COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Climate change, environmental degradation, and migration Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change
Date: 2013-04-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community migration, adaptation to climate change, common strategy, degradation of the environment, joint implementation, migratory movement, public awareness campaign, transfer of population

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 16.4.2013  
SWD(2013) 138 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Climate change, environmental degradation, and migration 

Accompanying the document 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change 

{COM(2013) 216 final} 
{SWD(2013) 131 final} 
{SWD(2013) 132 final} 
{SWD(2013) 133 final} 
{SWD(2013) 134 final} 
{SWD(2013) 135 final} 
{SWD(2013) 136 final} 
{SWD(2013) 137 final} 
{SWD(2013) 139 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Climate change, environmental degradation, and migration 

Accompanying the document 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

3. 

4. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Focus and Thematic Scope of the Paper ...................................................................... 3 

The state of the reflection at international level........................................................... 4 

The EU Context............................................................................................................ 6 

Understanding migration in the context of environmental change .............................. 7 

Environmental change as a driver of migration ........................................................... 7 

Vulnerable areas and possible migration outcomes ..................................................... 8 

Improving the knowledge base .................................................................................. 12 

Terminology............................................................................................................... 14 

Policy responses ......................................................................................................... 15 

4.1. 

Existing legal framework ........................................................................................... 16 

4.1.1. 

International human rights law................................................................................... 16 

4.1.2.  Environmental law ..................................................................................................... 16 

4.1.3. 

International refugee law............................................................................................ 17 

4.1.4.  Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement ............................................................ 17 

4.1.5.  Complementary forms of protection .......................................................................... 18 

4.1.6.  Temporary protection................................................................................................. 19 

4.1.7.  Regional Free movement agreements ........................................................................ 20 

4.1.8.  Towards a coherent legal framework for environmentally induced migrants ........... 20 

4.2. 

Adaptation as a Means to Reduce Displacement ....................................................... 21 

4.2.1. 

Increasing resilience to natural hazards ..................................................................... 22 

4.2.2. 

Increasing resilience to climate change and environmental degradation................... 23 

4.3. 

Responding to the challenges and opportunities posed by migration in the context of 
environmental degradation and climate change......................................................... 25 

4.3.1. 

Improving emergency responses................................................................................ 25 

4.3.2.  Promoting and facilitating migration as an adaptation strategy................................. 26 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
4.3.3.  Providing durable solutions, including planning for relocation as a last resort solution
.................................................................................................................................... 29 

4.3.4.  Addressing the needs of receiving areas and hosting communities in EU partner 

countries ..................................................................................................................... 32 

5. 

6. 

Financial aspects ........................................................................................................ 33 

Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................ 34 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Focus and Thematic Scope of the Paper 

Environmental  factors  have  always  acted  as  a  driver  of  human  mobility.  However,  with 
emerging awareness of the rate and magnitude of climate change, interest in the question of 
how environmental change is likely to affect population movements in the future has grown 
significantly  over  the  last  decade.  And  though  debate  between  researchers  and  within  the 
policy  world  is  continuing,  there  is  growing  evidence  that  climate  change,  climate-induced 
events and environmental disruptions are likely to assume greater importance in influencing 
migration, particularly within the developing world.  

This  Staff  Working  Paper  aims  to  provide  an  overview  of  the  research  and  data  currently 
available  on  the  inter-linkages  between  migration,  environmental  degradation  and  climate 
change. It also provides an overview of the many initiatives of relevance for the topic which 
are already being taken by the EU in various policy fields, and analyses on-going debates on 
policy  responses  at  EU  and  international  level.  The  paper  is  produced  as  a  response  to  a 
request made by the European Council to the Commission in the Stockholm Programme for 
'an analysis of the effects of climate change on international migration, including its potential 
effects  on  immigration  to  the  European  Union’1.  However,  given  the  strong  evidence  that 
most migration which is primarily driven by environmental change is likely to occur within 
the Global South, much of the analysis of the paper and many of its recommendations are of 
specific relevance for EU policies with an external focus, including on development, foreign 
policy and humanitarian aid. 

The  specific  focus  of  this  paper  is  on  human  mobility  due  to  climate  related  disasters  and 
environmental degradation, including such caused by climate change2 (e.g. land degradation, 
drought, desertification, rising sea level or climate induced disasters such as drought, floods, 
extreme  weather  events,  winter  storms  and  heat  waves)  3.  At  present,  most  environmental 
disasters or degradation can be exacerbated by (if not certainly attributed to) climate change4. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Council of the European Union: The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and 
protecting the citizens, 2009, Doc 17024/09 
‘Climate  change’  means  shifts  in  average  climatic  parameters  and/or  in  the  magnitude  of  climate 
variability  that  are  observed  and  persist  over  extended  periods  of  time  (typically  decades  or  longer). 
Like  climate  variability,  it  can  be  induced  by  both  natural  and  anthropogenic  factors.  In  this  paper, 
‘climate change’ is used to mean long-term changes in climate directly and indirectly caused by human 
activities combined with those originating from natural climate evolution and variability. This is in line 
with the definition provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 
Climate  change  has been  a driving  force  for  some  more  extreme  and more frequent natural  disasters. 
Therefore, dealing with climate change separately from other environmental aspects makes little sense 
from  a  theoretical  or  practical  point  of  view.  A  similar  line  has  been  followed  by  the  EU  when 
addressing other issues, such as environmental integration in development cooperation. 
For  example,  Climate  change  —  Human  Impact  Report.  The  Anatomy  of  a  Silent  Crisis,  Global 
Humanitarian Forum,  Geneva,  June  2009, p. 81:  ‘Most  low-elevation  territory  is  reclaimed  through  a 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
As a result, seeking to isolate climate change as the sole driver of migration or displacement 
would  complicate  identification  of  the  persons  affected.  Though  the  primary  focus  of  the 
paper is on international migration, internal migration trends within the developing world are 
also  considered,  as  research  suggests  that  a  significant  proportion  of  migration  driven  by 
environmental factors will occur within national borders.  

This paper does not address the impact of environmental degradation and climate change on 
intra-EU movements, which are regulated by different legal bases, policies and instruments. 
Nor  does  it  address  displacement  caused  by  industrial  accidents,  conflicts  or  development 
projects (including designation of protected areas). It will not address displacements resulting 
from  earthquakes,  tsunamis  or  volcanic  eruptions,  although  they  might  have  similar 
consequences  with  regard  to  temporary  and  permanent  displacement.  Such  cases  trigger 
specific  and  relatively  well  established  responses  that  differ  to  some  extent  from  those 
required  to  address  migration  and  displacement  caused  by  climate  change,  climate-related 
disasters  and  environmental  degradation.  Nevertheless,  they  can  serve  as  a  source  of 
inspiration for designing responses to these movements. 

This Staff Working Paper will first provide a brief summary of major initiatives of relevance 
for  environmental  change  and  migration  at  international  and  EU  level.  Section  2  continues 
with  an  overview  of  the  main  research  findings  on  the  likely  impact  of  climate  change  on 
future  migration  trends,  and  the  broader  interrelations  between  migration  and  adaptation 
strategies.  Section  3  briefly  acknowledges  the  complexity  of  terminology.  Section  4  then 
looks at policy responses which are currently being taken at EU and international level, and 
formulates  preliminary  recommendations  for  future  action.  The  paper  then  concludes  with 
considerations on future funding. 

1.2. 

The state of the reflection at international level 

In  the  past  few  years  a  number  of  stakeholders,  including  UN  bodies  and  agencies, 
governments,  international  organisations  and  NGOs  have  been  reflecting  on  how  to  adjust 
their humanitarian and development cooperation and/or their adaptation strategies in light of 
the link between migration and climate change.  

The  latest  assessment  report  by  the  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (IPCC), 
presented in 2007, highlighted that the increases in drought, intense tropical cyclone activity 
and  extremely  high  sea  levels  are  likely  to  lead  to  increased  population  movements5.  In 
addition, the recent Special Report 'Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to 
Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) highlights the link between climate change and 
migration.6  Given  the  growing  importance  of  this  issue,  the  next  assessment  report  (to  be 
completed  in  2014)  will  include  for  the  first  time  a  chapter  dedicated  to  the  link  between 
climate change and security that will examine the ability of States to address climate change, 
conflict and migration. 

combination  of  sea-level  rise  and  ordinary  geological  subsidence,  although  climate  change  greatly 
accelerates this process. So if a cyclone hits, it would be impossible to say if one particular individual is 
a climate-displaced person or not’. 
Climate  Change  2007  –  Synthesis  report,  Contribution  of  Working  Groups  I,  II  and  III  to  the  Fourth 
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Core Writing Team, Pachauri, 
R.K.  and  Reisinger,  A.  (Eds.)  IPCC,  Geneva,  Switzerland.,  pp  104,  p.  53.  Already  in  1990,  the 
Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (IPCC)  noted  that  "the  greatest  single  impact  of  climate 
change might be on human migration", with millions of people displaced by shoreline erosion, coastal 
flooding  and  agricultural  disruption;  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (IPCC),  First 
Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990, p. 20. 
IPCC,  2012:  Managing  the  Risks  of  Extreme  Events  and  Disasters  to  Advance  Climate  Change 
Adaptation, A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the IPCC 

5 

6 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) has long been advocating in various fora 
for actions to address environmentally-induced migration7. On 30 November 2012, the IOM 
Council resolution on the Migration Crisis Operational Framework was adopted to reinforce 
IOM's  role  in  dealing  with  migration-related  aspects  of  conflict  or  natural  disaster-induced 
displacement. Within the Inter-Agency Standing Committee framework (IASC), an informal 
group  on  migration,  displacement  and  climate  change  has  been  set  up8.  Given  its  particular 
refugee  protection  mandate,  the  UN  Refugees  Agency  (UNHCR)  is  the  lead  agency  for  the 
Humanitarian Protection Cluster in emergencies.  In  June  2011,  the  UN  High  Commissioner 
for Refugees António Guterres described the issue as 'the defining challenge of our times', and 
urged countries to adopt new measures to cope with climate-induced displacement within and 
across borders9. 

In  March  2009,  the  UN  Human  Rights  Council  adopted  Resolution  10/4  which  stated  that 
climate change-related impacts have a range of implications, both direct and indirect, for the 
effective enjoyment of human rights. It also stressed that the effects of climate change will be 
felt  most  acutely  by  those  segments  of  the  population  who  are  already  in  a  vulnerable 
situation  and  affirmed  that  human  rights  obligations  and  commitments  have  the  potential  to 
inform  and  strengthen  international  and  national  policy-making  in  the  area  of  climate 
change10. 

Migration is also mentioned in the Cancun Agreements reached at the 16th Conference of the 
Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 
in 2010 that invite all Parties to take 'measures to enhance understanding, coordination and 
cooperation  with  regard  to  climate  change  induced  displacement,  migration  and  planned 
relocation'11. In addition, the decision on loss and damage to the adverse impacts of climate 
change  at  COP  1812  also  addresses  this  issue  when  acknowledging  the  'further  work  to 
advance  the  understanding  of  and  expertise  on  loss  and  damage,  which  includes,  …,  How 
impacts  of  climate  change  are  affecting  patterns  of  migration,  displacement  and  human 
mobility'. 

Climate change is also increasingly integrated in the global migration dialogue, in particular 
in  the  Global  Forum  for  Migration  and  Development  (GFMD),  which  held  a  specific 
roundtable  on  this  topic  during  its  2010  meeting  in  Mexico13.  Among  its  main 
recommendations, the GFMD has been calling for improvement of data collection processes 
and  exchanges  of  analyses  to  strengthen  the  dialogue  at  all  levels  on  the  interconnections 
between  climate  change,  migration  and  development,  and  to  'recognize  the  need  for  all 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 
13 

It 

info 

implements 

activities.  More 

a  number  of  operational 

IOM  undertakes  extensive  research  on  the  nexus  between  climate  change,  the  environment  and 
migration. 
at: 
also 
http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/pid/2068  
The  IOM  and  the  UNHCR  are  the  co-chairs.  Other  agencies  participating  include  the  NRC/IDMC, 
UNEP, UNU-EHS, WFP, WHO, OHCHR, IFRC, OCHA, UNDP, IASC Secretariat, UNICEF, UNFPA, 
UNHABITAT.  In  parallel,  an  informal  'Climate  change,  Environment  and  Migration  Alliance' 
(CCEMA), has been put in place to bring together global stakeholders, including UN agencies, research 
institutions and the private sector. For further information see: http://www.ccema-portal.org/ 
Speech at the Nansen Conference on Climate Change and Displacement in the 21st Century convened 
by the Norwegian Government, 6-7 June 2011, Oslo. 
Human Rights Council, Resolution 10/4 on Human Rights and Climate Change, Adopted without a vote 
at 
at 
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_10_4.pdf  
The  Cancun  Agreements:  Outcome  of  the  work  of  the  Ad  Hoc  Working  Group  on  Long-term 
Cooperative  Action  under  the  Convention,  1/CP.16,  chapter  on  'Enhanced  action  on  adaptation', 
paragraph 14 (f). 
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/cop18/eng/l04r01.pdf 
http://www.gfmd.org/en/recommendations/mexico-2010.html. 

available 

Meeting, 

March 

2009, 

41st 

the 

25 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
concerned  stakeholders  to  begin  discussions  on  an  appropriate  legal  and  institutional 
framework to address these important issues, including in the context of the UNFCCC'. At the 
2012  GFMD,  the  roundtable  on  “Addressing  South-South  Migration  and  Development 
Policies” also covered the issue of environmentally-induced migration. 

1.3. 

The EU Context 

The  EU  is  gradually  moving  from  supporting  research  to  also  identifying  policies  and 
strategies for responding to the impact of environmental change on migration.  

The  European  Parliament  was  the  first  institution  to  mention  this  topic  in  its  resolution  on 
”The Environment, Security and Foreign Policy” passed on January 199914. In the past years, 
MEPs  have  organised  several  seminars  on  this  subject15.  In  2011,  at  the  request  of  the 
Committee  on  Civil  Liberties,  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  the  International  Centre  for 
Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) has produced a study on legal and policy responses 
to environmentally induced migration16. 

The  European  Commission  has  been  one  of  the  first  to  sponsor  multi-country  comparative 
research  on  environmental  change  and  different  kinds  of  human  mobility  worldwide,  the 
"Environmental Change and Forced Migration Scenarios" (EACH-FOR) project17. 

