Voluntary mobility to adapt to climate change

Climate change affects everyone across the world, but some are more at risk than others. People living in low-elevation coastal zones (LECZ) and floodplains are more prone to cyclones and storms than populations residing in higher regions. Similarly, populations involved in natural resource-based livelihoods and their positioning within existing socioeconomic stratifications make them more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The current effects of the impacts of climate change and future climate risks have given rise to different forms of (im)mobility among populations across at-risk areas. 

Voluntary and involuntary climate change-led mobility 

I use the term ‘mobility’ to indicate both the ability to move as well as the actual movement of individuals and communities from one place to another. 

Voluntary mobility can be understood as a condition wherein people’s aspirations for movement are compatible with their realities of movement. It can be understood as the most desirable form of movement that facilitates both the safety and wellbeing of populations. Involuntary mobility, or displacement, on the other hand, refers to the condition of forced movement of populations away from their at-risk areas of origin. Based on the aspirations-capabilities framework, such a form of mobility can be understood as people’s reality of movement despite their aspirations to remain in their place of origin. Such incongruence between aspirations and reality can be attributed to people’s limited capital (social, human, and financial). 

India recorded the internal displacement of 56.5 million people due to slow- and rapid-onset weather events in 2008-2023. While the movement of populations usually helps to make them physically safe, their movement against their aspirations compromises their wellbeing. This is further exacerbated in situations where their physical safety and socioeconomic development are not ensured in destination locations. 

Wellbeing benefits and costs of temporary managed mobility: insights from Solomon Islands and Australia 

The mobility of populations occurs either in the absence of any governmental initiatives or due to facilitative governmental actions. Since movement away from at-risk locations represents opportunities to contribute to both the physical safety of at-risk populations and their socioeconomic wellbeing, governments could support such initiatives. 

International cooperation among countries to facilitate such movement is beneficial for both origin and destination countries. For instance, the Australian Seasonal Worker Programme (SWP), now merged into the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) Scheme, facilitated the managed circular, temporary mobility of willing populations from nine Pacific countries and Timor-Leste. 

The PALM scheme, like SWP, enables at-risk populations, like those from Solomon Islands, to undertake voluntary mobility and diversify income-earning opportunities. The engagement of at-risk populations in livelihoods like freshwater agriculture and fishing at places of origin makes them vulnerable to extreme rainfall and cyclones. Income-earning opportunities in destination regions enable them to engage in disaster recovery and poverty alleviation, gain enhanced access to education and adopt climate change adaptation measures, like climate-proofing their houses in places of origin. The host country, Australia, also benefits through this scheme by plugging seasonal labour shortages in agriculture. 

While such temporary movement enables Solomon Islands’ populations to cater to their immediate needs, it does not facilitate physical safety and wellbeing across generations. Additionally, the temporary migrants are subjected to poor working conditions and underpayment in Australia. For instance, a survey in 2016 revealed that one-third of more than 4,000 temporary labour migrants received only about half the minimum pay to which they were entitled. Thus, it becomes evident that under such temporary managed mobility conditions do not offer a complete and lasting solution. 

Migrants also face discrimination and exploitation in the host countries. For instance, the existing visa regulations and facilities associated with visas lead to more hardships for temporary migrants. Most temporary work visa holders, like populations from the Pacific Islands, are not eligible for health insurance or income support payments (otherwise provided to Australian low-income earners). There also exist strong preferences among host country communities to maintain ethnic homogeneity, which further results in xenophobia. It is expressed in the form of rude and abusive behaviour towards migrants. Such discrimination persists despite the prevalence of laws against the same. 

Permanent managed retreats also need to consider socioeconomic development to ensure wellbeing: insights from Mekong Delta in Vietnam

As opposed to temporary managed mobility, some governments have facilitated the permanent managed retreat of at-risk populations, like those situated in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Permanent retreat from at-risk locations provides opportunities for the physical safety of populations. Declared a potential hotspot for climate-related vulnerabilities by the IPCC, the Delta witnessed the relocation of over 90,000 households between 2009 and 2013. The local inhabitants were resettled in cluster settlements, in the built-up areas along dykes, at a distance from their areas of origin. The government provided low-interest loans to retreating populations and small one-off payments to cope with the disruptions caused in local inhabitants’ lives. 

