Voluntary mobility to adapt to changing climate: A pathway to achieving SDGs

While the impacts of climate change affect all populations across the world, some are more at risk than others based on their geographical and socioeconomic positioning. Drawing on examples of climate change-led mobility from other countries, Sampurna Sarkar discusses how States can ensure the safety and well-being of at-risk populations. She recommends a way forward for the Indian government to enable immobile, temporarily mobile, and displaced populations to transition to a state of voluntary mobility, while also conducting eco-restoration of origin locations.

Human-induced climate change is a reality today. Greenhouse gas emissions, and the consequent release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, combined with deforestation, are some of the significant factors contributing to global warming and climate change. Climate change, in turn, contributes to the rise in sea levels, severe storms and increased incidences of droughts.

The UN FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) in 2020 reported that, since 1990, almost 420 million hectares (ha.) of forest have been lost across the world. On a slightly more optimistic note, during the period 2015-2020, the annual rate of deforestation has reduced to 10 million ha., from its previous record of 12 million ha. between 2010 and 2015. This small, but relevant, improvement can be attributed to the global efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 15 (Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss). However, the damage caused by climate change is already visible and is expected to intensify in the future. The world has recorded a significant cost of US$2.8 trillion as climate change-associated loss and damage during 2000-2019 (Newman and Noy 2023). Yet, global warming continues and average temperatures have been increasing at 0.2°C per decade since 1982 (Lindsey and Dahlman 2024).

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that with 1.5°C of global warming, there will be a likelihood of a 10% increase in high-intensity tropical cyclones and a 1.6 times higher risk of populations experiencing extreme heat. Rising sea levels can contribute to permanent inundation, saltwater intrusion, shoreline erosion, reduced arable land, degraded coastal systems, and damage or destruction of homes, livelihoods and infrastructure, thereby affecting the habitability of a place.

While the impacts of climate change affect all populations across the world, some are more at risk than others. For instance, those living in low-elevation coastal zones (LECZ) and floodplains are more prone to cyclones and storms positioned 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 such at-risk areas.

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. Involuntary mobility, or displacement, 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 (de Haas 2021). Such incongruence between aspirations and reality can be attributed to people’s limited capital (social, human, and financial). India, between 2008 and 2023, recorded the internal displacement of 56.5 million people due to slow- and rapid-onset weather events. While the movement of populations usually helps to make them physically safe, their movement against their aspirations compromises their well-being. This is further exacerbated in situations where their physical safety and socioeconomic development are not ensured in destination locations.

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, I believe that such initiatives should be facilitated by the State. 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.¹

The PALM scheme, like SWP, enables at-risk populations, like those from Solomon Islands, to undertake voluntary mobility and diversify income-earning opportunities (Dun et al. 2020). 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, too benefits through this scheme by plugging seasonal labour shortages in agriculture.

Lessons for the well-being of at-risk populations

While such temporary movement enables Solomon Islands’ populations to cater to their immediate needs, it does not facilitate physical safety and well-being across generations. Additionally, the temporary migrants are subjected to poor working conditions and underpayment in Australia (International Labour Organization, 2022). 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 (Coates et al. 2023). Thus, it becomes evident that under such temporary managed mobility conditions, the SDGs will not be fulfilled. Poor working conditions of migrants do not facilitate the fulfilment of SDG 8 – seeking to promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.

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) (Coates et al. 2023). There also exist strong preferences among host country communities to maintain ethnic homogeneity, which further results in xenophobia and rude and abusive behaviour towards migrants (UNSW Human Rights Clinic, 2015). Such discrimination persists despite the prevalence of laws against the same.

On the other hand, in Solomon Islands, the lack of State initiatives to facilitate the permanent movement of populations in the face of existing impacts of climate change and future climate risks, can hamper the achievement of the following goals: (i) SDG 1 – End poverty in all its forms everywhere; (ii) SDG 2 – End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture; (iii) SDG 8 – Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all; (iv) SDG 3 – Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages; and (v) SDG 4 – Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

As opposed to temporary managed mobility, certain States 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 (Entzinger and Scholten 2015). 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 (Ajibade et al. 2022). A top-down decision-making approach was taken to implement the retreat (Miller 2019). Additionally, research by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) 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 (gross domestic product) dropped to 12%, in comparison to 16% in 2003. The present implementation of retreat in the Mekong Delta does not facilitate the fulfilment of SDGs 1 and 8. 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 well-being.

The cases of retreat from the Solomon Islands and the Mekong Delta underline certain key lessons:

Permanent retreat of populations from at-risk areas is integral to their safety and well-being, and that of their future generations – and to the fulfilment of SDGs.
Unless a participatory planning approach is adopted by the State, managed retreat interventions will not be able to fulfil the aspirations of citizens and contribute to their well-being and the achievement of SDGs.
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. A cooperative partnership can ensure the safety and well-being of at-risk populations and continued economic growth in destination countries. The fulfilment of populations’ needs may help to counter the anti-immigration policies and stances in host countries.
A yearly evaluation should be undertaken to ensure that the host State facilitates the socioeconomic well-being 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 well-being of at-risk populations

Like mobility, immobility is also a reality in the face of the impacts of climate change. Immobility too can be further bifurcated 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. For instance, individuals belonging to the African-American community did not possess adequate capital and were thus, forced to stay put in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 (Zickgraf 2021). The lack of means or access to appropriate administrative infrastructure, State regulations and restrictions around mobility, 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, on the other hand, is the immobility of populations by choice, despite possession of capital, in the face of the impacts of climate change. Unlike involuntary immobility (and involuntary mobility), there is no internal conflict within individuals. Such a form of immobility arises due to reasons like the desire to maintain connections to ancestors, place-based knowledge and attachments to land, and a 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.

Both forms of immobility do not contribute to the physical safety of at-risk populations and their socioeconomic development and well-being. The continued presence of populations in at-risk areas and inadequate efforts of the government to alter their status of immobility can hamper the achievement of SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8.

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, the responsibility to ensure the well-being of all citizens lies primarily with the State.

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 India in 2023. The government would then need to conduct a survey, among a clustered sample², 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 the 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 a participatory, socioeconomic development-oriented and managed retreat, and the consequent eco-restoration of such locations, where relevant, that can help India get one step closer to achieving the SDGs.

A version of this article is published in collaboration with the IGC blog.

The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of the I4I Editorial Board.

Notes:

Managed circular, temporary mobility of populations can be understood as the purposeful and coordinated temporary, cyclical movement of populations between origin and destination areas. Such retreats are usually organised, implemented and regulated by governing bodies within States or through partnerships between States.
Cluster sampling, a sampling technique, involves dividing a population into smaller groups (clusters), and then randomly selecting some of these clusters as samples. To facilitate the accurate representation of populations, random selection is done.