In  2008,  the  paper  on  'Climate  Change  and  International  Security'  prepared  by  the  High 
Representative and the European Commission drew attention to the fact that climate change 
could act as a 'threat-multiplier', exacerbating trends, tensions and instabilities which would 
already  have  an  influence  on  migration  patterns18.  The  Council  Conclusions  on  EU  Climate 
Diplomacy19 adopted in July 2011 highlighted that climate change is a global environmental 
and  development  challenge  with  significant  implications  related  to  security  and  migratory 
pressures. It also acknowledged the Joint Reflection Paper from the High Representative and 
the Commission 'Towards a renewed and strengthened European Union Climate Diplomacy', 

14 

15 

16 

17 
18 

19 

European Parliament, Resolution on The Environment, Security and Foreign Policy, passed on January 
29, 1999, A4-0005/99, JO C 128/92 of 7 May 1999. See also the EP resolution of 6 May 2010 on the 
White Paper 'Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action', INI/2009/2152. 
For example, a seminar on 'climate refugees' took place at the European Parliament on 11 June 2008, 
which  aimed  at  drawing  attention  to  environmentally  induced  migration  through  the  adoption  of  a 
declaration  that  invites  European  and  international  institutions  to  “organize  legal  protection  for  the 
victims  of  climate  disruptions  and  of  possible  displaced  persons  who  do  not  benefit  today  from  any 
recognition”.  In  June  2008,  at  the  Agora  on  climate  change  held  by  the  European  Parliament, 
representatives  of  European  civil  society  expressed  their  concern  over  environmental  migration.  The 
workshop  “Solidarity”  called  upon  European  institutions  to  develop  a  European  strategy  on  climate 
forced  migration  and  to  launch  a  debate  within  the  UN  on  the  status  of  climate  migrants  and  on  a 
protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on climate forced migration. 
On  2  March  2011,  the  S&D  group  hosted  a  seminar  entitled  "Climate  Refugees  -  A  New  Arena  for 
Human Rights”. Green Party MEPs have also organised a number of hearings on the climate change and 
migration. 
International  Centre  for  Migration  Policy  Development  (ICMPD):  “Climate  Refugees”  Legal  and 
policy  responses  to  environmentally  induced  migration,  Study  commissioned  by  the  European 
Parliament,  Directorate  General  for  internal  policies,  Policy  Department  C:  Citizens'  rights  and 
constitutional affairs, civil liberties, justice and home affairs, Brussels, 2011, PE 462.422 
More information at http://www.each-for.eu 
Joint  Paper  from  the  High  Representative  and  the  European  Commission  to  the  European  Council: 
Climate change and international security, S113/08, 14 March 2008. A background paper was prepared 
on the topic: Martin, S., Warner, K. (2010) 'Climate Change, Migration, and Development'. Paper for 
the  Global  Forum  on  Migration  and  Development,  Civil  Society  Days.  Presented  at  the  GFMD  in 
Puerto Viarte Mexico 8-9 November 2010 
Council Conclusions on EU Climate Diplomacy, 3106th Foreign Affairs Council Meeting, Brussels, 18 
July 2011. Joint Reflection Paper by the High Representative and the Commission 'Towards a renewed 
and strengthened European Union Climate Diplomacy', 9 July 2011 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
which sets out three strands for action on EU climate diplomacy: strengthening engagement 
with key partners, supporting developing countries and mitigating security risks. 

In  May  2012,  the  Council  of  the  EU  adopted  conclusions  on  the  EU  Global  Approach  to 
Migration  and  Mobility  in  which  it  'recognises  the  need  to  further  explore  the  linkages 
between  climate  change,  migration  and  development,  including  the  potential  impact  of 
climate change on migration and displacement'. 

Some Member States have also given attention to the topic. The Foresight Programme of the 
UK  Government  Office  for  Science,  for  example,  has  invested  significant  resources  into  a 
two-year  research  project,  exploring  global  patterns  and  impact  of  migration  arising  from 
environmental change and the challenges that could result from changing migration patterns 
over the next fifty years. This Staff Working Paper draws heavily on the final project report 
published in October 201120. 

In order to gather recent evidence and the latest thinking on the effects of climate change on 
migration  and  displacement  and  to  share  ideas  for  addressing  this  challenge,  particularly  at 
EU level, a consultation of experts on 'Climate Change and Migration' was organised by the 
European  Commission  on  6  May  2011.  It  brought  together  representatives  of  EU  Member 
States, partner countries, non-State actors and other stakeholders who provided valuable input 
for  this  paper.  Furthermore,  in  July  and  September  2012  respectively,  the  European 
Commission  organised  two  roundtables  (with  the  support  of  ICMPD  and  Foresight)  on  the 
specific topics of migration as a strategy of adaptation to climate change and the development 
impacts of forced and environmental migration. Conclusions of these events fed directly into 
this  paper.  In  addition,  the  Commission  funded  a  FP7  project  CLICO  working  on  climate 
change,  water  conflicts  and  human  security  in  the  Mediterranean,  Middle  East  and  Sahel 
(2010-2012).  CLICO  explored  whether  the  effects  of  climate  change  in  terms  of  water 
scarcity,  droughts  and  floods  in  the  region  present  a  threat  to  human  security,  not  least  by 
exacerbating social tensions and intra- and inter-state conflicts21. 

2. 

UNDERSTANDING MIGRATION IN THE CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 

2.1. 

Environmental change as a driver of migration 

Decisions  to  migrate  are  usually  the  result  of  multiple  considerations  that  reflect  a  complex 
combination  of  environmental,  economic,  social,  security  and  political  factors22.  Economic 
and social factors are in most cases considered both by social scientists and migrants to be the 
most important drivers of migration.23  

Early  analyses  of  the  impact  of  climate  change  and  migration  were  based  on  an  overly 
deterministic understanding of the relationship between the risk of environmental degradation 
faced  by  populations  and  the  likelihood  that  they  would  migrate.  In  contrast,  more  recent 
research  such  as  the  UK  government's  Foresight  study  has  taken  a  more  sophisticated 
approach,  paying  greater  attention  to  both  the  adaptive  capacity  of  persons  in  low  income 
countries,  and  the  factors  behind  decisions  to  migrate.  The  diagramme  from  the  Foresight 
study  which  is  reproduced  below  offers  a  conceptual  framework  to  capture  the  drivers  of 

20 

21 

22 

23 

Foresight: Migration and Global Environmental Change (2011), Final Project Report, The Government 
Office for Science, London 
Project  website:  http://www.clico.org/ 
sciences/pdf/policy-briefs-clico-112012_en.pdf 
The IPCC noted that disentangling the environment from other drivers is likely to be difficult because 
‘reasons  for  migration  are  often  multiple  and  complex,  and  do  not  relate  straightforwardly  to  climate 
variability’, IPCC, 2007, Op. Cit., p. 365. 
Foresight (2011), p. 46 

and  policy  brief:  http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
migration  and  the  influence  of  environmental  change  on  those  drivers24.  It  demonstrates  that 
while  environmental  degradation  does  indeed  affect  migration  decisions,  it  does  so  not  only 
directly through 'environmental drivers' of migration, but also indirectly via its impact on other 
drivers, especially economic ones.  

Foresight: Migration and Global Environmental Change (2011) Final Project Report, the Government office of 
Science 

This demonstrates that with the exception of certain clear-cut cases such as small island states 
affected  by  sea  level  rise,  it  is  very  difficult  to  establish  straightforward  links  between 
migration  and  environmental  degradation.  The  complex 
relationship  between 
environmental factors and other processes at work in regions of origin and destination which 
may  drive  migration  (e.g.  economic  restructuring)  make  it  extremely  difficult  to  clearly 
pinpoint the role of climate change and other environmental factors in individuals' decision to 
migrate.  

The  diagramme  also  highlights  the  importance  of  individual  characteristics  and  available 
resources  in  determining  whether  persons  are  both  willing  and  able  to  migrate.  The  role  of 
financial  resources  (of  either  the  individual  or  the  family)  and  social  capital  (e.g.  migrant 
networks) in facilitating migration has long been recognised. Indeed, the Foresight study has 
highlighted that because of the significant resources which are required to migrate, persons in 
the  poorest  sectors  of  societies  at  risk  from  environmental  degradation  may  be  'trapped'  and 
unable to move. Moreover, due to the potential for environmental changes to erode households' 
financial  resources,  Foresight  goes  so  far  as  to  argue  that  'environmental  change  is  equally 
likely to prevent migration as it is to cause migration'25.  

2.2. 

Vulnerable areas and possible migration outcomes 

Available studies and recent events show that some regions of the world are and will continue 
to be disproportionately affected by climate and environmental changes. Many of these regions 
are  in  the  developing  world,  where  environmental  factors  are  most  likely  to  directly  impact 
food security, livelihoods and the safety of populations due to the limited resources available 
to cope with the consequences of natural disasters and to adapt to the adverse effects of climate 

24 
25 

Foresight (2011), p. 33 
Foresight (2011), p. 12 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
change26. Persons in the poorest segments of such societies who already face multiple stressors 
to livelihoods are likely to be the most vulnerable to environmental degradation. 
The most vulnerable ecological regions in the developing world include the following27: 

– 

– 

– 

Drylands  are  likely  to  be  affected  by  drought,  and  progressive  land  degradation. 
These  will  have  a  particularly  strong  impact  on  agricultural  activities  and 
pastoralists.  Increases  in  drought  are  foreseen  in  particular  for  dryland  regions  of 
sub-Saharan  Africa  (e.g.  the  Horn  of  Africa),  Central  Asia,  and  parts  of  the 
Mediterranean. 

Low-elevation coastal zones in several global regions will be at risk from a variety 
of  threats  such  as  rising  sea  levels,  soil  salinisation,  the  degradation  of  marine 
ecosystems,  more  frequent  flooding  and  extreme  weather  events.  Particularly 
vulnerable areas include highly populated urban centres in mega-deltas of rivers such 
as the Nile, the Mekong and the Ganges and low-lying island states. 

Mountains  regions  have  faced  above-average  warming  in  recent  decades,  and  this 
trend is likely to continue, posing significant challenges for their populations, which 
are in most regions largely dependent on agricultural activities. Significant changes 
in mountain ecosystems are expected, which may lead to glacier melting and related 
problems of water  supply and  flooding, extreme rainfalls leading to landslides, and 
the possibility of more frequent landslides. Vulnerable areas include the Himalayas, 
the Andes, and the East African highlands. 

All  of  these  areas  are  hosts  to  major  urban  centres  which  are  likely  to  experience 
continued population growth in line with the global trend towards urbanisation. This is 
in  particular  the  case  for  low  elevation  coastal  areas  in  Asia,  where  several  cities  face 
particular  risks  of  flooding  (Bangkok,  Dhaka  etc.)  Cities  in  mountain  regions  such  as  the 
Andes are however also at risk from problems such as water shortages. The challenges which 
such cities face in effectively adapting to climate change whilst managing population growth 
should  therefore  be  considered  in  designing  responses  to  migration  in  the  context  of 
environmental change.  

Possible Migration Outcomes  

As explained above, vulnerability to climate change may significantly impact migration 
drivers,  but  does  not  automatically  imply  that  migration  will  occur.  For  this  reason,  it 
remains challenging to make reliable forecasts of population movements which are likely to 
result  from  climate  change  and  related  environmental  degradation.  Though  a  number  of 
studies  have  proposed  possible  figures,  most  have  subsequently  been  criticised  due  to 
methodological concerns. A serious lack of reliable quantitative data persists, mainly because 
estimates depend on a large number of parameters28, including the way the data are recorded 

26 

27  

28 

See, for example, Warner, K., Ehrhart, C., de Sherbinin, A., Adamo, S.B., Onn, T.C. 2009. “'In search 
of  Shelter:  Mapping  the  effects  of  climate  change  on  human  migration  and  displacement.'  A  policy 
paper prepared for the 2009 Climate Negotiations. Bonn, Germany: United Nations University, CARE, 
and  CIESIN-Columbia  University  and  in  close  collaboration  with  the  European  Commission 
'Environmental Change and Forced Migration Scenarios Project', the UNHCR, and the World Bank. 
See, for example, Warner, K., Ehrhart, C., de Sherbinin, A., Adamo, S.B., Onn, T.C. 2009. “'In search of Shelter: 
Mapping  the  effects  of  climate  change  on  human  migration  and  displacement.'  A  policy  paper  prepared  for  the 
2009 Climate Negotiations. Bonn, Germany: United Nations University, CARE, and CIESIN-Columbia University 
and in close collaboration with the European Commission 'Environmental Change and Forced Migration Scenarios 
Project', the UNHCR, and the World Bank. 
IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II 
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. et al. (Eds), 
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, p. 365. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(e.g. forecasting models used, definitions and sources) and human and natural factors (such as 
the  vulnerability  of  populations  to  natural  disasters,  the  number,  severity  and  impact  of 
disasters,  population  growth,  climate  change  and  disaster  trends  and  the  quantity  of  future 
emissions). Most importantly, the vast majority of those who will be affected by a negative 
change in their environment, and who decide to move, will not be easily identifiable as such, 
as  many  other  drivers  contribute  to  their  individual  decisions.    This  makes  any  numerical 
estimation highly questionable. 

A number of steps have been taken to help fill the knowledge gaps and monitor displacements 
after  sudden  events  (led,  in  particular,  by  the  Internal  Displacement  Monitoring  Centre 
(IDMC) and the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Nevertheless, 
knowledge of displacement in response to slow-onset events is still very scarce. According to 
the IDMC, in 2010 over 38 million people were forcibly displaced by climate-related events 
(mainly floods and storms), Asia being by far the continent worst affected29. The IDMC adds 
that drought, the main category  of  slow-onset disaster, affected about 108 million people in 
2010, but acknowledges that it is not known how many were forced to move30. 

Despite continuing uncertainty on figures, experts have reached some agreement on the ways 
in  which  environmental  change  is  likely  to  interact  with  migration  drivers,  and  the  main 
patterns of migration which will occur. These are set out in the box below:  

Box 1. Expected patterns of migration in the context of environmental change 

The  diverse  potential  effects  of  climate  and  environmental  change  will  combine  with  other 
drivers  to  cause  different  patterns  of  migration,  which  may  require  different  policy  and 
operational  responses.  The  nature  of  the  environmental  disruption  will  evidently  be  an 
important  determining  criterion,  in  particular  as  the  needs  and  types  of  flows  generated  by 
sudden-onset events are likely to differ from those generated by slow-onset processes31.  

Despite the difficulties inherent in identifying the role of environmental drivers in decisions to 
migrate, several studies (including Foresight) have proposed a distinction between two broad 
categories of migration outcomes:  

-  Migration  undertaken  primarily  to  secure  livelihoods.  In  cases  where  environmental 
change  increases  economic  and  social  hardship  or  influences  other  drivers,  persons  with 
sufficient  resources  may  migrate  to  diversify  income  streams.  This  migration  may  be 
temporary or permanent, and generally follows pre-established patterns of internal (e.g. rural-
urban) or international mobility. It can result from either slow-onset or sudden-onset events, 
and will be highly influenced by migrant's perception of economic opportunities in destination 
areas.  The  potential  impact  of  this  form  of  migration  on  strengthening  resilience  of 
communities to climate change is further considered in 4.3.2. 

