In Indonesia, the 2004 tsunami swept away two prisons in Meulaboh and Banda Aceh and led to the deaths of nearly one thousand people. Only one guard in Banda Aceh survived. In 2019, Cyclone Idai badly damaged several prisons in Mozambique, forcing the transfer of hundreds of prisoners. At Buzi prison, around forty prisoners and staff members were stranded on the roof without food or water. In 2021, Tropical Storm Elsa flooded Florida’s Dixie County in the United States, leaving prisoners at Cross City prison standing in rubbish-laden water up to their ankles by the time they were eventually transferred. In Australia, temperatures rose to 43°C in the cells of Roebourne Regional Prison in February 2024.

Globally, prison estates are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change: “30 % of the global prison population live in the 12 countries that are likely to be most affected by climate change”, notes Alice Jill Edwards, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Prison location plays a crucial role. Many facilities were built without considering the risks associated with climate change. Instead, other criteria took precedence, such as cheaper site prices or the opportunity to create jobs in semi-urban or rural areas, which are economically and socially disadvantaged and more exposed to environmental or climate risks. As a result, they are often difficult to reach in case of emergency, as they are generally located far from urban centres. Security measures such as high walls, barbed wire, multiple systems of security for the cells and armoured doors only add to the difficulty. This means that emergency services face delays in reaching prisons during disasters, and evacuating incarcerated people is often delayed.

Prison administrations have limited and often insufficient resources to address ageing buildings, especially given the growing number of people in prison.

Endemic overcrowding further weakens these facilities. A prison of the City of Pasig in the Philippines, for example, was intended for 200 people but was holding 859 when it experienced heavy flooding in September 2009. Around 100 women had to crowd together in two cells, and over 250 men in four cells. In New Zealand, the beds reserved for potential emergency transfers are regularly used for daily accomodation due to space shortages, making risk reduction strategies ineffective in practice.

Chronic understaffing exacerbates the vulnerability of people in prison. They are entirely dependent on prison administrations for their safety, as they are unable to take individual steps to reduce risks, such as removing themselves from harm’s way, stockpiling emergency supplies, or making efforts to increase self-sufficiency in order to meet their basic needs.

In Asia, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) develops a risk mapping process on the risks prisons face. This follows the heavy flooding in Cambodia in 2020, which led to the evacuation of nearly 3,000 incarcerated persons. The aim is to assess the environmental and climate risks faced in detention facilities, combined with a range of vulnerability criteria. Jean-Marc Zbinden, an architect, water and habitat advisor for the persons deprived of liberty unit at the ICRC, stresses that a prison’s geographical location is not the only vulnerability factor to consider. “Other elements can contribute to a facility’s vulnerability: who is incarcerated there (for example, older people or women with young children) and its level of overpopulation”, he explained. “These vulnerability criteria must be taken into account even if the facility is not located in a very high-risk area. In the event of rapid flooding, the consequences could be very serious because these people could not be easily transferred.”

A study published in March 2024 analysed heat exposure in over 4,000 prison facilities across the United States, based on weather data from 1982 to 2020 gathered by Oregon State University. It showed that between 2016 and 2020, temperatures exceeded 28°C for 75 days or more each year in 118 facilities, mostly located in southern California, Arizona, Texas, and inland Florida. This temperature, considered potentially dangerous, is particularly concerning in states where air conditioning is not consistently provided. The research team highlighted the importance of location, pointing out that prisons are ”often built where there is availability of low-cost land and limited resistance of local communities. In many states, areas that meet these criteria are in sparsely populated desert or swampy environments.“

In France, the NGO Notre affaire à tous released a report in July 2024 highlighting the climate and environmental risks facing the country’s 188 prisons. Using public data, the study assesses vulnerability to nine different risks, such as heatwaves, floods, forest fires, and soil pollution. Several factors within the French prison system are seen as worsening, including overcrowding, outdated infrastructure, poor insulation, and issues with water and electricity supply. The conclusion? Every prison is exposed to at least one risk, and none are free from the threat of heatwaves.

