Given the multidimensionality of environmental migration, policy coherence is critical. Significantly, the Global Compact for Safe, Regular and Orderly Migration underlines this need while focusing on international migration. Due to the multi-causal nature of most environmental migration, policymakers seeking to address environmental migration in their respective “sector” will often need to address migration in general (see Managing environmental migration). To date, where environmental migration is addressed in sectoral policy plans, it is usually only addressed partially, and often focused on reducing the drivers, with little attention to the potentially positive role of migration in building resilience.

The most successful policies are the result of joint efforts across relevant ministries bringing together different areas of expertise in coordination with external experts and other relevant stakeholders such as local authorities, employers and trade unions, migrant and diaspora associations, civil society, private sector and academia. In addition to migration, environmental, and climate change adaptation policies, environmental migration is intimately linked to the human rights, development, disaster risk reduction and humanitarian assistance policy domains.

There is increasing awareness of the need for coherence between policy domains. This awareness can be seen in efforts to strengthen ties between the disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) “communities”, for example, or between the humanitarian, DRR and development communities. The need for increased coherence between these communities resulted in the emergence of an agenda to link relief, rehabilitation and development.

The following sections explore existing efforts and examples within these domains to incorporate or “mainstream” different aspects of environmental migration (disaster displacement, voluntary migration and planned relocation).

Migration policies

Many of the policy interventions necessary to address environmental migration are drawn from or based on existing migration management approaches (see policy approaches discussed in Managing environmental migration). The key challenge at the national level is therefore about ensuring that environmental challenges are considered in national migration policies.

In a mapping exercise undertaken by IOM in 2018, 35 out of 66 countries (or 53 per cent) for which documents were available referred to climate and environmental considerations in their national migration legislations, policies or strategies (IOM, 2018a).

To Go Further
Good Practice
Integration of environmental challenges in national human mobility policies

Certain Governments, such as Botswana (2014), Ghana (2016), Kenya (2017), Nigeria (2015), Uganda (2016), Haiti (2015) and France (2018), have included in their migration policy specific points relating to the migration and climate change nexus. They outline national objectives and strategies to address population movements in the context of environmental change, including climate change, disasters and environmental degradation, and to mitigate the impact that human mobility can have on the environment. Nepal (2018), Georgia (2014) and Vanuatu (2017), among other States, have taken a further step and drafted specialized policies on the theme. These are still being refined ahead of adoption.

The stakeholders involved in drafting, implementing and/or monitoring human mobility policies mentioning environmental and climate concerns include representatives of ministries related to: citizenship, foreign affairs, home affairs, interior, immigration and labor. While committees have been formed in most countries to bring together relevant governmental entities across the policy spectrum, in many cases, climate and environmental actors at the national level were not included. This highlights a remaining gap in the efforts to address issues relating to human mobility in the context of climate change. At the same time, it also reflects the wide range of stakeholders working in the field at the national level as well as a willingness to adopt a whole-of-government approach to tackle this nexus.

Source

Mapping human mobility and climate change in relevant national policies and institutional frameworks (IOM, 2018a).

Environmental and climate change policies

As described previously, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) addresses three “tracks” via which human mobility intersects with climate change adaptation: displacement, migration, and planned relocation (UNFCCC Conference of the Parties [COP], 2010).

The UNFCCC COP established a process to enable least developed countries (LDCs) to formulate and implement national adaptation plans (NAPs) that identify long-term adaptation needs, and produce overall strategies and programmes to address those needs. The COP also invited other developing and developed countries to formulate their own plans.

In the 50 documents reviewed from 37 Parties to the UNFCCC, 30 Parties (or 81 per cent) mention human mobility in the context of climate change. This is a significant proportion that seems to indicate that greater awareness of human mobility in national climate policy has been achieved. Most of these policies recognize the adverse effects of climate change as drivers/determinants of migration. In most of these countries, committees have been formed to draft, implement and/or monitor climate change policies, including where there are references to human mobility. However, these committees seldom include migration-related governmental actors, trade unions or employers’ organizations, highlighting the need for more coherence and synergies between climate or environmental actors and migration actors.