- Displacement as a last resort solution to the adverse effects of environmental change, 
such  as  when  catastrophic  climatic  events  or  extreme  environmental  degradation  leave  no 

29 

30 

31 

IDMC/NRC: Displacement due to natural hazard-induced disasters. Oslo: IDMC/NRC, June 2011, p. 
4. The findings indicate that about 77 % of those displacements occurred in Asia in 2010. 
IDMC/NRC: Displacement due to natural hazard-induced disasters. Oslo: IDMC/NRC, June 2011, p. 
20.  
This  distinction  appears  in  many  research  papers,  e.g.  IDMC/NRC:  Displacement  due  to  natural 
hazard-induced disasters. Oslo: IDMC/NRC, June 2011; OCHA: OCHA and slow-onset emergencies, 
Occasional  Policy  Briefing  Series,  Brief  No  6,  April  2011;  UNHCR:  Summary  of  Deliberations  on 
Climate  Change  and  Displacement,  Expert  roundtable  held  in  Bellagio  (Italy),  April  2011;  IOM: 
Migration,  Environment  and  Climate  Change:  Assessing  the  evidence,  Geneva,  December  2009; 
Warner  et  al.:  Human  security,  climate  change  and  environmentally  induced  migration,  UNU-EHS 
Report, June 2008. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
option for persons to remain. Much displacement is likely to be only temporary, in particular 
when it is linked to sudden-onset events such as hurricanes. However, in certain cases such as 
for  small  island  states  affected  by  sea  level  rise,  environmental  change  may  result  in 
permanent  displacement.  Both  temporary  and  permanent  displacement  may  pose  significant 
challenges for hosting areas and expose migrants to vulnerabilities during their journeys and 
at destination, and they should therefore be prevented wherever possible.  

While this distinction is far from clear-cut and will be difficult to apply to individual cases, it 
has been argued that it provides a useful basis for identifying different challenges which may 
be  posed  by  migration  in  the  context  of  climate  change  and  different  types  of  policy 
responses. In this regard, additional parameters may include the scale of migration (large v. 
small  scale  displacements),  the  duration  of  migration  (permanent  v.  temporary),  the 
destination of migrants (inside their State of origin or at regional or international level) and 
local circumstances (scale of impact, level of exposure, vulnerability and resilience). 

In  addition,  as  mentioned  above,  the  Foresight  study  has  drawn  attention  to  the  fact  that  
certain populations may be 'trapped' by the effects of environmental change, facing extreme 
vulnerability but lacking the resources to move. Such persons may become displaced if they 
are not assisted. 

Climate  change  is  highly  likely  to  impact  on  population  movements.  However,  current 
evidence strongly suggests that most migration and displacement will take place in an intra-
State  context,  or  within  developing  regions.    International  migration  requires  substantial 
resources,  in  particular  if  it  is  inter-regional,  and  is  likely  to  be  a  feasible  option  only  for 
persons who are less likely to be seriously affected by environmental change (as they typically 
live  in  better  protected  areas  of  cities)32.  This  suggests  that  the  impact  of  climate  change 
and  environmental  degradation  on  migration  flows  to  the  EU  is  unlikely  to  be 
substantial.  

On the other hand, urban centres in the developing world are likely to receive large number 
of migrants moving in the context of environmental change, including both persons in search 
of  livelihood  opportunities  and  the  displaced.  As  noted  above,  many  of  these  cities  are 
themselves  also  vulnerable  to  the  effects  of  climate  change  and  already  face  difficulties  in 
meeting the challenges of urbanisation.  

Box 2. The impact of environmental degradation in the Southern Mediterranean region 
on migration33[1] 
The Southern Mediterranean region34[2] comprises drylands, coastal zones and mountains. A 
large proportion of the population is exposed to the effects of environmental change. Indeed, 
33 million persons reside in vulnerable low elevation coastal areas, and the great majority of 
the region's population reside in dryland areas which are at risk from increased drought and 
land degradation. Though the situation varies across the region, a key shared challenge is the 
scarcity of water resources.  

32 

33[1]  

34[2]  

See  Climate  change —  Human  Impact  Report. The Anatomy  of  a  Silent  Crisis,  Global  Humanitarian 
Forum; Ehrhart, C.: ‘Humanitarian implications of climate change mapping, emerging trends and risk 
hotspots’; CARE, ‘In search of shelter: mapping the effects of climate change on human migration and 
displacement’. See also Foresight (2011), p. 96 
This case study draws on a policy brief prepared by Professor Andrew Geddes. The brief draws directly 
from the evidence base and final report of the Foresight project “Migration and Global Environmental 
change: Challenges and Opportunities”, 2011. It also draws on the findings of the EACH-FOR Project 
in  Northern  Africa  and  the  Middle  East,  EACH-FOR  -  Environmental  Change  and  Forced  Migration 
Scenarios: Final Synthesis Report, 044468, 2009. 
Defined as including Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, the Occupied Palestinian 
Territory (OPT), Syria and Tunisia. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Accurate  household-level  data  on  how  environmental  change  will  be  perceived  is  lacking. 
However, it is clear that despite the profound impact which climate change may have on the 
Southern Mediterranean region, exposure to its effects will not necessarily result in migration. 
Economic factors are and will remain the key determinants  of  migration in the region, with 
environmental  drivers  primarily  being  felt  through  their  impact  on  livelihoods.  The 
relationship  between  environmental  stressors  and  migration  is  far  from  deterministic,  as 
demonstrated,  for  example,  by  the  so  far  limited  impact  of  severe  water  shortages  in  the 
Occupied Palestinian Territories on emigration. Migrants moving primarily due to the effects 
of  climate  change  or  environmental  degradation  will  therefore  be  extremely  difficult  to 
distinguish. 

Climate  change  and  environmental  degradation  are  likely  to  exert  an  influence 
primarily on existing patterns of internal mobility. For example, past experience suggests 
that  where  environmental  stressors  impact  on  agricultural  productivity  in  rural  areas, 
temporary short-distance circulatory migration has past been used to diversify income in order 
to sustain livelihoods, and this phenomenon is likely to continue.  

Migration  will  be  an  option  available  only  to  those  with  sufficient  resources.  These  will  be 
unavailable to many of those affected by the potential negative impact of climate change on 
agriculture  in  drylands.  Research  on  rural  Egypt  conducted  under  the  EACH-FOR  study 
showed  that  in  general,  affected  populations  'would  leave  their  home  and  move  to  another 
place only if there are absolutely no more livelihood possibilities for them'. The possibility of 
having “trapped populations” is therefore very real, as people may be unable to move due to 
lack of assets linked to the impact of environmental change on household resources.  

For  the  same  financial  reasons,  options  for  longer-distance  and  international  migration 
within the Southern Mediterranean countries and beyond are likely to be reduced by the 
effect  of  environmental  change  and  its  interaction  with  other  migration  drivers,  in 
particular for the poorest groups in society. Therefore, persons migrating may not be the most 
vulnerable or the most affected by environmental change. 

Destinations  will  be  selected  by  migrants  primarily  due  to  the  economic  opportunities  they 
offer, meaning that migration to regions of environmental vulnerability is likely. The EACH-
FOR report has found that 'in the case of the Morocco-ruled Western Saharan territory, today 
immigration clearly surpasses out-migration flows. It seems that the economic attractiveness 
of the region… is exceeding any possible negative consequence of the extreme environmental 
conditions of the region”.  

Due  to  their  role  as  economic  centres,  much  temporary  and  permanent  migration  will  be 
directed  to  cities,  accentuating  current  urbanisation  trends  in  the  region.  Urban  centres  will 
also  face  vulnerabilities,  in  particular  as  many  are  located  in  coastal  floodplains  or  low 
elevation coastal zones. 

2.3. 

Improving the knowledge base 

A  number  of  themes  need  to  be  better  considered  in  order  to  develop  a  comprehensive 
understanding  of  the  impact  of  environmental  change  on  migration  and  design  appropriate 
policy responses.  

At conceptual level 

Clear  gaps  in  conceptualising  environmentally-induced  migration  hamper  policy-making. 
They relate to four areas: 

• 

DEFINITIONS.  The  effects  of  environmental  change  on  migration  are  so  diverse 
that  it  is  hard  to  encompass  all  scenarios  under  one  single  concept  and  definition. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

• 

However,  definitions  are  paramount  in  guiding  policy-making  to  assign  roles  and 
responsibilities. They are also crucial in the generation of statistics. 

ESTIMATES. While it shall be acknowledged that producing accurate predictions is 
difficult (especially in the case of slow-onset events) and that existing statistics are 
the  magnitude  of 
based  on 
environmentally-induced  migration  to  be  convinced  of  the  importance  of  the 
phenomenon and to design action. 

little  evidence,  policy-makers  need 

to  know 

DRIVERS. The role of the environment as a migration driver and the ways in which 
it  may  interplay  with  other  social,  economic  and  political  factors  should  be  better 
understood to develop adequate policy responses. The specific local aspects such as 
the pre-existing migration patterns are central in this regard. 

MIGRATION  IMPACTS,  particularly  in  urban  areas  and  at  internal  level.  The 
following research questions should be addressed to better understand the migration 
impacts  of  environmental  degradation:  who  migrates,  where,  why  and  how?  Much 
information  is  also  needed  about  the  obstacles  that  prevent  migration  and  the 
adaptive  capacities  of  local  communities.  Ecological  tipping  points  that  trigger 
migration  should  be  identified.  From  an  EU  perspective,  research  on  the  link  of 
migration  and  climate  change  in  the  immediate  European  neighbourhood  and/or 
traditional  ‘migrant  sending  regions’  should  be  especially  improved.  Finally,  the 
migration impacts of environmental change on different groups of people (including 
the ones left behind) should be better documented  as their policy implications  may 
vary. 

Evidence on policy options  

The development of a typology of policy alternatives for the various kinds of environmentally 
induced migration from prevention, adaptation, resettlement to managing future flows should 
be  supported.  Greater  focus  should  be  placed  on  responses  to  slow-onset  environmental 
degradation  as  the  bulk  of  current  research  has  been  on  sudden  onset  events  so  far.  Studies 
should focus on: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

HUMANITARIAN  AID.  Existing  humanitarian  responses  with  regard  to  disasters 
need to be assessed to identify gaps and better grasp the needs of those affected. 

ADAPTATION  AND  DISASTER  RISK  MANAGEMENT  STRATEGIES. 
Adaptation  and  disaster  risk  management  mechanisms  that  can  avoid  or  reduce  the 
need  for  migration  should  be  identified.  In  addition,  how  and  where  to  frame 
migration  as  an  adaptation  mode  needs  to  be  better  documented  to  inform  sound 
decision-making.  More  research  on  the  potential  positive  effects  of  migration  on 
adaptation is also needed. 

RELOCATION.  Future  research  should  help  policy-makers  in  assessing  the  costs 
and  benefits  of  relocation  programmes  based  on  an  evaluation  of  past  experiences 
and,  when  relevant,  preparing  pro-active  relocation  processes,  including  over  the 
long term, to monitor what happens to relocated communities. 

MIGRATION MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION. The extent to which existing 
legal  frameworks  are  useful  in  the  context  of  environmentally  induced  migration 
should be better analysed and protection gaps such as statelessness and cross-border 
movement should be clarified. Governments’ capacity to implement existing and/or 
new frameworks or policies should also be evaluated. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Generally, looking at other forms of forced migration and policy responses can help inform 
policies in all the above-mentioned fields. At the same time, further investigation is required 
to  determine  the  nature  of  the  specific  measures  to  develop  to  address  environmentally 
induced migration compared to other forms of forced migration. 

3. 

TERMINOLOGY 

Though  the  impact  of  environmental  change  on  migration  will  be  highly  complex  and 
context-specific,  as  demonstrated  above  (see  Box  1),  several  useful  distinctions  have  been 
proposed  to  capture  different  patterns  of  mobility  that  may  at  least  in  part  be  driven  by 
biophysical  processes.  Linking  these  distinctions  to  terminology  can  help  to  produce 
comparable  data  and  inform  measures  to  develop  differentiated  and  appropriate  policy 
response.  

However, notwithstanding the more fundamental debate on whether it is possible to attribute 
migration  processes  to  climate  change,  views  differ  on  the  appropriate  terminology  and 
definitions applicable to persons migrating or displaced as a result of environmental drivers. 
Though numerous different terms have been proposed, researchers, lawyers and policymakers 
cannot agree on whether those concepts are legally viable or appropriate for the scientific or 
political  agenda.  International  organisations,  civil  society  organisations  and  media  use  the 
term  that  is  the  most  appropriate  to  their  particular  agenda.  Recognition  of  any  of  the 
proposed concepts has implications, inter alia, on how solutions and responses are shaped and 
on the division of tasks between different organisations. 

Box 3  Some commonly used definitions 

The  term  ‘environmental  refugee’  has  been  used  in  position  papers  presented  by  various 
NGOs, in the media and in some academic literature. The term is especially associated with 
the  early  stages  of  reflection  on  the  topic,  before  differentiation  between  types  of 
environmental  change  and  forms  of  mobility  started35.  It  was  used  to  raise  awareness  and 
focused  on  the  forced  nature  of  displacement.  However,  use  of  the  term  and  status  of 
‘refugee’  has  subsequently  been  criticised,  primarily  because  the  term  has  a  specific  legal 
meaning in the context of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and 
international refugee law36. Relevant UN agencies and the IOM considered that the use of the 
term “refugee” would be inappropriate in that context, and that it would not be opportune or 
feasible  to  widen  the  1951  UN  Convention'  definition  of  refugees  to  include  additional 
categories of persons37. 

35 

36 

37 

The nexus between the environment and migration has been popularised by the frequently quoted paper 
written  by  El  Hinnawi  in  1985  for  UNEP  that  employed  the  concept  of  ‘environmental  refugee’. 
Environmental  refugees  are  defined  by  El  Hinnawi  as:  ‘those  people  who  have  been  forced  to  leave 
their  traditional  habitat,  temporarily  or  permanently,  because  of  a  marked  environmental  disruption 
(natural  and/or  triggered  by  people)  that  jeopardised  their  existence  and/or  seriously  affected  the 
quality of their life’, El Hinnawi Essam: Environmental Refugees, Nairobi: UNEP, 1985, p. 4. 
The 1951 United Nations Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees provide the 
international definition of ‘refugee’: ‘a refugee is a person who owing to a well-founded fear of being 
persecuted  for  reasons  of  race,  religion,  nationality,  membership  of  a  particular  social  group,  or 
political  opinion,  is  outside the  country of his  nationality,  and  is  unable  to  or, owing  to  such  fear,  is 
unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country’. 
Climate Change, Migration and Displacement: Who will be affected?, Working paper submitted to the 
UNFCCC  Secretariat  by  the  informal  group  on  migration/  displacement  and  climate  change  of  the 
IASC, 31 October 2008. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  term  "environmental  migrant"  is  widely  used,  including  by  the  IOM38.  Nevertheless, 
the  term  'migrant'  might  not  always  be  considered  appropriate,  as  it  suggests  a  degree  of 
volition in the decision to move. 

