Migration as Adaptation?

There are generally three theories circulating with regards to the relationship between climate change and migration:

1. Migration as a threat. Do climate migrants have a destabilising effect on society?
2. A pending humanitarian crisis. How will we meet the needs of such vast influxes of people
3. Migration as adaptation. Can migration be considered a legitimate technique to adapt to climate change?

I have focussed primarily on the first two points of discussion, however, the final most definitely needs to be considered. This idea that mobility can be used as a method of adaptation to global environmental change is by no means a new one; early human populations are thought to have been partially guided by climatic changes. For example, the first migrations of hominin into Europe are said to have coincided with a transition to more favourably temperate conditions on the continent.

This relationship has however also been discussed with regards to more recent population displacement.  Black et al. (2011) note that there are already approximately 210 million international, and 740 million internal migrants. These movements are initiated by no single driver, but are instead the result of a complex interplay of factors, which are well summarised in the diagram below. However, they do go on to say that in the coming decades the proportion of relative influences of each of these drivers will change, with the role of environmental factors becoming even more prominent than they are now. One example of adaptive migration discussed is Bangladesh, where migration into city centres has become a regular coping mechanism to escape the effects of flooding. A study found that 16% of households affected by erosion, and 22% by tidal surge floods, moved into urban areas in 2008.  

Additionally, Mcleman and Hunter (2010) discuss previous examples where migration as adaptation may have been evident in response to Hurricane events:

Hurricane Mitch (1988): This hurricane struck central America, predominantly Honduras, displacing 2 million people. In the aftermath there was an increase in the demand for people accessing the US labour markets. Temporary Protection Status was granted to 150,000 migrants, who were given a limited term visa. This was a form of temporary migration which acted to reduce the vulnerability of those involved.  

Hurricane Katrina (2005): Following the hurricane, approximately 150,000 migrants ended up settling in Houston. The return rate to New Orleans was highly correlated to those who had a home or high income, with those who settled in Houston also tended to be young and unmarried. The experience of Vietnamese people however was also found to be very different; they had many resources supplied to them from the rest of the Vietnamese population, which acted as an informal insurance policy.

Thus, these few examples suggest that in the face of environmental change, migration may offer people an opportunity to diversify their income and build resilience. However, for it to be an effective method of adaptation, the necessary channels for voluntary migration need to be made available. There is a concern that if migrants are always thought of as being ‘victims’ it may limit their capacity to adapt, particularly in the absence of adequate policy. It can also only become an effective method with the right funding, and there are questions over how this can be generated. Catastrophe bonds and risk finance may have a very important role to play in the coming years, as may climate change adaptation funds. It will be interesting to see if any of the annual $100 billion budget that was agreed upon at COP21, is targeted towards this area.