Turning to environmental policies more generally, natural resource management policies can have significant impacts on migration and, in turn, migration can impact the environment in both rural and urban areas. Successfully implemented policies on land rehabilitation, or sustainable management of forests and water courses can slow outmigration if they enable the resource in question to support livelihoods. Conversely, the designation of certain zones as “protected zones” can lead to migration if this affects livelihoods negatively, for instance for pastoralists or fishermen. While environmental policies are often intricately linked with other policies, they often fail to adequately address migration-related issues.

Policy Approaches
Recommendations for improved coherence between human mobility, environmental and climate change policy domains

As put forth in the recommendations of the Task Force on Displacement that were submitted by the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage at COP24 in 2018:

  • Consider the adoption of specialized legislation ensuring an effective coordination among the actors dealing with human mobility and climate change policy areas, defining roles and responsibilities, clarifying rights and duties of individuals and communities and putting in place effective accountability mechanisms.
  • Support and facilitate partnership building with a focus on data and evidence to support the inclusion of human mobility issues in climate change policies and vice versa.
  • Consider human mobility implications in the development process of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), in order to ensure that adequate measures are integrated within the NDCs in the areas of adaptation to climate change as well as loss and damage due to climate change.
  • Ensure that existing commitments regarding human mobility in national climate change policies are reported upon and that updates on implementation are communicated regularly in National Communications (NCs).
    …
  • Ensure that all national policies, plans, strategies, and legal frameworks related to human mobility in the context of climate change, disasters and environmental degradation are coherent at the national level, and accompanied by solid implementation, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms as well as multi-year funding.
  • Ensure that the potential benefits of migration are analyzed and included, whenever relevant, in long-term national adaptation policies, plans or strategies and that the positive contributions of migrants are recognized and supported. …
  • Consider revising national strategies on human mobility and climate change in connection to the international global policy commitments made in the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.
Source

Directly taken from Mapping human mobility and climate change in relevant national policies and institutional frameworks (IOM, 2018a).

Disaster risk reduction and humanitarian policies

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is an established approach to identify, assess and reduce the risk of disaster. It aims to avoid or to limit the adverse impacts of hazards (UNDRR, 2009). The extent to which a natural hazard triggers displacement—and the duration of the displacement and ability to recover—corresponds, in part, with the extent to which mobility dimensions are incorporated and addressed throughout planning and implementation of DRR policies. DRR is multisectoral, comprised of initiatives linked to disaster management, sustainable development, climate change adaptation and humanitarian action.

The disaster risk reduction and humanitarian assistance policy domains link up with environmental migration principally via the displacement caused by disasters. For example, temporary labour migration of a household member is commonly used as a pre-emptive income diversification strategy in areas subject to recurrent disaster risk. Furthermore, following initial displacement, temporary migration may provide a vital means to obtain income or humanitarian assistance such as shelter. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, discussed earlier, recognizes the multiple and complex links connecting DRR and humanitarian policies with environmental migration.

To Go Further

Laws, policies and national DRR strategies guide States in putting in place measures that prevent disasters or mitigate their impact. DRR and development policies should aim to reduce the risk of displacement, without posing restrictions on mobility that may expose the affected populations to further risks. To be effective, these frameworks need to ensure that pathways exist for mobility as a coping strategy, that they are tailored to the realities on the ground and based on solid evidence (IDMC, 2015; see also more on pathways by Facilitating internal mobility and International migration in Managing environmental migration). Multi-hazard risk assessments support the design of effective interventions and are instrumental to well-planned efforts to reduce risk, ensuring that the interventions do not give rise to new risks or shift them elsewhere (White et al., 2004). 

Laws, policies, strategic planning and assessments should factor in the population’s existing and potential vulnerabilities as well as capacities and coping mechanisms (IDMC, 2017). Individuals and population groups have different levels of vulnerability and exposure to hazards, due to different physical, financial and social features, their location, and so forth. For instance, minors are generally exposed to more risks when moving alone, so keeping families together should be one component to consider when planning.