Lastly, one of the most recent terms is "environmental/climate displaced person". This term 
is  descriptive  -  at  least  of  one  part  of  the  mobility  spectrum  (displacement)  -  and  does  not 
necessarily  imply  governance  responsibility39.  Although  there  is  no  internationally  accepted 
legal definition of ‘displaced person’, the concept of ‘internally displaced persons’ (IDPs) is 
relevant when displacements occur internally (see below). 

For the purposes of this paper, the broad term ‘environmentally induced migrant’ is used 
provisionally as a broad category encompassing all types of migrants moving internally and 
crossing  international  borders  for  reasons  related  to  climate  change  or  environmental 
degradation.  The  term  'environmentally  induced  displaced  person'  is  also  used  when 
referring  specifically  to  migrants  who  move  as  a  'last  resort  response'  to  the  effects  of 
environmental change (see Box 2).  However, the choice of these terms in no way prejudges 
the need to analyse further whether a range of terms describing the variety of environment-
related  movements  would  not  cover  better  the  various  migration  and  displacement  patterns 
that might result from environmental degradation and climate change40.  

4. 

POLICY RESPONSES 

Migration  in  the  context  of  environmental  change  is  a  complex  issue  that  requires 
comprehensive  responses  involving  a  broad  range  of  issues  and  policies:  climate  change 
mitigation,  disaster  risk  reduction,  urban  planning,  education,  social  policy,  asylum  and 
migration policies, development policies and humanitarian and civil protection policies.  

Due to the broad variety of patterns of migration and the diverse environmental pressures and 
capacity  in  non-EU  countries,  responses  have  to  be  tailored  to  local  needs  and  conditions. 
Even during massive inflows, people’s needs vary, depending on their age, health, gender and 
socio-economic  status.  Any  adopted  measures  or  policies  should  be  in  line  with  existing 

38 

39 

40 

The IOM uses the following definition: ‘environmental migrants [are]. . . persons or groups of persons 
who, for compelling reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment that adversely affect 
their  lives  or  living  conditions,  are  obliged  to  leave  their  habitual  homes,  or  choose  to  do  so,  either 
temporarily  or  permanently,  and  who  move  either  within  their  country  or  abroad’,  IOM,  Discussion 
note:  Migration  and  the  Environment,  Ninety-fourth  session,  MC/INF/288, 2007,  pp. 1-2.  The IOM’s 
definition is quite broad as it includes persons forced to move and persons for whom leaving is a choice. 
'Environmentally-displaced  persons'  have  been  defined  as  'individuals,  families  and  populations 
confronted  with  a  sudden  or  gradual  environmental  disaster  that  inexorably  impacts  their  living 
conditions  and  results  in  their  forced  displacement,  at  the  outset  or  throughout,  from  their  habitual 
residence  and  requires  their  relocation  and  resettlement',  Draft  Convention  prepared  by  CRIDEAU 
(the  Interdisciplinary  Centre  of  Research on  Environmental  Planning  and  Urban  Law)  and  the  CRDP 
(Centre  of  Research  on  Persons’  Rights),  thematic  teams  of  the  OMIJ  (Institutional  and  Judicial 
Mutations Observatory), from the Faculty of Law and Economic Science, University of Limoges, with 
the  support  of  the  CIDCE  (International  Centre  of  Comparative  Environmental  Law).  This  draft 
Convention  has  been  published  in  the  Revue  européenne  de  droit  de  l’environnement  (Francophone 
European Environmental Law Review), No 4-2008, p. 381. 
See,  for  example,  Renaud,  F.G.,  Dun,  O.,  Warner,  K.,  Bogardi,  J.J.:  A  Decision  Framework  for 
Environmentally Induced Migration, International Migration, Volume 49, Supplement 1, June 2011, p. 
5-29. Also see Renaud, F.G.; Bogardi, J.J., Warner, K., Dun, O. (2007): Control, Adapt or Flee: How to 
Face Environmental Migration?,UNU-EHS InterSections No. 5/2007 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
policies, in particular on climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, and also with 
ongoing global efforts41. 

This  chapter  outlines  the  responses  addressing  challenges  and  opportunities  posed  by 
migration in the context of climate change, which is a main driver for an increased number 
and severity of natural disasters and environmental degradation. First it looks at the existing 
legal framework for the protection of migrants moving in the context of climate change and 
the efforts to make it more coherent. Next, it analyses adaptation and disaster risk reduction as 
means to reduce displacement  Finally, it focuses on addressing migration and displacement 
occurring  in  the  context  of  climate  change  or  environmental  degradation,  including 
emergency responses, facilitating the use of migration as adaptation, addressing the needs of 
displaced persons and hosting communities and the potential of resettlement and relocation of 
trapped populations. The chapter aims to provide  an  overview  of  the  many  measures  which 
the  EU  has  already  taken  in  each  of  the  areas  covered,  in  order  to  support  future  efforts  to 
build  a  more  coordinated  and  strategic  response  to  the  challenges  posed  by  climate  change 
and migration.  

4.1. 

Existing legal framework 

No  legal  framework  specifically  addressing  environmentally  induced  migrants  exists. 
However,  a  number  of  instruments,  both  at  the  international  and  national  level,  legally 
binding  and  soft-law,  might  offer  some  form  of  status  and/or  protection  to  some  types  of 
environmentally induced migrants and/or displaced persons.  

4.1.1. 

International human rights law  

Human rights law applies to environmentally induced migrants, as to all other persons. The 
effects of climate change may undermine the enjoyment of several human rights, including: 
the right to life (Art 6, ICCPR; Art 6 UNCRC); right to adequate food (Art 11 ICESCR; Art 
14 CEDAW; Art 5 CERD), the right to water (Arts 11 and 12 ICESCR42; Art 14 CEDAW; 
Art 28 CRPD; Art 24 CRC), the right to health (Art 12 ICESCR), and the right to adequate 
housing (Art 11 ICESCR).  

4.1.2.  Environmental law  

The UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol provide the international framework to address climate 
change issues. Although the Treaties do not mention environmentally induced migration and 
displacement,  they  do  contain  a  number  of  guiding  principles  that  are  relevant  to  climate-
induced migration. The precautionary principle, found both in the UNFCCC and the Lisbon 
Treaty43, requires action to be taken ahead of full scientific certainty. Thus, although it is not 
possible  to  wholly  attribute  the  cause  of  population  displacement  to  climate  change,  in  the 
face  of  scientific  evidence  on  the  impact  of  climate  change  and  the  link  to  migration,  it  is 
necessary  to  take  a  precautionary  approach.  A  second  principle,  known  as  ‘common  but 
differentiated responsibility’ (CBDR), is also relevant because least developed countries and 
small  island  developing  countries  are  the  most  vulnerable  to  the  adverse  effects  of  climate 
change  and  have  the  least  capacity  to  respond.  The  CBDR  principle  recognises  that  while 
climate  change  is  a  common  problem,  developed  nations  have  a  responsibility  to  assume  a 
leading role in global efforts to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation.  

41 

42  
43    

Articles  13  and  21(3)  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  (TEU)  and  Article  7  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  in  conjunction  with  specific  coherence  clauses  such  as 
Article 208(1) of the TFEU (on poverty reduction) and Article 11 of the TFUE (on environment). 
See also the General Comment no. 15 by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 
Article 191(3) of the TFEU. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.1.3. 

International refugee law 

The 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol 
provide the international definition of ‘refugee’: 

‘a refugee is a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of 
race,  religion,  nationality,  membership  of  a  particular  social  group,  or  political  opinion,  is 
outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to 
avail himself of the protection of that country’. 

As explained in Box 3 (page 13), this definition is not applicable to environmentally induced 
migrants. Firstly, it would be difficult to deem environmental degradation as 'persecution' in 
the sense envisaged in the convention. It would also be necessary to link such persecution to 
one  of  the  grounds  set  out  in  the  Convention44.  Therefore,  environmentally  induced 
displacement falls outside the scope of the 1951 Convention and its additional protocol.  

4.1.4.  Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement 

Given that a high proportion of the environmental or climate-related movements are expected 
to  be  internal  and  some  may  occur  after  a  sudden  natural  disaster,  the  1998  UN  Guiding 
Principles  on  Internal  Displacement  provide  a  framework  for  protecting  victims  of  natural 
disasters  who  do  not  cross  an  international  border45.  They  offer  a  valuable  set  of  legal 
standards  for  protection  and  have  the  advantage  of  leaving  governments  wide  room  for 
manoeuvre when it comes to implementation, which allows them to take into account various 
scenarios in a way that is flexible and adapted to local circumstances. However, even if the 
list of persons covered by the principles is not exhaustive, it is not clear whether those who 
migrate due to gradual processes of degradation can be included. 

Despite  their  focus  on  internal  displacement,  it  has  also  been  suggested  by  the  Council  of 
Europe that the principles could be taken as a model to develop a global guiding framework 
for  the  protection  of  displaced  persons  crossing  international  borders  as  a  result  of  climate 
change and natural disasters46.  

There  are  nonetheless  a  number  of  gaps  and  grey  areas  in  this  framework  that  need  to  be 
addressed.  The  guiding  principles  are  not  legally  binding  and  are  far  from  being  correctly 
implemented, even if they have been incorporated by governments in domestic policy and law 
and also in international agreements. Most recently, they were used for drafting the Kampala 
Convention  for  the  protection  and  assistance  of  internally  displaced  persons  (IDPs)  in 
Africa47.  This  convention,  which  was  adopted  by  the  African  Union  in  October  2009  and 
entered into force on 6 December 2012, is the first legally binding regional instrument in the 
world  to  impose  an  obligation  on  States  to  protect  and  assist  IDPs,  including  persons 
displaced by natural or man-made disasters and development projects.  

44 

45 

46 
47 

In some cases, refugee status might apply, for example, to cross-border movements of a particular social 
group (such as an indigenous people) after a government fails to protect them against the adverse effects 
of climate change or in a conflict over access to environmental resources; Cf Zetter Roger: Protecting 
environmentally  displaced  people:  Developing  the  capacity  of  legal  and  normative  frameworks, 
Research Report, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, February 2011, p. 19. 
‘Internally displaced persons are persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee 
or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the 
effects  of  armed  conflict,  situations  of  generalised  violence,  violations  of  human  rights  or  natural  or 
human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognised State border’ (Guiding 
Principles, Introduction, paragraph 2). 
See Resolution 1862 (2009) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, point 6.5. 
African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa 
(Kampala  Convention),  adopted  by  the  Special  Summit  of  the  Union  held  in  Kampala,  Uganda,  23 
October 2009. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.1.5.  Complementary forms of protection 

Complementary forms of protection allow States to provide protection against being returned 
on  human  rights  grounds,  in  cases  not  addressed  by  the  1951  Convention  and  its  1967 
Protocol.  They  are  subsidiary  to  recognition  as  a  refugee  under  the  1951  Convention. 
However, complementary protection remains a generic term, given that it is not defined in any 
international  instrument.  As  a  result,  the  nature  of  the  protection,  the  eligibility  criteria  and 
even the terminology used to describe such forms of protection vary from one jurisdiction to 
another.  

It has been argued that complementary forms of protection might be relevant for some of the 
people  who  are  forced  to  move  on  a  long-term  basis  or  permanently,  i.e.  when  there  is  no 
prospect of return in the long term. This could include slow-onset processes at an advanced 
stage leading to gradual displacement (such as desertification), persons affected by rising sea-
level or certain cases of natural disasters. 

In practice, the need for refugee-type protection is not clear in the context of environmentally 
induced  migration  and  displacement.  In  cases  of  slow-onset  environmental  degradation, 
people  tend  to  seek  support  for  finding  an  alternative  livelihood  and  earning  a  living  rather 
than  seeking  refugee-type  protection.  Neither  the  aim  nor  the  content  of  refugee-type 
protection  appears  to  be  appropriate  in  order  to  fulfil  the  needs  that  result  from  gradual 
movements of this kind. On the other hand, because of its long-term character, such protection 
would  also  not  be  appropriate  in  case  of  rapid-onset  events  leading  to  temporary 
displacement.  

At  the  EU  level,  an  example  of  complementary  protection  is  subsidiary  protection  granted 
under  the  Qualification  Directive48,  which  however,  does  not  include  environmental 
degradation nor climate change amongst the types of serious harm which can lead to granting 
such  protection.  However,  some  EU  MS  have  included  in  their  legislation  on  refugee-type 
protection provisions concerning those who may be unable to return home owing to a natural 
disaster.  For  example,  under  the  Swedish  law,  a  person  ‘unable  to  return  to  the  country  of 
origin  because  of  an  environmental  disaster’  may  also  qualify  for  asylum49.  However,  this 
provision has never been applied. Furthermore, the preparatory papers make it clear that slow-
onset  processes  are  not  covered50.  Another  example  is  the  Finnish  humanitarian  protection 
framework, under which ‘An alien residing in Finland is issued with a residence permit on the 
basis of humanitarian protection, if (…) he or she cannot return to his or her country of origin 
or  country  of  former  habitual  residence  as  a  result  of  an  environmental  catastrophe’51. The 
preparatory  papers  state  that  both  natural  and  human-induced  disasters fall  within  its  scope. 
This provision is less restrictive than the Swedish law, but has not yet been used either. 

Many States provide the possibility of issuing a residence permit on a discretionary basis to a 
non-national  in  cases  where  essential  considerations  of  a  humanitarian  nature  conclusively 
make it appropriate to grant the application. Such residence permits are issued rarely and only 
upon a specific assessment of the individual circumstances. 

48  

49 
50 
51 

Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status 
of  third  country  nationals  or  stateless  persons  as  refugees  or  as  persons  who  otherwise  need 
international protection and the content of the protection granted ,Official Journal L 304 , 30/09/2004 P. 
0012 - 0023 
Swedish Aliens Act, Chapter 4, Section 2a. 
Preparatory work, prop. 1996/97:25 s. 101, p. 100. 
Finnish Aliens Act, Chapter 6, Section 88a(1). 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  this  regard,  Denmark  has  proceeded  with  an  interesting  application  of  the  provisions  on 
humanitarian  protection52  and  issued  residence  permits  on  humanitarian  grounds  to  families 
with minor children from certain areas in Afghanistan, where the drought is particularly bad, 
and  also  to  destitute  Afghans  without  land  coming  from  areas  suffering  from  drought  and 
food insecurity and who would be in a particularly vulnerable situation upon return53. 

4.1.6.  Temporary protection 

Temporary  protection  takes  different  forms  worldwide,  but  it  is  generally  described  as  an 
exceptional measure and specific provisional protection response to situations of mass influx, 
aimed at providing immediate emergency protection from refoulement. 

