Mainstream media is often hell-bent on painting migration as a security threat. However, contrary to popular belief, migration can be viewed as an efficient tool of climate resilience and adaptation. Over the span of 300,000 years, human evolution has been shaped by migration. This evolutionary process occurred in tandem with substantial environmental changes, and those individuals who demonstrated the greatest adaptability to shifting surroundings were the ones who survived. Therefore, migration that takes place because of climate change is not necessarily a new concept.
Climate change and migration
The growing influence of climate variability and change is impacting human migration and displacement. The additional stress from climate change compounds challenges faced by communities dealing with limited economic opportunities, social or political marginalisation, poor governance, and depleted natural resources. Migration motivations and processes vary widely, but climate-related factors such as shifts in food and water security, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels are increasingly driving human mobility.
Climate-induced migration can manifest as a proactive adaptation strategy or forced displacement due to life-threatening risks. Most climate-related migration occurs within national borders, typically towards urban destinations, and spans from seasonal to permanent movement. As mentioned in Climatelinks, modelling predicts that by 2050, the convergence of climate impacts with other stressors could lead to hundreds of millions of new internal migrants. While migration is often perceived as a failure of adaptation and development, historical evidence demonstrates that human mobility has served as a strategy for livelihood diversification and risk management.
Climate change, while not the sole catalyst for migration, interacts with economic, social, political, and demographic factors such as poverty, unemployment, weak governance, and conflict. The interplay of these factors can create “tipping points” where migration becomes a more appealing option than struggling to adapt in place. Modelling indicates that regions with lower water availability and crop productivity, as well as those affected by sea-level rise and storm surges, are most likely to experience increased climate-related migration.
Migration as an adaptation strategy
According to a journal article titled “Migration as Adaptation” (co-authored by Kira Vinke, Jonas Bergmann, Julia Blocher, Himani Upadhyay, and Roman Hoffmann and published in Oxford Academic), since the 2000s, there has been a shift in discourse regarding environmental migration. This was followed by a moving away from highlighting the forced nature and security threats associated with it to framing migration as a proactive adaptation solution that should be governed and facilitated. Policy experts, international organisations, and researchers have played a role in this shift, with the International Organisation for Migration introducing the concept of “migration as adaptation”. This reframing gives migration a positive connotation compared to the controversial “climate refugees” narrative.
The idea of migration as adaptation has been embraced by major actors such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and is reflected in strategic documents like the Cancún Adaptation Framework (UNFCCC 2010), the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR 2015), and the Global Compact for Migration (UNGA 2018). According to this perspective, households assess all available options to adjust to hazards and choose the ones best suited to their situation, which may include a conscious decision to migrate if necessary resources are accessible. Proponents of this approach see the adaptive potentials of migration in generating income, diversifying livelihoods, spreading household risks, and facilitating social or financial remittances. While the new discourse has proven powerful in some contexts, limitations have also become evident.
The loopholes
As explained in Preventionweb, a recent study conducted by an international team from Africa, Asia, and Europe has identified three key criteria for assessing the effectiveness of migration as an adaptation strategy to climate change: well-being, equity, and sustainability.
While migration is increasingly acknowledged as a viable approach to addressing climate-related risks, it is not a universal solution. Remittances, which include the transfer of money, skills, ideas, and goods between migrants and their places of origin, are considered crucial for climate change adaptation. However, the research, drawing on evidence from various continents over recent decades, reveals that while remittances can improve the material well-being of families in migrants’ places of origin, they often come at the expense of the well-being of the migrants themselves.
For instance, migrants in Bangladesh may be excluded from urban structures and services, impacting their living conditions, income security, and ability to continue supporting their families. The study emphasises the need for appropriate policy support to ensure that migration is a successful adaptation strategy and does not reinforce vulnerability and marginalisation.
Therefore, while adapting migration as a strategy to address climate change may be a feasible option, it has its own caveats; ones that are serious and need to be addressed. Comprehending the link between human mobility and climate impacts requires identifying the intricacies of these relationships. Making direct causal links between climatic change and migration decisions is inadvisable. In most cases, people decide or are compelled to migrate due to a combination of factors, where climate change may serve as the primary or one of several secondary elements influencing migration.
What needs to be understood is that migration decisions and the ability to migrate are closely tied to pre-existing vulnerabilities. Many individuals lack the financial and social resources to plan and secure migration plans. Factors such as uncertain prospects elsewhere or potential losses in terms of land and assets can also influence individuals to remain living in areas at risk, even if it exposes them to great danger.
(Sandunlekha Ekanayake)