Risk assessments account for specific conditions that may lead to vulnerabilities. For instance, different groups of people such as women, children, people with disabilities, the elderly and other groups on account of race, ethnicity, language proficiency, gender identity or sexual orientation among others may have specific vulnerabilities in certain situations. International migrants are a group that may also have unique vulnerabilities in the event of disaster or a hazardous event. They may have limited social networks and face isolation, may not be aware of local support systems or have difficulty understanding – due to language issues – warnings, instructions and access points for support. They may even have had their travel documents confiscated or have restrictions imposed upon their mobility.

Good Practice
Hazard risk assessment

In Myanmar, participatory multi-hazard risk assessments, which involved the Government, community-based organizations, civil society organizations and vulnerable communities, combined science, technology and the use of local indigenous knowledge to provide more reliable findings on the local risk context. Using geographical information system software to develop and analyse multi-hazard risks, the project presented key findings in workshops for validation against local knowledge. This led to the introduction of a set of township-level multi-hazard risk maps, which provided the Government and communities with an improved ability to prepare for disasters as well as develop infrastructure projects to minimize risk. These maps are now an integral part of the improved township disaster management plans.

Source

IOM, 2017b.

To Go Further
Improving coherence between human mobility and disaster risk reduction domains

In the context of disasters, including those triggered by environmental factors, as per the UNDRR Guidelines on Disaster Displacement (2019), States are encouraged to:

  • Consider disaster displacement and conduct multi-hazard risk assessments to help determine the nature and extent of disaster risk;
  • Take into account the population’s existing and potential vulnerabilities as well as capacities and coping mechanisms;
  • Designate institutional leadership, authority and budgetary allocations as required;
  • Be aligned with domestic, regional and international legal instruments relevant to disaster displacement, including the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement;
  • Mandate collaboration across government ministries with clear designations for provisions addressing displacement;
  • Ensure that policy frameworks do not inhibit mobility and that they contain pathways for mobility as a coping strategy.
Development policies

The challenges posed by climate change for development are increasingly well understood. The numerous references to migration and climate change and disasters in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) demonstrate the increasing awareness of the need for joined-up thinking on these issues. However, this has received limited attention, particularly in regard to internal migration dynamics in low- and middle-income countries.

The environment–migration–development nexus encompass a wide range of issues. These include the impact of recurrent disasters on gross domestic product (GDP) or the positive impact migration has on development. One of the key issues relates to how pressures on the productivity of livelihoods linked to climate change and disasters exacerbate development challenges in rural areas, and how this drives migration, particularly to urban areas. The impacts of changing rainfall patterns on agricultural productivity and, by extension, on food security, are an example of such pressures. In turn, environmental migration into urban areas often exacerbates existing development challenges (further details on Facilitating internal mobility in Managing environmental migration).

Despite these challenges, it is also worth keeping in mind that migrants often serve as a valuable resource to a city’s life. Their presence drives the demand for goods and services and has the potential to expand the local labour market and economic activity by multiplying the available human capital. They can also enrich a city’s cultural life and foster innovation and intellectual vitality.

Policy Approaches
Improving coherence between the human mobility, environment and development policy domains
  • Mainstream migration into national and local development plans, and ensure environmental migration is included within the mainstreaming exercise.
  • Ensure that mainstreaming includes internal as well as international environmental migration.
  • Identify and provide information and support for incoming migrants to avoid unplanned establishment of informal settlements in ecological buffer zones, thereby protecting the city from environmental stressors.
  • Provide alternatives for relocation when restricting urban settlement expansion next to high-risk areas.
Key messages
  • Environmental migration is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that cuts across different policy areas, including but not limited to migration, development, climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, environment and humanitarian assistance.
  • Policy domains tend to exist alongside each other but bridges are increasingly being built across policy areas, such as the links between migration and development, or the links between human mobility and climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction.
  • Integration of disaster displacement, migration and planned relocation into relevant policies is advancing, notably as regards climate change adaptation policies and strategies.
  • The coherence challenge posed by environmental migration remains substantial. Much still needs to be done to bring together stakeholders from different policy areas and close the “coherence gap”.
  • One way to start closing the policy “coherence gap” on environmental migration would be through national and regional policy dialogue processes and coordination structures specifically addressing the human mobility implications of disasters and environmental and climate change.
PreviousManaging environmental migration NextEnvironment, climate change and reintegration