Temporary  protection  status  might  be  appropriate  after  severe rapid-onset disasters (such as 
floods), when masses flee from the area affected but when the possibility of them returning in 
the  short  or  medium  term  remains  open.  Therefore,  those  persons  have  an  immediate  and 
temporary  need  for  protection.  An  example  of  such  status  is  the  one  granted  under  the  EU 
Temporary  Protection  Directive54,  which  has  been  designed  in  particular  for  persons  who 
have fled areas of armed conflict or endemic violence and persons at serious risk of, or who 
have been victims of, systematic or generalised violations of their human rights. Nevertheless, 
the Directive leaves wide room for manoeuvre, in the form of open definitions of key words, 
such as ‘mass influx’55.  

At  the  national  level,  Finland  is  the  only  EU  Member  State  offering  an  institutionalised 
mechanism that grants temporary protection in the event of an ‘environmental catastrophe’, 
without  defining  the  concept56.  Even  if  this  provision  seems  flexible,  it  has  never  been 
applied so far. 

Other  countries  grant  temporary  protection  on  an  ad  hoc  basis  after  natural  disasters. 
Examples  of  such  systems  can  be  found  in  the  UK  response  to  the  Montserrat  volcanic 
eruption in 1995/199757. Equally interesting are the special immigration concessions granted 
by  several  governments  worldwide  for  the  victims  of  the  Indian  Ocean  tsunami  in  2004. 
Governments  have  either  suspended  the  return  of  people  to  the  countries  affected  or  taken 
measures concerning resettlement of victims58. 

The US Immigration Act of 1990 provides for discretionary granting of temporary protection 
status when ‘there has been an earthquake, flood, drought, epidemic, or other environmental 

52 
53 

54 

55 

56 
57 

58 

Danish Aliens Act, Section 9b. 
See  Comparative  Study  on  the  Existence  and  Application  of  Categorised  Protection  in  Selected 
European Countries, prepared by the International Centre for Migration Policy Development, Vienna, 
commissioned  and  funded  by  the  Advisory  Committee  on  Aliens  Affairs  (ACVZ),  The  Netherlands, 
January 2006, p. 35. 
Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection 
in  the  event  of  a  mass  influx  of  displaced  persons  and  on  measures  promoting  a  balance  of  efforts 
between  Member  States  in  receiving  such  persons  and  bearing  the  consequences  thereof,  OJ  L  212, 
7.8.2001, p. 12. 
The term ‘mass influx’, which is the heart of the system, means ‘arrival in the Union of a large number 
of displaced persons, who come from a specific country or geographical area, whether their arrival in 
the Union was spontaneous or aided, for example through an evacuation programme’ (Article 2d). 
Finnish Aliens Act, Section 109. 
See  Memorandum  from  the  Parliamentary  Under-Secretary  of  State,  Foreign  and  Commonwealth 
Office, Baroness Symons, 9 February 1998. See also CLAY Edward (Team Leader): An Evaluation of 
HMG’s  Response  to  the  Montserrat  Volcanic  Emergency,  Volumes  I  and  II,  ODI  (Overseas 
Development Institute), London, published by the DFID (Department for International Development) as 
‘Evaluation Report EV635’, December 1999. 
For example, Canada expedites immigration paperwork from victims who have relatives in Canada if 
their applications were already in the system. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
disaster in the state resulting in a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions 
in the area affected’ and when ‘the foreign state is unable, temporarily, to handle adequately 
the return to the state of aliens who are nationals of the state’59. It is important to underline 
that  this  protection  applies  only  to  persons  who  are  already  in  the  US  at  the  time  of  the 
disaster.  The  status  allows  a  six-month  stay  which  can  be  extended  to  eighteen  months. 
During  their  stay,  residents  may  work  but  cannot  apply  for  admission  of  spouses  or  family 
members.  This  status  has  been  granted  in  a  few  cases,  when  disasters  occurred  in  Central 
America (e.g. for 90 000 Hondurans and 60 000 Nicaraguans after Hurricane Mitch in 1998). 
However,  the  system  has  been  criticised  due  to  the  limited  group  which  it  covers  (persons 
already present on US territory), and because it frequently results in permanent settlement via 
systematic extensions of the status.  

These  national  examples  show  some  of  the  weaknesses  of  ad  hoc  measures,  particularly  in 
cases  when  the  underlying  environmental  process  or  event  is  not  temporary  -  such  as  if  an 
area is declared unfit for habitation. This has been the case in some non-climatic events such 
as the Monserrat volcano explosion in 1997 which left thousands of people without protection 
once  the  disaster  was  declared  permanent  and  thus  temporary  protection  measures  were  no 
longer valid. They do not provide a clear and secure way of obtaining protection (especially 
because granting of protection is discretionary). Furthermore, they can be an answer for only 
a  limited  proportion  of  environmentally  induced  migrants,  given  that,  after  rapid-onset 
disasters, people tend not to move far away from their home.  

4.1.7.  Regional Free movement agreements 

Existing  regional  agreements  on  the  free  movement  of  people,  including  for  the  purpose  of 
work,  in  particular  those  adopted  through  regional  integration  organisations  such  as  the 
Economic  Community  of  West-African  States  (ECOWAS)  or  MERCOSUR,  might,  if 
properly  implemented,  also  serve  as  frameworks  for  environmentally  induced  migration. 
Although  they  do  not  target  specifically  environmentally-induced  migrants,  they  might  be 
used  by  them  to  move  temporarily  or  permanently  to  other  countries  in  the  region.    For 
example, evidence suggests that the ECOWAS Free Movement Protocol has increased access 
to  protection  for  refugees  in  West  Africa  by  allowing  the  displaced  to  move  as  labour 
migrants  to  neighbouring  countries60.  However,  many  regional  organisations  in  the 
developing  world  have  made  only  limited  progress  on  promoting  regional  mobility,  and  for 
those  that  have  (such  as  ECOWAS),  implementation  of  agreed  provisions  is  frequently 
ineffective.  

4.1.8.  Towards a coherent legal framework for environmentally induced migrants 

A  piecemeal  approach  persists  with  regard  to  regulating  the  legal  status  of  environmentally 
induced migrants, which clearly reflects the problems with definitions of who such migrants 
are  and  the  extent  to  which  their  movement  can  be  attributed  to  climate  change  and 
environmental  degradation.  However,  as  demonstrated  above,  several  states  have  made 
attempts  to  address  certain  aspects  of  environmentally-induced  migration  and  displacement 
through  national  legislation.  Potentially  useful  frameworks  also  exist  at  regional  and 
international levels. It therefore remains to be seen whether a new specific legal framework is 
both necessary and feasible, or if persons moving in the context of environmental change can 
be adequately assisted and protected under existing frameworks. At any rate, the complexities 
of the topic and its comparative novelty as a subject of international policy dialogue between 

59    
60  

INA (§244 of INA (8 U.S.C. §1254a). 
Long, K., 'Extending Protection? Labour Migration and Durable Solutions for Refugees', New Issues in 
Refugee Research, Research Paper No. 176, October 2009 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
states  means  that  the  wider  political  consensus  which  would  be  necessary  to  establish 
international rules remains lacking, including at regional levels.  

Nevertheless,  as  indicated  above,  some  States  will  face  important  challenges  linked  to 
environmentally  induced  migration,  and  those  most  affected  should  be  encouraged  and 
assisted  in  developing  an  appropriate  legal  framework.  Existing  legal  frameworks  could  be 
applied  more  effectively  and  build  consensus  at  the  international  level  on  basic  guiding 
principles governing environmentally induced migration and displacement.   

In that respect, work initiated at the Nansen Conference on Climate Change and Displacement 
in Norway in June 2011 is an important step forward. Participants of the conference devised 
10 Principles on Climate Change and Cross-Border Displacement, primarily in the context of 
sudden  onset  events.  Those  principles  set  the  grounds  for  responses,  based  on  humanity, 
human dignity, human rights and international cooperation and on the primary necessity for 
states to ensure a proper level of protection of their own nationals. The role of other actors, 
including  civil  society,  regional  integration  processes  and  international  cooperation  is  also 
recognized.  Those  principles  call  for  strengthening  prevention,  resilience  and  disaster 
preparedness.  While  acknowledging  the  importance  of  the  Guiding  Principles  for  Internal 
Displacement, they also identify a normative  gap for the protection of "externally displaced 
populations",  victims  of  sudden  onset  events  and  encourage  the  development  of  a  guiding 
framework or instrument in that regard.  

Building on the Nansen Conference, the Nansen Initiative has been launched in October 2012 
by  Norway  and  Switzerland,  with  the  support  of  UNHCR  and  the  Norwegian  Refugee 
Council, and co-funding of the European Commission. It aims to build consensus on how to 
address  potential  legal  and  protection  gaps  for  people  displaced  across  borders  owing  to 
environmental change and extreme weather events.  

4.2. 

Adaptation as a Means to Reduce Displacement 

The  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (IPCC)  defines  adaptation  as  “any 
adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or 
their  effects,  which  moderates  harm  or  exploits  beneficial  opportunities.  Various  types  of 
adaptation  can  be  distinguished,  including  anticipatory  and  reactive  adaptation,  private  and 
public  adaptation,  and  autonomous  and  planned  adaptation”  (IPCC  TAR,  2001  a).  In  other 
words,  adaptation  means  anticipating  the  adverse  effects  of  climate  change  and  taking 
appropriate action to prevent or minimise the damage they can cause. Examples of adaptation 
measures  include  using  scarce  water  resources  more  efficiently,  adapting  building  codes  to 
future climate conditions and extreme weather events, building flood defences and raising the 
levels  of  dykes,  developing  drought-tolerant  crops  and  choosing  tree  species  and  forestry 
practices less vulnerable to storms and fires. 

There  is  a  close  link  between  climate  change adaptation  and  disaster  risk  reduction  policies 
and  actions.  The  Cancun  UNFCCC  Conference  established  the  Cancun  Adaptation 
Framework,  which  invites  parties  to  strengthen  adaptation  action  in  nine  areas  including 
“enhancing  climate  change-related  disaster  risk  reduction  strategies”  and  considers  disaster 
risk reduction as an effective way of climate change adaptation. 

Adaptation  to  the  adverse  effects  of  climate  change  and  effective  disaster  risk  reduction  of 
natural hazards are both very important for minimising the need for displacement. Preventive 
action brings clear economic, environmental and social benefits. The costs of taking action to 
address  climate  change  are  known  to  be  much  lower  than  the  costs  of  inaction  over  the 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
medium to long term61. 

Adaptation and risk reduction measures addressing displacement should be targeted towards 
allowing persons who wish to remain in communities affected by environmental change 
to  do  so,  by  for  example  providing  alternatives  to  threatened  livelihoods.  They  should  be 
based  on  a  recognition  that  some  level  of  migration  or  displacement  may  be  necessary  or 
inevitable  where  the  impact  of  environmental  stressors  on  communities  is  extreme.  Indeed, 
measures  which  aim  to  constrain  movement  at  all  costs  rather  than  adequately  planning  for 
this can represent forms of maladaptation which risk failure and may increase the likelihood 
of later irregular movements or unplanned displacement62. 

The  distinction  between  disaster  risk  reduction  and  adaptation  to  slow-onset  and  fast-onset 
events is important here. As will be demonstrated below, the Commission supports numerous 
measures throughout the developing world in both of these areas.  

4.2.1. 

Increasing resilience to natural hazards 

Investing  in  disaster  risk  reduction  (DRR)  aims  to  strengthen  the  resilience  and  coping 
capacities  in  disaster-prone  regions,  minimising  the  need  for  environmentally-induced 
displacement when disasters occur. This support mainly takes the  form of  capacity-building 
(strengthening local and national capacity for DRR, early warning systems, global monitoring 
systems63,  mainstreaming  of  adaptation  into  development  strategies)  and  specific  adaptation 
projects such as reinforcement of sea defences, watershed projects, mangrove rehabilitation to 
provide  wind  barriers  and  improve  the  resilience  of  agricultural  systems  thereby  increasing 
food security, etc. 

A  range  of  measures  can  contribute  to  this,  including  raising  awareness  of  the  population, 
improved mechanisms for risk communication, improving the knowledge base on hazards and 
their impacts, developing risk mapping, risk assessments and disaster risk management plans, 
updating  National  Adaptation  Plans  of  Action  (NAPA)  and  move  towards  National 
Adaptation  Planning  processes  (NAPs)  and/or  funding  allocations.  Operational  responses 
imply  not  only  increasing  the  investments  in  disaster  risk  reduction,  but  also  making 
humanitarian and development action more efficient (by improving the speed of deployment 
and appropriateness of action) and coherent (at operational and political levels).  

At  international  level,  the  ‘Hyogo  Framework  for  Action’  (HFA),  a  global  blueprint  for 
disaster risk reduction efforts for the period 2005-2015, is already coherent with the Cancun 
Agreement64.  

61 

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (HM Treasury, 2006) and the World Bank and 
the United Nations study on 'UnNatural Disasters, The Economics of Effective Prevention', 2010. 
Foresight(2011), p.133 
For further information global monitoring see: http://copernicus.eu/  

62  
63  
64   The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) was adopted by 168 United Nations Member States in 2005 at the 
World Disaster Reduction Conference. There is an ongoing consultation process which should lead to a new 
HFA  framework  in  2015  where  one  of  the  key  issues  to  be  addressed  are  the  strengthened  links  between 
disaster  risk  reduction,  climate  change  adaptation,  sustainable  development  and  resilience.  The  current 
priorities of the HFA (2005–2015) are: 

• 

• 
• 
• 
• 

ensure  that  disaster  risk  reduction  is  a  national  and  local  priority  with  a  strong  institutional  basis  for 
implementation; 
identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning; 
use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels; 
reduce the underlying risk factors; 
strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
At  EU  level,  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  is  an  increasing  priority  for  the  Union  to  address  the 
alarming  disaster  trends  and  reduce  vulnerability  to  disasters.  A  cross-sectoral  EU  Disaster 
Risk Management framework is being developed which promotes a holistic approach for all 
natural  and  man-made  risks  throughout  all  sectors  based  on  risk  assessments  and  planning, 
sharing  of  good  practices  between  countries,  improving  the  knowledge  base,  early  warning 
systems  and  strengthening  capacities  through  training  and  other  preparedness  actions. 
Furthermore, an increasing share of EU financial support (both internal and external) is being 
directed  to  support  disaster  risk  reduction  via  various  channels,  including  humanitarian  aid 
and  development  instruments,  climate  change  initiatives,  support  for  endemic  surveillance 
capacity and grants for research projects. Implementation is continuing of the 2009 Strategy 
for Supporting DRR in Developing Countries for 2011-2014, which places a specific focus on 
promoting coherence between DRR and adaptation to climate change.  

