal and/or moral) rationale as to why. Finally, there is little political appetite for a new protection framework. When the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) campaigned throughout 2011 to get States interested in a new, non-binding guiding framework on climate-related displacement, only five governments lent their support. It should be noted here that UNHCR was adamant that it would be inappropriate to amend the Refugee Convention for the reasons cited above. According to the President of Kiribati, managed international migration provides a more secure mechanism for enabling people to move away from the longer-term effects of climate change. It doesn't artificially treat people as being in need of international "protection" (from an abusive State), or force people to hop on boats desperately in search of their own solutions. It is a more suitable response to slow-onset climate change impacts, which are unlikely to trigger existing (or future) temporary protection mechanisms designed for sudden disasters. Overseas employment also provides a livelihood diversification and risk management strategy. Not only would it relieve resource pressures on the islands, but remittances from those migrants could contribute to further adaptation funding there. Additionally, since a country like Kiribati cannot sustain a population of its current size, greater out-migration could mean that a smaller population could remain at home for longer. This year, the newly formed Nansen Initiative on Disaster-Induced Cross-Border Displacement will hold its first-ever regional consultation, in the Pacific. The Nansen Initiative is a new intergovernmental process designed to build consensus on key issues regarding the protection of persons displaced across borders in the context of natural disasters. Established by Norway and Switzerland, it represents a tentative first step towards international policymaking in this field, and Australia is a member of its Steering Committee. The Pacific consultation will consider how to deal with migration as part of climate change adaptation; how to protect land, property and cultural identity in the event of displacement or relocation; and what role regional institutions might play in addressing these problems. People at risk of displacement from climate change and natural disasters do not want to be seen as refugees. While their predominant wish is to remain at home, if circumstances do force them to move then they want to be seen as valued migrants, moving in dignity and with humanity, with the respect of the international community. In my view, legal and policy responses to climate change-related movement must be informed by a bottom up approach which takes account of the desires of affected communities. "Solutions" imposed from on high, disconnected from the reality they are seeking to regulate, will be inappropriate, at best, and maladaptive, at worst. Jane McAdam is Scientia Professor of Law at UNSW and the author of Climate Change, Forced Migration, and International Law (Oxford University Press, 2012).