There are various routes which could be taken in the search for a solution. Extension of the1951Convention and its guarantees via broad interpretation of the present definition to include defacto refugees is one method suggested. Alternatively, and moving towards perhaps more unlikely solutions, a new definition could be drafted, or indeed a new Convention. There is concern however that by diluting the category of refugees, you also dilute the protection then offered. Third country resettlement is not feasible on the scale on which environmental refugees are predicted.
Voluntary repatriation is the currently the most favoured solution.
The displaced may be forced to flee as a result of permanent environmental damage. The lasting radioactivity of Chernobyl for instance is estimated to have permanently displaced around 1.5 million people. There are also the seemingly unsurmountable barriers ofsovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs, which relegate the legitimate concernsofthe international community over environmental standards in national jurisdictions useless. In-country protection will thus become vital. There is increasing concern over the unprotected category of internally displaced persons in the international community.