The EU also seeks a common humanitarian aid and development resilience strategy fostering 
an  effective  and  inclusive  approach,  maximizing  comparative  advantages,  strengthening 
capacity  building  in  the  long-term  engagement,  in  line  with  country-owned  and  country-led 
resilience  agenda,  using  flexible  financing,  enhancing  risk  assessments  and  financing,  and 
developing  innovative  financing  mechanisms.  In  this  respect,  the  Commission  has  already 
increased  synergies  between  Development  and  Humanitarian  policies  and  an  important  step 
has been the adoption of the Communication "The EU approach to Resilience: learning from 
Food  Security  Crises"65,  which  reaffirms  the  role  of  DRR  as  a  driver  of  resilience  and 
sustainable development. 

In this context, special attention is paid to disaster-prone regions and to least developed and 
highly vulnerable countries and groups. In order to respond efficiently to the multiple causes 
of disasters that has hit the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, the Commission has produced two 
targeted initiatives: the SHARE initiative (Supporting the Horn of Africa's Resilience) and the 
AGIR  Sahel  initiative  (Alliance  Globale  pour  l'Initiative  Resilience  Sahel)  to  strengthen  the 
resilience  of  the  most  vulnerable  populations  as  a  joint  humanitarian  and  development 
approach covering short-term response and long-term development needs. 

DRR  and  resilience  to  climate  change  are  also  increasingly  integrated  into  EU  regional 
strategies (for example, the Northern Dimension, European Neighbourhood Policy, EU-Africa 
Strategy,  Barcelona  Process,  Black  Sea  Synergy,  EU-Central  Asia  Strategy  and  the  Middle 
East Action Plan). 

Under its aid cooperation programmes, the EU provided developing countries with support of 
around €
 355 million for climate change adaptation and DRR between 2007 and 2010, from 
both  its  humanitarian  and  development  budgets.  Under  its  humanitarian  budget,  the 
Commission funding for DRR and adaptation has significantly increased  (i.e. funding under 
 6 million 
the Disaster Preparedness by ECHO (DIPECHO) Programme has increased from €
 35 million in 2012). In more general terms, the annual direct investment by EU 
in 1996 to €
humanitarian action in DRR, which includes but is not limited to the DIPECHO Programme, 
accounts for around 15 to 20% of its budget (2012 estimate). 

4.2.2. 

Increasing resilience to climate change and environmental degradation 

Disaster risk reduction and adaptation measures aim to mitigate the impacts of climate change 
and  environmental  degradation  and  minimize  instances  of  migration  related  to  these 
phenomena. Adaptation options include for instance: 

• 

65  

EN 

Behavioural change at the individual level, such as the sparing use of water in times 
of drought or the adoption of drought tolerant breeds and species of livestock 

COM(2012) 586 final 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

Protective  actions,  such  as  the  replenishment  of  sand  and  the  construction  of  sea 
walls in coastal areas affected by sea level rise 

Promotion  of  ecosystem  management  practices, including biodiversity conservation 
to reduce the impacts of climate change on people  

The  enactment  of  appropriate  policies,  the  creation  and/or  strengthening  of 
appropriate institutions to implement these policies such as re-building restrictions in 
areas affected by sea level rise 

Sustainable  development,  disaster  risk  reduction  and  climate  change  adaptation  are  closely 
integrated as required by the outcome from the Rio+20 Summit and the required follow-up. 
The  environment  and  climate  change  should  also  be  fully  integrated  in  country  profiles, 
migration  profiles  and  sectoral  strategies,  paying  special  attention  to  the  most  vulnerable 
regions  and  potential  climate  security  hotspots,  and  should  prepare  the  ground  for  further 
examination  of  the  security  implications  of  climate  change  for  partner  countries.  Moreover, 
environmental  protection  requirements  must  be 
the  definition  and 
implementation  of  EU  policies  and  activities,  in  particular  with  a  view  to  promoting 
sustainable development66.  

integrated 

into 

Substantial  contribution  to  disaster  risk  reduction  and  adaptation  to  slow  environmental 
degradation can be made via actions in water management (the EU Water Initiative and the 
EU-ACP  Water  Facility),  agriculture,  biodiversity,  forests,  desertification  energy,  health, 
social policy (including gender issues), research and coastal erosion. 

In relation to its external aid cooperation, since 2001 the Commission has been implementing 
its  environmental  integration  strategy,  updated  in  2009  to  better  take  into  account  climate 
change,  which  outlines  how  the  EU  can  best  help  developing  countries  to  respond  to 
environmental  challenges  whilst  reducing  poverty.  Based  on  this  strategy,  the  Commission 
has developed methods and practical tools to improve mainstreaming of the environment and 
climate change in projects and programmes with developing countries. A training programme 
for  Commission  and  Member  States’  staff  and  for  staff  from  the  ministries  concerned  in 
developing  countries  has  backed  up  these  efforts.  A  set  of  guidelines  on  mainstreaming  the 
environment and climate change is available on-line67.  

At operational level, it is important to build on past experience in  areas  already affected by 
climate  change  (Sahel,  Bangladesh,  etc.) Adaptation  programmes  like Advancing  Capacity 
to  Support  Climate  Change Adaptation  (ACCCA)68,  based  on  the  experienced  gained  in 
pilot schemes implemented in 12 affected countries, appear to be very useful tools, which are 
designed  to  communicate  climate  risk  information  to  decision-makers  in  clear  terms,  to 
address  climate  risks  and  adaptation  in  an  integrated,  multidisciplinary  way  and  to  engage 
stakeholders from scientific and policy communities. 

The  Global  Climate  Change  Alliance  launched  in  2008  between  the  EU  and  the  most 
vulnerable  developing  countries  can  also  be  mentioned  as  a  major  initiative.  Based  on  two 
pillars:  policy  dialogue  and  implementation,  the  GCCA  has  already  led  to  three  regional 
conferences,  over  20  international  training  seminars  and  over  35  country  or  regional 
programmes,  implemented  or  under  preparation.  This  valuable  experience,  including 
programmes merging DDR and adaptation strategies, should be built upon. 

66 
67 
68   

Article 11 of the TFEU. 
http://www.enpi-info.eu/main.php?id=316&id_type=9. 
For further information, see: http://www.acccaproject.org/accca/?q=node/1. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.3. 

Responding  to  the  challenges  and  opportunities  posed  by  migration  in  the 
context of environmental degradation and climate change 

Migration  will  continue  in  the  context  of  climate  change  and  environmental  degradation, 
posing challenges and opportunities for receiving and sending countries. On the one hand, this 
chapter  argues  that  migration  has  the  potential  to  contribute  to  adaptation  in  a  number  of 
ways. This potential should be fully exploited, including through measures to promote well-
managed  legal  mobility,  and  support  migrants  in  strengthening  the  resilience  of  their 
communities  of  origin.  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that  the  environmentally  induced 
displacement  linked  to  both  sudden-onset  and  slow-onset  environmental  changes  will 
inevitably  continue  must  be  recognised.  Measures  will  therefore  be  required  to  assist  the 
displaced, including through emergency responses in cases of sudden-onset disasters, and to 
find durable solutions.  

This chapter considers challenges and possible measures in each of these areas. It begins by 
looking  into  emergency  responses  to  sudden-onset  events,  and  continues  by  addressing 
measures to promote and facilitate migration as a strategy to promote adaptation and disaster 
risk  reduction.  Thereafter,  initiatives  to  provide  durable  solutions  for  the  displaced  are 
addressed,  including  the  potential  of  relocation  measures  to  assist  'trapped  populations'  and 
reduce the potential for unplanned displacement or irregular migration. Finally, the needs and 
challenges  facing  host  communities  receiving  migration  in  the  context  of  environmental 
change are considered.  

4.3.1. 

Improving emergency responses 

Under  its  humanitarian  budget,  the  Commission  provides  significant  humanitarian  aid  to 
persons  displaced  by  natural  disasters.  Even  though  prevention  is  better  than  cure,  in  many 
cases  emergency  response  is  needed  to  assist  and  protect  victims  of  natural  disasters.  The 
success  of  humanitarian  aid  also  depends  on  response  and  delivery  capacity.  In  order  to  be 
better  prepared  to  address  large-scale,  sudden-onset  disasters,  humanitarian  and  civil 
protection  actors  should  invest  more  in  planning  and  pre-positioning  key  relief  supplies, 
improving humanitarian logistics and better training and deployment of staff.  
In addition, a Civil Protection Mechanism was established in 200169 to support and facilitate 
the  preparation  and  deployment  of  Member  States'  in-kind  assistance  (teams,  experts  and 
equipment)  to  countries  requesting  international  civil  protection  assistance  in  major 
emergencies of all kinds, natural and man-made, within and outside the Union. 

Since  extreme  weather  events  are  likely  to  become  more  frequent  and  will  displace  people 
more  frequently,  better  emergency  response  capacities  are  needed.  Steps  have  already  been 
undertaken in this regard. 

The  Commission’s  2010  Communication  ‘Towards  a  stronger  European  disaster  response: 
the role of civil protection  and humanitarian  assistance’ proposes a  strategy  for reinforcing 
the EU disaster-response capacity on the basis of the two main instruments for EU relief: civil 
protection  and  humanitarian  aid.  In  December  2011,  the  Commission  adopted  a  legislative 
proposal  on  EU  civil  protection70  which  puts  increased  emphasis  on  prevention  and 
preparedness  in  addition  to  emergency  response  and  introduces  a  number  of  voluntary 

69    

70  

It  was  created  by  a  Council  Decision  2001/792  which  was  later  repealed  by  Council  Decision 
2007/779/EC,  Euratom  of  8  November  2007  establishing  a  Community  Civil  Protection  Mechanism 
(recast). There is an ongoing reform of the Civil protection legislation which aims to further strengthen 
and improve the Mechanism.  
Proposal  for  a  Decision  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  a  Union  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism, 20.12.2011, COM(211) 934. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
instruments  that  Member  States  can  make  use  of  in  order  to  increase  the  effectiveness  and 
efficiency of civil protection. The system is based on exchange of information and planning, 
which in turn allows for pre-commitment of assets enabling targeted, speedy response, and the 
identification  of  gaps,  which  the  Commission  proposes  the  EU  to  co-finance,  where  such 
assets justify burden-sharing between Participating States. An Emergency Response Center is 
being  set  up  in  order  to  better  fulfil  the  requirements  following  the  increasing  trend  in 
disasters  and  interventions.  Capacity-building  to  prepare  for  and  cope  with  displacements 
resulting from sudden-onset events in high-risk areas (especially at local level) will also need 
to be stepped up. 

4.3.2.  Promoting and facilitating migration as an adaptation strategy 

Although migration has often been portrayed as a failure to adapt, it is now increasingly also 
recognised as a legitimate adaptation strategy in its own right. Evidence clearly suggests that 
migration  has  the  potential  to  contribute  to  adaptation  in  regions  of  origin  by,  for  example, 
diversifying income sources and thereby strengthening resilience.  

Furthermore, facilitating well-managed mobility and labour migration from environmentally 
degraded  areas  can  represent  an  effective  strategy  to  reduce  environmentally-induced 
displacement,  which  is  more  likely  to  produce  negative  outcomes  for  migrants  and  host 
communities71.  Where  persons  in  communities  affected  by  environmental  degradation  have 
the freedom to migrate to areas where economic opportunities are available, the likelihood to 
remain  'trapped'  in  a  highly  vulnerable  situation  or  ending  up  displaced  in  regions  with  no 
hosting  capacity  is  reduced.  When  environmentally  induced  migration  is  undertaken 
voluntarily,  it  is  far  more  likely  to  produce  benefits  for  both  receiving  and  sending 
communities than displacement. 

This  section  begins  by  exploring  in  greater  depth  the  potential  of  migration  to  strengthen 
adaptation to climate change and environmental degradation in regions of origin, and possible 
concrete measures to exploit this potential. Thereafter, the issue of fostering greater mobility 
as a means of promoting migration as adaptation is addressed. 

Migration as a Coping Mechanism for Communities of Origin 

An  increasing  number  of  studies  specifically  document  the  potential  of  migration  to 
contribute to the resilience of communities of origin. Remittances have frequently been cited 
as  a  useful  source  of  capital  which  can  diversify  sources  of  family  income,  hence  reducing 
vulnerability in a number of ways. For example, in the aftermath of natural disasters such as 
hurricanes,  evidence  suggests  that  remittance  transfers  to  affected  areas  often  increase 
substantially,  hence  reducing  the  need  for  displacement72.  Remittances  can  also  be  used  to 
strengthen  ex  ante  preparedness  in  disaster-prone  regions,  or  invested  into  other  resilience 
strategies  such  as  livelihoods  diversification  away  from  actives  which  are  threatened  due  to 
environmental stressors. 

Other  frequently  cited  examples  of  the  potential  of  migration  to  serve  as  a  coping  strategy 
include the role of both temporary and permanent migration in reducing pressures on limited 
environmental  resources  in  communities  of  origin,  and  to  allow  access  to  social  networks 
which  can  provide  other  resources  such  as  information.  Indeed,  diaspora  groups  can  play  a 
valuable  role  in  supporting  adaptation  measures  through  transfers  of  financial,  social  or 

71  
72  

Foresight (2011) 
For example, a World Bank study demonstrated that following a 2003 hurricane in Jamaica, remittance-
receiving  households  recuperated  up  to  a  quarter  of  their  hurricane-related  losses  through  increased 
remittance  transfers.  See  Clarke,  G.,  and Wallsten,  S., Do  Remittances Act  Like  Insurance?  Evidence 
from a Natural Disaster in Jamaica. World Bank Development Research Group, January 2003 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
technical  resources  to  communities  of  origin.  In  particular,  those  migrants  who  decide  to 
return to their country or origin can substantially contribute  to increasing  both  personal and 
community  resilience,  through  applying  skills  acquired  during  the  period  of  migration  and 
investing the resources earned. 

Nevertheless,  understanding  of  the  relationship  between  migration  and  adaptation  in 
communities of origin remains limited, and should be subject to further research. This should 
assess issues such as if and how the beneficial impacts of migration spread from households 
to  the  wider  community,  the  ways  in  which  migration  contributes  to  structural  modes  of 
adaptation  (e.g.  through  productive  investment  of  remittances)  and  the  potential  risks  of 
migration  for  those  involved.  The  cost-effectiveness  of  migration  as  an  adaptation  strategy 
should also be compared with other modes.  

Both future research and policy measures in this field must also factor in the well-documented 
potential  negative  social  consequences  of  migration  for  communities.  These  include  the 
negative  impact  on  family  members  such  as  children  or  elderly  persons  left  behind  by 
migrants, and the potential for communities of origin to develop a dependency on remittances. 