Despite such efforts, the initiative can be classified under the techno-managerial category of retreat. A top-down decision-making approach was taken to implement the retreat.  Additionally, research also revealed that post-resettlement, the government did not address the problems of increased cost of living, lack of income-generating opportunities and higher debt. The 2023 report of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) further revealed that post-resettlement, the Mekong Delta’s contribution to Vietnam’s GDP dropped to 12%, in comparison to 16% in 2003. Thus, Mekong Delta’s population retreat presents evidence that despite managed retreat providing physical safety, the top-down nature of implementation and inadequate attention given to the socioeconomic development of populations can hamper their wellbeing.

Lessons from Solomon Islands and Vietnam

The cases of retreat from the Solomon Islands and the Mekong Delta, in Vietnam, underline some key lessons: 

• Permanent retreat of populations from at-risk areas is integral to their safety and well-being, and that of their future generations.
• Unless a participatory planning approach is adopted by the government, managed retreat interventions will not be able to fulfil the aspirations of citizens and contribute to their wellbeing. 
• In the case of managed retreat interventions across international borders, more partnerships need to be developed, ideally between at-risk countries and countries experiencing or expecting population decline. The cooperative partnership can ensure the safety and wellbeing of at-risk populations and continued economic growth in destination countries. The fulfilment of needs may help to counter the anti-immigration policies and stances in host countries. 
• A yearly evaluation could be undertaken to ensure that the host government facilitates the socioeconomic wellbeing of retreating populations. The evaluation mechanisms can be designed and implemented by international organisations like the International Labour Organization (ILO) with assistance from mobility-focused, regional development sector organisations. 

Climate change-led immobility and the compromised wellbeing of at-risk populations

Immobility can be divided into the voluntary and involuntary categories. Involuntary immobility can be understood as individuals’ reality of remaining in at-risk locations despite their aspirations to move. They are forced to stay in at-risk areas due to their poor socioeconomic conditions and existing inequalities. The lack of means or access to appropriate administrative infrastructure, government regulations and restrictions around mobility, state of unlawfulness and absence of policies and laws that facilitate inhabitants’ movement away from at-risk areas, also contribute to the position of involuntary immobility. 

Voluntary immobility refers to the immobility of populations, by choice, in the face of the impacts of climate change, despite possession of capital. Unlike involuntary immobility (and involuntary mobility), there is no internal conflict within individuals. Such a form of immobility arises due to reasons like desire to maintain connections to ancestors, place-based knowledge and attachments to land, and prerogative to sustain indigenous customs, cultural and ancestral values and local practices for both present and future generations. For instance, the SWP workers from the Solomon Islands did not wish to permanently move away from their homes despite experiencing the effects of climate change. 

A route to voluntary mobility of at-risk populations

In the face of the present and future loss of habitability in at-risk locations, the permanent, voluntary mobility of populations is a must. In the case of India, like in other countries as well, the responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of all citizens lies primarily with the government. 

To facilitate at-risk population’s voluntary mobility, the government must identify their present status of (im)mobility. Such knowledge will enable the government to further explore and identify the factors that can enable immobile, temporarily mobile, and displaced populations to transition to a status of voluntary mobility. 

As a first step, the government needs to engage in a detailed, scientific exercise to identify the at-risk locations, as was done in the case of flood-affected areas in the country. The government would then need to conduct a survey among a clustered sample, to learn about their present status of (im)mobility, reasons for their (im)mobility status and the factors that can facilitate the voluntary mobility of at-risk populations. Based on such an exercise, the government can design managed retreat plans. 

The permanent voluntary mobility of populations can also facilitate eco-restoration of those areas and, thus, contribute to climate change mitigation. For instance, the inhabitants of Indian Sundarbans, a cluster of low-lying islands positioned at the mouth of the Bay of Bengal, are no strangers to embankment breaches, saline water intrusion, and high-intensity weather events. The future predictions of climate change are expected to further increase their difficulties. Thus, concerted initiatives of the government to facilitate the managed retreat of populations away from the Sundarbans can also enable them to bring back mangroves and restore the habitat. 

It is the implementation of participatory, socioeconomic development-oriented managed retreat and the consequent eco-restoration of such locations, where relevant, that can help countries get one step closer to protecting its at-risk population from the impacts of climate change.

A version of this article is published in collaboration with Ideas for India.