Some countries that are most exposed to climate events are developing specific disaster prevention and management plans for their prisons. However, the level of preparedness largely depends on the resources allocated to prison administrations, in a context of increased frequency and intensity of disasters. This often means that the measures adopted soon prove insufficient or even fail to function as intended.

In the Philippines, a standard procedure in the event of natural disaster was drafted in January 2018. In Taiwan, prisons have always been expected to be self-sufficient. The disaster response plans of the national, county, and municipal governments rarely mention them. They are not included in the aid process in the event of a disaster.

In New Zealand, a 2017 research note presented an overview of disaster risk reduction and emergency management in the country’s prisons. It highlighted the absence of a comprehensive plan. Each prison has its own local emergency management plan, but there is a lack of collaboration with other stakeholders. “The prison administration’s ability to quickly evacuate a large number of prisoners” was deemed concerning.

In Australia, there are no national policies or guidelines in place. The facilities must establish local measures on a case-by-case basis. Monitoring bodies and civil society organisations criticise the flagrant lack of interest from prison administrations in heat management in prisons. Recommendations from monitoring bodies remain largely unimplemented.

In Canada, nearly 225 people in prison were evacuated from the maximum-security prison in Port-Cartier, Québec, in June 2024 due to forest fires. The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers-CSN harshly criticised the operation, highlighting the lack of preparedness among prison staff, insufficient safety equipment for transferring these prisoners classified as high-risk, and the decision to place them in lower-security facilities.

In the United States, most documents relating to emergency response in prisons are either unavailable, deficient, or unenforceable. Prisons and staff are not sufficientlty trained for disaster response and recovery, which differs from the practices that exist for schools and hospitals. Prisoners are considered as vulnerable in only a third of the 47 states that have planning documents for public emergencies. In some states, they are identified as a “threat to public safety”.

The media outlet Grist notes that in Louisiana, there are no directives to protect incarcerated individuals in the event of a disaster in the state’s 130 or so detention centres. Those in charge of these facilities – the parish (county) governments, the sheriffs and the state’s Department of Public Safety and Corrections – must prepare their own emergency response plans.

Forest fires are common in California, yet few evacuation plans are in place. In 2023, the Ella Baker Centre reviewed, the California prison administration’s Department Operations Manual (DOM). The report concluded that the manual is too vague to clearly outline how the safety of incarcerated individuals is ensured during emergencies. There appears to be no concrete emergency plan for forest fires, extreme temperatures, or floods, and there is no clear explanation of staff training for handling emergency situations.

Temperatures in prisons are rising each year, making life for people in prison increasingly unbearable. In the Philippines, by May 2024, some areas experienced temperatures over 50°C. Thousands of cases of skin rashes and diseases were reported in the country’s overcrowded prisons. According to the Washington Post, in Muntinlupa City, nearly 900 people were incarcerated in a facility designed for 41 people. Around a hundred people, mostly elderly or ill, were allowed to sleep on the prison rooftops, which also provided space for some activities. A fight broke out among prisoners, injuring seven, with prison authorities largely blaming the incident on the 47°C heat recorded that day.

Several studies confirm the connection between extreme heat and a rise in violent behaviour in prisons. In Mississippi (United States) for instance, days with temperatures over 26°C without proper heat relief lead to a 20% rise in violent incidents. Heat also contributes to a higher incidence of suicides. In Louisiana, the number of people in prison placed under supervision rises by 36% when temperatures exceed 32.2°C, with an additional 30% increase as the heat intensifies further.

Maryland uses a “heat stratification” protocol to assign cells/beds. Medical examinations are performed on every new arrival to a correctional facility in order to determine the person’s “vulnerability to heat related illness” if they are placed in housing without air-conditioning.

Each person is assigned one of the three “heat risk codes”. Periodic reassessments are conducted to determine if the code needs to be updated based on factors like chronic illnesses and medication usage. However, this policy is considered insufficient in the absence of a central air conditioning system.