Reflection  is  also  required  on  the  policy  measures  which  can  be  supported  to  promote  the 
links between migration and adaptation. In this area, clear synergies exist with the experience 
gained by the EU since 2005 through implementing the migration and development pillar of 
the  Global  Approach  to  Migration,  and  since  2011  the  Global  Approach  to  Migration  and 
Mobility (GAMM) 73. Through the GAMM the EU fully recognises that the human, social and 
financial  capital  which  migrants  transfer  to  their  countries  of  origin  can  exert  a  positive 
impact  on  development.  The  Commission  and  EU  Member  States  have  gained  significant 
experience  in  maximising  the  development  impact  of  migration  for  countries  of  origin 
through measures such as facilitating remittance transfers, supporting the diaspora groups in 
becoming  more  effective  development  actors,  and  promoting  the  developmental  benefits  of 
return  migration.  Measures  are  also  under  development  to  mitigate  the  potential  negative 
social consequences of migration. 

However, until now limited attention has been paid under the EU migration and development 
agenda  to  the  links  between  migration  and  resilience  to  climate  change.  Ways  should  be 
explored to promote these links in future migration and development initiatives. For example, 
the  Commission  will  consider  how  to  ensure  that  future  initiatives  to  facilitate  remittance 
transfers  better  take  into  account  the  needs  of  regions  suffering  environmental  degradation, 
including  in  the  aftermath  of  sudden-onset  disasters.  Measures  to  promote  the  development 
impact  of  remittances  should  also  address  the  objective  of  ensuring  that  remittances  are 
invested  into  adaptation  strategies,  by  for  example  providing  information  to  receiving 
communities on ways of using financial  transfers to  increase  resilience.   The  same  goes  for 
EU  and  Member  State  measures  to  support  the  engagement  of  diasporas  in  development 
activities, and to promote return, which could be more targeted towards migrants and diaspora 
groups  that  possess  skills  and  resources  which  could  strengthen  adaptation  in  their 
communities of origin.  

This potential of migration to serve as a coping strategy could also be highlighted to partner 
countries through on-going political dialogue initiatives on both migration and climate change 
adaptation.  Under  the  GAMM,  the  EU  is  engaged  in  a  number  of  bilateral  and  regional 
migration  dialogues  with  key  partners  throughout  the  developing  world.  The  relevance  of 
climate  change  and  migration  for  the  GAMM  framework  has  already  been  recognised  and 
measures  to  facilitate  migration  as  an  adaptation  strategy  could  therefore  receive  greater 
attention under GAMM dialogues with countries or regions which are particularly vulnerable 

73  

COM(2011)743 final 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to  climate  change.  At  global  level,  measures  to  facilitate  'adaptive  migration'  could  also  be 
further considered in broad migration and development fora such as the GFMD. 

The  EU  could  also  consider  how  to  further  integrate  migration-as-adaptation  into  broader 
efforts  to  promote  climate  change  adaptation,  by  for  example  supporting  partners  in 
introducing a migration dimension to their national adaptation planning. 

Fostering Greater Mobility to Promote Migration as Adaptation 

As noted above, fostering mobility and facilitating labour migration can greatly contribute 
both to creating opportunities for individuals to take advantage of the potential of migration to 
boost  adaptation,  and  to  reducing  environmentally  induced  displacement.  Though  each 
context is different, this statement applies both to the promotion of mobility within states (e.g. 
rural-urban  migration),  and  to  international  migration,  in  particular  between  developing 
countries in the same region. 

Given  the  similarities  between  environmentally  induced  migration  and  other  types  of 
migration  flows,  current  experiences  indicate  that  there  is  no  need  to  'brand'  measures  to 
promote mobility as specifically targeting a certain type of migrant for them to facilitate the 
use of migration as adaptation. Indeed, as demonstrated below, some of the most successful 
examples  of  schemes  which  have  promoted  migration  as  adaptation  have  been  set  up  as 
'ordinary' labour migration schemes.  

Regarding internal mobility, measures to facilitate existing migration trends and promote their 
development  impact  may  prove  beneficial.  These  may  include  supporting  developing 
countries  in  planning  for  increased  mobility,  strengthening  infrastructure  or  transport  links, 
and supporting host communities (see 4.3.4 on the latter).  

As  regards  the  facilitation  of  international  population  movements,  the  Commission  has 
already  implemented  numerous  relevant  measures  as  fostering  well-managed  international 
mobility and better organising legal migration are recognised as one of the four 'pillars' of the 
GAMM. Many of these have focused on promoting circular migration schemes. In addition, 
both  the  GAMM  and  the  2011  Agenda  for  Change  on  Increasing  the  Impact  of  EU 
Development Policy74 call on EU to promote inter- and intra-regional mobility in developing 
regions.  The  Commission  therefore  aims  to  significantly  step  up  its  efforts  to  promote  the 
development impact of South-South migration in the coming years through EU development 
cooperation.  For  example,  a  26  million  EUR  initiative  to  promote  implementation  of  the 
ECOWAS 1980 Free Movement Protocol was recently launched (for further consideration of 
ECOWAS  see  section  4.1.7.)  In  light  of  these  synergies,  the  Commission  will  explore  how 
future  initiatives  on  labour  migration  and  mobility  could  be  more  specifically  targeted 
towards regions at risk of climate change or environmental degradation.  

Such  measures  should  build  on  the  experience  gained  with  a  number  of  relevant  labour 
migration  schemes  which  have  already  been  implemented  both  by  the  EU  and  its  Member 
States  and  by  non-EU  countries.  They  have  been  developed  in  different  contexts  which 
demonstrate  that  greater  mobility  can  promote  the  use  of  migration  as  adaptation  in  a  vast 
range of scenarios. 

In this regard, the EU-funded Temporary and Circular Labour Migration (TCLM) agreement 
between Spain and Colombia can serve as a model. It had a strong migration and development 
component  and  targeted  communities  affected  by  recurring  environmental  disruptions  (such 
as  volcanic  eruptions,  drought  and  floods). The  programme  was  initiated  by  a  federation  of 
employers from the region of Catalonia in 2001 to fill gaps in the agricultural sector. The IOM 

74  

COM(2011)637final 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
implemented  a  project  from  2006  to  2009,  funded  under  the  EU  AENEAS  programme75, 
which  sought  to  strengthen  the  model,  notably  the  development  effects  for  the  migrant 
workers’ communities of origin. One of the criteria for selecting communities of origin was 
their vulnerability to natural disasters. 

Equally  interesting  is  the  New  Zealander  labour  migration  policy  for  Pacific  islands.  Since 
2007, the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) Programme permits short-term migration to 
solve  a  labour  shortage  in  the  agricultural  sector.  It  includes  a  development  component.  In 
addition, the Pacific Access Category (PAC) allows limited permanent labour migration. This 
agreement, concluded in 2001, allows up to 75 citizens of Kiribati, 75 citizens of Tuvalu and 
250  citizens  of  Tonga  (including  their  partners  and  dependent  children)  to  be  granted 
residence  in  New  Zealand  each  year76.  However,  although  targeting  countries  seriously 
affected  by  sea-level  rise  and  extreme  weather  events,  these  schemes  do  not  make  any 
mention of the threat of climate change. 

The  specific  case  of  pastoralists  in  the  Horn  of  Africa  is  also  worth  mentioning,  as  for  this 
group  of  persons  limits  on  cross-border  mobility  can  increase  their  vulnerability  to 
environmental  change,  with  negative  security  implications.  In  this  context  the  Security  in 
Mobility  Initiative  (SIM)  launched  in  2009  by  a  consortium  of  international  organizations 
(OCHA, UNEP, IOM and ISS) is a best practice example for intra-regional cooperation. The 
project acknowledges mobility of pastoralist communities in the Horn and East Africa as an 
adaption  strategy  to  climate  change  and  advocates  for  regional  cooperation  to  facilitate 
peaceful cross-border movements seeking to reduce and prevent localised conflicts77. 

The  development  of  such  migration  schemes  often  requires  the  adoption  of  'flanking 
measures' to support mobility, such as: 

•  equipping younger rural generations with mobile skills, 

• 

improving access to markets and transport systems, 

•  harmonising laws at regional level to address inconsistencies and inadequacies in the land 

tenure systems, 

• 

involving  civil  society  organisations  and  local  governments  in  discussions  on  migration 
and climate change or 

•  addressing  migration  governance  issues  (at  local,  national,  regional  and  international 

levels) . 

4.3.3.  Providing  durable  solutions,  including  planning  for  relocation  as  a  last  resort 

solution 

Environmentally  induced  displacement  can  take  a  broad  variety  of  shapes.  Frequently 
displacement will be linked to sudden-onset disasters such as hurricanes, in which case it will 
be spontaneous and will trigger emergency responses which should focus on allowing persons 
to  return  home  as  soon  as  possible.  For  other  cases,  especially  following  slow-onset 

75 
76 

77  

MIGR/2006/120-237 
Some  criteria  need  to  be  fulfilled.  The  registration  form  for  the  Pacific  Access  Category 
(http://www.immigration.govt.nz)  requires  that:  ‘applicants  possess  citizenship  status  for  Kiribati, 
Tuvalu, Tonga or Fiji; are aged between 18 and 45; have an acceptable (permanent, full-time, genuine, 
and paid by a salary or wages) offer of employment in New Zealand; have a minimum level of skills in 
English  language;  have  a  minimum  income  requirement  if  the  applicant  has  a  dependant;  exhibit 
certain  health  and  character  requirements;  and  have  no  history  of  unlawful  entry  into  New  Zealand 
since July 1, 2002’, 
OCHA & al, Security In Mobility: “Advocating for Safe Movement as a Climate Change Adaptation 
Strategy for Pastoralists in the Horn and East Africa”, June 2010 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
environmental  degradation,  more  gradual  forms  of  displacement  may  occur  which  can  be 
longer-term or permanent. Where displacement occurs, it is essential to provide assistance to 
the  displaced,  safeguard  their  rights,  promote  efforts  to  find  durable  solutions  and,  in 
particular  in  cases  of  protracted  displacement,  consider  the  needs  of  host  communities  (see 
point 4.3.4 on the latter point). 

Policy  and  operational  responses  will  significantly  differ  depending  on  the  causes  of 
displacement,  the  intentions  of  affected  communities,  the  national  policy  frameworks,  the 
coping  capacities  of  hosting  regions/countries  and  the  likelihood  of  return.  Where 
environmentally  induced  displacement  remains  internal,  states  have  a  clear  responsibility  to 
assist  migrants  and  address  their  long-term  needs.  As  mentioned  above  in  section  4.1,  for 
cases of international displacement, there is much scope for action under existing migration-
related frameworks. 

The revised Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons, endorsed by 
the Inter-Agency Standing Committee in December 200978, establishes that a durable solution 
is  achieved  when  migrants  no  longer  need  specific  assistance  and  protection  linked  to  their 
displacement  and  can  enjoy  their  human  rights  without  discrimination  resulting  from  their 
displacement.  The  Framework  underlines  that  a  durable  solution  can  be  achieved  by  any  of 
three settlement options:  sustainable  reintegration  at the place of origin  (return); sustainable 
integration  in  areas  where  IDPs  have  taken  refuge  (local  integration);  or  sustainable 
integration  in  another  part  of  the  country  (settlement  elsewhere).  The  Framework  outlines 
eight criteria to be considered in determining the extent to which a durable solution has been 
achieved. None of them explicitly refers to environmentally induced displacement, but three 
of the eight relate indirectly to such migrants. These are: 

• 

long-term safety, security and freedom of movement; 

•  adequate standard of living, including at least access to adequate food, water, housing, 

healthcare and basic education; 

• 

land and property or adequate compensation. 

These three criteria are useful and might serve as a preliminary checklist for durable solutions 
for environmentally induced migrants. However, another two criteria are also essential: 

•  sufficient carrying capacity of the ecosystems that the migrants now rely on (in terms 
of food and water supply and of land and natural resource degradation over the long 
term); 

•  vulnerability of the new location considering previous, and possible future, climate-

change-related natural disasters. 

Although not specifically targeting environmentally induced migrants, the EU has been active 
in  helping  communities  to  find  sustainable  solutions  for  displaced  people,  in  particular 
refugees.  Some  of  these  initiatives,  if  adequately  adapted,  might  serve  as  a  useful  model  to 
apply to environmentally induced displacement. One such initiative targeting refugees are the 
Regional  Protection  Programmes  (RPPs)  that  comprise  two  main  components:  measures  to 
enhance  the  protection  capacity  of  non-EU  countries  where  refugees  are  hosted  as  well  as 
support to offer durable solutions to refugees, such as local integration, voluntary return and 
resettlement  (including  towards  the  EU).  Such  an  RPP  has  been  launched,  amongst  other 
places, in the Great Lakes Region. The EU has also provided support to displaced populations 
in  the  Caucasus,  Asia  (Burma,  Nepal,  Sri  Lanka  and  the  Philippines)  or  Latin  America 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
(Colombia) with the aim, amongst other things, of building up the capacity of local authorities 
to integrate  refugees and displaced populations. Lessons learned  from projects implemented 
in  that  framework  clearly  highlight  the  need  for  a  comprehensive  response  to  the  needs  of 
long-term  displaced  people.  One  of  the  main  challenges  is  to  find  integration  solutions  for 
these  populations,  without  affecting  the  livelihoods  of  host  communities  or  creating 
imbalances between each group’s living conditions. 

Planned relocation as a last resort solution 

Within on-going debates on climate change and migration, significant attention is often given 
to  planned  relocation  measures  as  potential  durable  solution  for  communities  which  are 
particularly  at  risk  from  environmental  degradation.  The  Foresight  study  has  defined 
relocation as 'the movement of people, typically in groups or whole communities, as part of a 
process led by the state or other organisation, to a predefined location'79.  

Prior experience shows that relocation schemes frequently have a high human cost, and few 
successful  examples  exist.  They  therefore  represent  a  last  resort  solution,  and  must  be 
implemented on a voluntary basis (i.e. persons in targeted communities must be free to refuse 
participation in the schemes), based on careful planning. Relocation may nevertheless become 
a necessity in certain scenarios. 

For  example,  for  'trapped  populations',  or  persons  in  communities  severely  affected  by  
environmental  degradation  but  lacking  the  resources  to  either  adapt  or  migrate,  facilitating 
relocation  may  prove  vital  in  removing  persons  from  vulnerable  situations  and  preventing 
potential  unorganised  displacement.  Planned  relocation  can  also  be  considered  an  option  in 
itself for countries facing the risk of parts of their territory being inundated by sea water or 
becoming  environmentally  unsustainable  due  to  desertification.  Some  researchers  have 
pointed  out  that  the  most  vulnerable  and  poorest  populations,  especially  if  geographically 
isolated,  are  less  likely  to  find  a  way  to  move  out  of  an  environment  where  a  survival 
livelihood is no longer guaranteed80. 

