A/HRC/40/26 32. The Ambassador also referred to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and the global compact on refugees, to be finalized in 2018, noting that they offered scope for climate risk-informed action, in which reference to the Guiding Principles and to an integrated approach was key. In practice, the synergies among development, human rights and climate change were clear, especially in small developing island States such as Fiji. Climate change, development and internal displacement were indivisible, and planned migration, which reflected the need to put people at the centre of such migration, was crucial. That approach, based on the premise that well-planned and voluntary resettlement could reduce poverty, diversify and increase incomes and reduce further vulnerability to climate change impacts, was the one taken by Fiji. Waiting for migration to become necessary before planning for it inevitably resulted in increased vulnerability and inequality. Planned migration could also lead to a greater chance of successful integration for migrants. It could create new livelihoods and opportunities, facilitate the development of new technology and skills and strengthen cultural and social knowledge. It could transform communities by introducing new patterns of consultation, for instance with women and children. It could make persons with disabilities more visible and lead to greater diversity in sources of income. 33. Continuing to draw on the case of Fiji, the Ambassador noted that, in accordance with draft relocation guidelines that drew heavily on the Guiding Principles and prioritized community consent, a participatory approach to consultation and community empowerment, 63 local communities would need to consider relocation in the near future. In conclusion, she highlighted the need to develop national policies and mechanisms to address climate-induced migration and displacement internally and to guide the current and future movement of populations. Such policies must reflect the necessary interconnectivity of the Sustainable Development Goals, human rights and climate policy. IV. Summary of the discussion 34. During the ensuing discussion, contributions were made by representatives of Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Botswana, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, the European Union, Iraq, Ireland, Kuwait, Lesotho, Norway, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Switzerland, the Syrian Arab Republic, Togo (on behalf of the Group of African States), Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates (on behalf of the League of Arab States), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). In addition, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, the United Nations Development Programme, an internally displaced person from Borno State in north-eastern Nigeria and five NGOs took part in the discussion. 35. Overwhelmingly, delegations expressed concern about the magnitude of internal displacement worldwide and about the lack of durable solutions for internally displaced persons, which was leading to growing numbers of such persons living in protracted displacement. In that context, many delegations noted that the Guiding Principles had played a critical role in highlighting the plight of internally displaced persons for the past 20 years and stressed their continued relevance in addressing internal displacement from a human rights perspective. Several delegations welcomed the holding of the panel discussion on internally displaced persons in commemoration of the twentieth anniversary of Guiding Principles in the Human Rights Council as an excellent and timely opportunity to reaffirm the rights of internally displaced persons and the fundamental role of the Guiding Principles in preventing, responding to and finding durable solutions for internal displacement. A. Addressing internal displacement: a national responsibility 36. Several delegations, including those of Armenia, Botswana, China, Denmark, the European Union, Lesotho, Togo (on behalf of the Group of African States), Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates (on behalf of the League of Arab States), stressed that first and foremost, national authorities had the primary duty and responsibility to provide protection and humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons within their jurisdiction. 8