A/HRC/37/35 such as rising sea levels and desertification. While most displaced persons remained within their own country, some crossed international borders to seek protection and assistance abroad. The overall number of such persons was unknown. For many, international law did not provide a right to admission and stay, which made them vulnerable to exploitation and marginalization. Consultations conducted by the Nansen Initiative on cross-border displacement between 2012 and 2015 showed that human rights had played an important role in protection in at least three contexts. 16. First, human rights provided guidance on the implementation of measures to reduce and manage displacement risks in countries of origin. Factors such as population density, poverty, bad governance and discrimination contributed to the lack of resilience of affected persons to natural hazards. The rights to life, safety and health, among others, suggested a general obligation of States of origin to protect people from the effects of natural hazards by reducing their vulnerability through climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. This was an integral part of development efforts made in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. If such efforts failed, States could also be obliged to provide protection through evacuation and planned relocation. Efforts of this type should respect all relevant human rights, including the rights to information and to participate, the rights of women, children and indigenous peoples, and cultural rights. Cooperation between States of origin and States of destination was necessary to facilitate the safe, dignified and regular migration of affected persons to other countries. This could be an important means to adapt to the reality of climate change, for instance where low-lying atoll island States risked becoming permanently uninhabitable by rising sea levels. 17. Second, human rights such as those to food, water, shelter, health and education were particularly important for the protection of affected persons throughout their migration. The rights of affected persons to protection from gender-based and other forms of violence or trafficking, and to have to access humanitarian assistance should be respected, protected and fulfilled regardless of whether they had crossed international borders. Specific efforts were needed to protect the rights of women and children who faced higher risks of harm during migration. 18. Third, human rights-based approaches could help disaster-affected persons to gain admission to and to stay in States of refuge. In exceptional cases, obligations of nonrefoulement under international human rights law could impose constraints on the return of persons to States affected by disasters. The Nansen Initiative had identified more than 50 States that had used their discretion to admit persons affected by disasters. This was particularly common in cases where persons were seriously and personally affected by a disaster. While States based their decisions on humanitarian grounds, they took into consideration human rights principles. 19. Mr. Kaelin concluded that, in the absence of specific obligations to admit and not to return persons displaced across borders in the context of the adverse effects of climate change and other disasters, harmonizing and strengthening national approaches was crucial for the protection of such persons. The Human Rights Council had an important role to play in promoting such rights-based approaches. 20. The Executive Director of Greenpeace Africa, Njeri Kabeberi, noted that seven of the 10 States most at risk from climate change were in Africa. Research indicated that Africa was likely to become warmer and drier because of climate change and could expect faster rates of temperature increase than the global average. Climate change would deepen social inequality, because responsibility for climate change and vulnerability to its impact were unequally shared. 21. Ms. Kabeberi described a number of ways that climate change affected people and ecosystems in Africa. The effects of climate change had the potential to exacerbate national security issues and to drive conflicts over limited natural resources, such as arable land or water. Indeed, access to water could be the single biggest cause of conflict and war in Africa in the next 25 years. Furthermore, conflicts prevented populations from engaging in food production, further exacerbating hunger. The cumulative impact of small disasters was also causing grave losses for the poor. 4