Relocation could also be considered following cases of environmentally induced displacement 
to host communities which lack the capacity to provide a durable solution for some or all of 
the displaced. Similarly to resettlement of refugees, this may be a way to lighten the burden 
on host communities and to increase the commitment of local authorities to protecting persons 
at risks who are not selected for relocation. This might also be the only sustainable solution in 
some contexts, especially for host communities where resources are already scarce. 

The  EU  should  therefore  consider  supporting  countries  severely  exposed  to  environmental 
stressors  to  assess  the  path  of  degradation  and  design  specific  preventive  internal,  or  where 
necessary,  international  relocation  measures  when  adaptation  strategies  can  no  longer  be 
implemented.  Consultations  with  authorities  at  not  only  national  but  also  regional  and 
international levels are required in order to assess the most viable and sustainable solution for 
relocation.  The  experience  amassed  by  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  in  the  process  of 
supporting  and  implementing  their  own  resettlement  programmes  could  prove  useful  and 
enable  the  EU  to  play  a  role  in  supporting  non-EU  countries’  efforts  to  use  relocation  in 
managing environmentally induced migration. 

Planned relocation of populations has been used in the past also to allow implementation of 
development programmes, such as dams or urban reorganisation. But it might take on larger 
proportions  in  the  future.  Guidelines  for  resettlement,  such  as  those  prepared  by  the  World 

79  
80 

Foresight(2011), p. 176 
Jäger et al. 2009. EACH-FOR Synthesis Report. www.each-for.eu. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Bank81,  could  be  useful  to  avoid  weakening  the  displaced  communities  even  more.  The 
Cancun  Adaptation  framework  also  specifically  mentions  planned  relocation  as  a  means  to 
ensure  that  populations  exposed  to  risks  can  be  brought  to  safety.  This  must  imply  careful 
evaluation  of  the  socio-economic,  demographic  and  environmental  situation,  consultations 
with  local  communities  and  national  authorities  as  well  as  compensation  and  assistance 
schemes. 

Designing an appropriate and durable relocation strategy has to take into account a number of 
issues.  The  case  study  carried  out  on  Mozambique  in  the  ‘EACH-FOR’  project  illustrates 
some  of  the  challenges,  such  as  the  need  to  provide  not  only  housing  but  also  alternative 
sources of income in destination areas. It reported that people relocated after regular flooding 
in  the  area  of  the  River  Zambezi  often  had  to  go  back  to  their  homes  temporarily,  as 
cultivating their fields was the only way they could support themselves. Moreover, attention 
needs  to  be  paid  to  social,  cultural  and  religious  aspects,  as  for  multi-generational  families 
moving out of an open village to a confined space can have a deep impact on the relocated 
persons  and  the  host  communities.  The  impact  of  the  relocated  persons  on  the  local 
environment  should  not  be  underestimated,  as  often  the  host  communities  also  suffer  from 
difficult  conditions.  In  Mozambique  relocated  migrants  were  placed  in  dry  areas,  often 
suffering from excessive droughts. 

4.3.4.  Addressing  the  needs  of  receiving  areas  and  hosting  communities  in  EU  partner 

countries 

Measures  to  address  environmentally  induced  migration  and  displacement  must  adequately 
factor in the situation and needs of host communities if they are to be sustainable. As noted in 
Section  2,  research  suggests  that  many  environmentally  induced  migrants  may  head  to 
destination  areas  which  are  themselves  at  risk  from  the  adverse  effects  of  climate  change. 
Therefore, in designing schemes to improve mobility or promote relocation or in the context 
of  climate  change,  it  is  necessary  to  take  into  account  the  environmental  sustainability  of 
potential locations to which migrants might move. 

Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure that, where possible, migration produces benefits for the 
host communities, which will also allow migrants to accumulate financial and social capital 
which can be shared with communities of origin. Where this cannot be achieved, such as in 
cases of environmentally induced displacement to regions facing economic or social hardship, 
measures  may  be  necessary  to  reduce  potential  tensions  between  the  displaced  and  host 
communities, who may resent increased pressure on scarce resources.  

It  appears  that  environmentally  induced  migration  flows  do  not  present  any  real 
specificities  compared  to  other  forms  of  migration  or  displacement  in  terms  of  their 
impact  on  host  communities.  Therefore,  current  best  practice  measures  in  promoting  the 
economic  and  social  integration  of  migrants  and  supporting  receiving  communities  in 
managing  challenges  related  to  population  inflows  such  as  urbanisation  are  likely  to  be 
effective. 

As part of its migration and development agenda, the Commission aims to support integration 
measures  for  migrants  in  countries  of  destination  in  the  Global  South,  including  by  sharing 
EU  best  practice82.  Integration  measures  and  development  strategies  of  hosting  countries 
could  aim  to  maximise  the  development  potential  of  all  persons  moving  in  the  context  of 
climate change, including the displaced, for whom economic livelihood opportunities may not 
be immediately available. 

81 
82  

 http://rru.worldbank.org/documents/toolkits/highways/pdf/91.pdf. 
EC Staff Working Paper on Migration and Development, 18.11.2011. SEC(2011) 1353 final 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Migration to urban centres 

Migration  in  the  context  of  climate  change  will  exacerbate  the  existing  challenges  in  urban 
areas in low-income countries as they will most likely be the destination of environmentally 
induced  migrants.  Cities  will  face  a  double  problem  as  they  are  both  growing  in  terms  of 
population and  are  extremely vulnerable to environmental change. The EU should therefore 
consider how cities can be assisted in planning for increased migration in order to meet the 
needs  of  all  current  and  future  residents.  Providing  infrastructures  and  services  (e.g.  health, 
education…)  in  urban  centres  will  become  an  even  more  challenging  issue  in  the  future. 
Effective  urban  planning  and  land  use  will  be  crucial.  In  addition,  it  will  be  even  more 
important to address the social protection needs of migrants in cities. The role of civil society 
will be essential in this regard. 

5. 

FINANCIAL ASPECTS 

This  paper  has  identified  a  large  number  of  practical  measures  which  may  contribute  to 
effectively meeting the challenges posed by the nexus between climate change, environmental 
degradation, disaster risk reduction and migration. Given that many of the most affected states 
will be low- and middle-income countries with limited resources to meet these challenges, the 
financial resources to implement necessary measures will frequently be lacking. Therefore a 
need exists to consider possible funding sources. 

The existing EU financial framework already allows support to partner countries in many of 
the  areas  addressed  by  this  paper,  including  strengthening  adaptation  and  DRR,  and 
promoting more effective international migration governance. So far, only a limited number 
of  EU-funded  initiatives  have  been  explicitly  labelled  as  targeting  challenges  posed  by 
climate change and migration. Nevertheless, numerous initiatives which the Commission has 
already  financed  can  be  considered  as  relevant,  in  particular  in  the  area  of  promoting 
adaptation  to  reduce  displacement.  Relevant  funding  sources  include  the  EU's  research 
programme83, the EU budget for humanitarian aid, and the various thematic and geographic 
instruments  for  external  cooperation,  which  are  the  main  potential  sources  for  initiatives  on 
partner countries on migration.  

Addressing the social and development impacts of climate change is a rising issue in bilateral 
dialogues between the EU and some of the most exposed countries in the world, especially in 
southern  Asia,  Africa  and  the  Pacific  region.  A  number  of  measures  to  promote  DRR  and 
strengthen  adaptation  have  been  funded  under  both  the  EU  humanitarian  budget,  and  its 
development funds. 

the  Development  Cooperation 

The  EU's  bilateral  development  assistance  under  geographic  funds  (the  European 
the  European 
Development  Fund, 
Neighbourhood  Policy  Instrument)  is  programmed  in  close  coordination  with  partner 
countries on the basis of joint priorities identified through political dialogue, in line with EU 
commitments to aid effectiveness principles. The climate change and migration nexus is not 
yet  specifically  mentioned  in  EU  Country  Strategy  Papers,  which  are  the  basis  for  the 
disbursement of EU geographical funds, though relevant adaptation-related projects have been 
financed84.  The  growing  relevance  of  this  topic  for  the  EU’s  relations  with  some  non-EU 

Instrument  and 

83  

84  

Several  relevant  research  initiatives  have  been  funded  under  the  7th  Framework  Programme  for 
Research and its predecessor,  
Example: Country Strategy Paper for Bangladesh. 

-  EU is fifth biggest donor. Country allocation 2008-13: 410 million EUR 
- 
- 

Identifies priorities on health, human rights, private sector etc. 
Identifies indicative allocation of 12% of funding for environment, disaster risk reduction and climate 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
countries  may  lead  to  the  topic  being  integrated  as  a  priority  in  future  programming, 
especially if partner countries request this in their bilateral dialogue with the EU. 

Regarding  the  Commission's  thematic  development  funding,  the  Global  Climate  Change 
Alliance is the key EU instrument for engagement with partner countries on climate change, 
in particular least developed countries and small island developing States. The total funding 
for  the  period  2008-2011  amounted  to  200  million  EUR,  including  74  million  Fast  Start 
Financing  from  Commission  and  MS.  GCCA  combines  (i)  A  platform  for  dialogue  to  raise 
awareness of issues and identify areas of cooperation at global, regional and national level and 
(ii) Technical and financial support. Particularly relevant areas of funding include: 

- Adaptation: Water, agriculture, reducing vulnerability of populations to climate change 

- Disaster risk reduction (DRR): The GCCA seeks to help developing countries to prepare 
for climate-related natural disasters, reduce their risks and limit their impacts.  

- Mainstreaming climate change into poverty reduction and development efforts 

Under  the  DCI,  the  Thematic  Programme  for  Migration  and  Asylum  is  dedicated  to 
cooperation with non-EU countries in the area of migration, complementing the geographical 
programmes. The strategy for this programme for 2011-2013 includes migration and climate 
change as one of the priority areas for action, and the topic was included as a priority in the 
call  for  proposals  launched  in  October  201185. A  particular  focus  on  research  to  strengthen 
evidence  base  and  assistance  to  Asia  and  Pacific  countries  to  plan  and  manage  migration 
caused by sea-level rises was included. 

Given  the  wide  range  of  relevant  financial  instruments  at  EU  level,  the  Commission  will 
explore how relevant funds can be used to address the complex issues underlying migration 
and  climate  change  in  a  more  coherent  and  coordinated  manner,  including  under  the  future 
financial perspectives for 2014-2020. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The complex interplay between drivers of migration and the difficulty of isolating climate and 
other environmental changes as such make it difficult to make precise estimations regarding 
migration in  the context  of  climate  change. Nevertheless,  existing  evidence clearly suggests 
that where environmental change impacts on migration, its effects will be felt primarily in the 
developing world, with migrants moving either internally or to countries in the same region. 
New large-scale international population movements to developed regions such as the EU are 
therefore unlikely to occur. 

As shown in  this paper, migration in  the  context  of  environmental  change  will  present both 
major challenges and opportunities. Different types of environmentally induced migration and 
displacement  call  for  different  approaches  and  policy  responses.  The  Commission  already 
possesses  many  of  the  tools  necessary  to  meet  challenges  such  as  promoting  adaptation  to 
reduce  the  need  for  migration  and  assisting  those  displaced  by  sudden-  or  slow-onset 
environmental  events.  The  EU  also  has  experience  in  implementing  measures  which  could 
promote the use of migration as a climate change adaptation strategy and an opportunity for 
migrants, their families and countries of origin. The Commission and Member States should 
therefore  reflect  how  existing  measures  identified  in  this  paper  could  be  better  coordinated 
and targeted to form a comprehensive response to the challenges posed by climate change and 

85  

change  
The  Temporary  and  Circular  Labour  Migration  Project  mentioned  above  was  funded  under  the 
predecessor of TPMA 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
migration.  Joint  reflection  on  the  need  for  possible  new  measures  should  also  continue 
together with partner countries and other international actors. 

The  following  steps  seem  important  for  building  a  policy  to  address  environmentally 
induced migration: 

Knowledge: 

•  More  EU  research  on  all  aspects  of  environmentally  induced  migration  and 
displacement, focusing on the priorities addressed in section 2.3. This should include 
support to the research capacities in regions of origin. 

• 

Integration of data relevant to migration in the context of climate change into relevant 
EU  instruments,  such  as  migration  and  environmental  profiles.  Moreover, 
development  of  global  information  systems  that  not  only  generate  and  process  data, 
but  also  communicate  relevant  data  to  policy-makers  and  politicians  at  all  levels  in 
such  ways  that  the  data  can  be  incorporated  into  EU,  Member  States’  and  non-EU 
countries’  development  plans  could  help  to  bridge  the  gap  between  current  needs, 
current  knowledge  and  the  action  required  to  mitigate  and  adapt  to  the  effects  of 
environmental change on migration. 

Dialogue: 

•  Environmentally induced migration can be more frequently put on the agenda of EU 
dialogue  with  the  partner  countries  affected  or  likely  to  be  affected,  including  under 
the  Global  Approach  to  Migration  and  Mobility.  In  this  vein,  the  EU  might 
contribute to enhancing coherence within the EU climate diplomacy mechanism. 

•  Further  discussions  in  international  fora  on  an  appropriate  legal  and  institutional 
framework,  based  on  the  principle  that  responses  are  flexible,  individualised  and 
tailor-made, especially at regional level. 

Cooperation: 

•  While  addressing  environmentally  induced  migration  is  principally  a  matter  for  the 
EU development and humanitarian aid policies, there is also a need to strengthen 
policy coherence at the EU level. 

•  The  remit  and  scope  of  EU  action  on  climate-change  and  disaster  risk  reduction 
need  to  be  widened  in  order  to  include  environmentally  induced  migration  from  a 
longer-term perspective 

• 

It  is  important  to  integrate  climate  change  adaptation  (and,  where  appropriate, 
mitigation) deeper into national sustainable development strategies, linking disaster 
risk reduction, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation strategies, and 
to  consider  including  migration  dimensions  into  existing  tools  such  as  the  National 
Adaptation Programmes of Action, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and the United 
Nations Development Assistance Framework. 

•  A  number  of  tools  developed  under  the  EU's  Global  Approach  to  Migration  and 
Mobility could be better targeted to more directly address the challenges of migration 
in  the  context  of  environmental  change.  This  includes,  in  particular,  measures  under 
the GAMM and Agenda for Change to promote well-managed South-South migration 
and  regional  mobility,  and  measures  to  provide  assistance  and  durable  solutions  to 
displaced persons. Moreover, action under the GAMM  migration and development 
pillar,  in  particular  with  regard  to  relations  with  the  diaspora  and  facilitating 
remittances,  could,  where  relevant,  be  refocused  to  better  promote  migration  as 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
adaptation. 

•  The  EU  should  promote  the  involvement  of  multiple  stakeholders,  particularly  the 
diaspora, social organisations, local authorities and the private sector in order to ensure 
addressing  the  challenge  of  environmentally  induced  migration  in  a  comprehensive 
and sustainable way.   

EN 

36 

   EN