Every summer, people die in prison due to the effects of extreme heat. In California, the prison administration states that “the department follows a statewide Heat Illness Prevention Plan, and each of its 32 prisons creates a tailored operational response whenever excessive heat conditions exist.” Each facility has a designated Heat Plan Coordinator. However, the administration has faced strong criticism, particularly for failing to protect incarcerated people vulnerable to the heat. In July 2024, a woman held at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla died from heat exposure as temperatures exceeded 43.3°C.

In Texas, the total number of air-conditioned beds reported is around 42,000, for nearly 130,000 people in prison. This means that over two-thirds of the prison population do not have access to air conditioning. Julie Skarha, an environmental epidemiologist at Brown University’s School of Public Health, documented 271 heat-related deaths among incarcerated individuals in non-air-conditioned Texas prisons between 2001 and 2019.

The ability of people in prison to take action during emergencies or disasters is crucial. Jean-Marc Zbinden emphasises that their involvement is just as important as involving staff in preparing emergency plans. “They are less likely to feel excluded if they see the actions being put into place, which is very important given their total dependence on the system. The role of ‘representatives’ or ‘cell leaders’ is crucial in this context. These individuals can talk with the authorities and also train their fellow prisoners.”

In New Zealand, as in many other countries, the room for manoeuvre remains limited. In theory, people in prison can play valuable roles as resources in the event of an emergency. In practice, however, they do not seem to have access to any information on emergency management, and their role is limited to following instructions from prison staff during practice exercises.
In Australia, the United States and New Zealand, incarcerated people are involved in recovery work and clearing damage in the aftermath disasters.

In the United States, the engagement of people in prison is increasing, particularly in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Texas, and Wyoming, due to the rise in climate events. In the state of California, people in prison fight forest fires alongside civilian firefighters. The financial incentive for the state is significant : California saves every year hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, “for each incarcerated firefighter earning a few dollars a day, the state avoids paying a civilian thousands of dollars each month”. Incarcerated firefighters are four times more likely to be injured than professional firefighters working on the same fire, not to mention the risk of fatal injuries.

Complaints from people in prison about heat and protests against state inaction have increased in recent years as highlighted by several Australian prison inspection mechanisms. In the United States, Think Global Health recorded that over 1,200 legal actions were filed between 1980 and 2019 under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. People in Arizona, Mississippi and Wisconsin won their cases. In 2017 in Texas, a historic court decision required that air conditioning systems be installed for incarcerated individuals deemed vulnerable to heat.

During the extreme heat of summer 2023, around one hundred people at Minnesota Correctional Facility – Stillwater in the United States, refused to return to their cells. Personnel shortages had resulted in limitations to the time spent outside cells, which were not air-conditioned, and limited access to showers and ice. In December 2018, temperatures reached over 40°C in central Australia. A riot broke out at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre in the Northern Territory after people refused to return to their cells due to the heat.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several countries “eased” prison restrictions by granting conditional releases, sentence suspensions, or implementing house arrest and electronic monitoring, leading to a decreased prison population. This practice is rarely repeated during climate disasters, with a few exceptions. In southern Brazil in May 2024, widespread flooding caused the displacement to local judicial authorities, recommending that pre-trial detention be limited to exceptional cases and that the definition of “house” for house arrest be expanded to include shelters for disaster victims. They also advised reviewing pre-trial detention for vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women and single parents. People in semi-liberty in the cities of Charqueadas and Jacuí were placed under house arrest with electronic monitoring for about 20 days due to the flooding. Among the 250 affected individuals, some returned to prison for lack of alternative housing, while others went to shelters.

At times, breaking free becomes a matter of survival. In November 2013, the Philippines were struck by Typhoon Haiyan, which destroyed entire cities on the islands of Samar and Leyte. The Leyte prison, holding 600 people awaiting trial, was hit hard: the roof was blown off, and floodwaters surged through the facility. The people in prison fled to avoid drowning. A few days later, over 250 had already returned. Some explained that their main concern after fleeing was to find their families and help them, particularly by setting up makeshift shelters. However, they did not want to be seen as fugitives, fearing it would jeopardise their chances of acquittal at trial.

What about when the facility is not destroyed by wind, fire, or flood? Could life-threatening temperatures inside cells justify an escape for survival? In many situations, this question is becoming increasingly relevant.