Editing IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-4 (section)

===== 4.4.2.6.5 Co-benefits and drawbacks of retreat =====

The other outcomes of retreat responses, beyond the one of effectively reducing SLR risks and impacts, are complex and affect both origin and destination. Generally, retreat impacts social networks, access to services and economic and social opportunities, and several well-being indicators (Jones and Clark, 2014; Adams, 2016; Herath et al., 2017; Kura et al., 2017; McNamara et al., 2018). The socioeconomic benefits of migration to individuals and households may include improved access to health and education services, as well as labour markets (Wrathall and Suckall, 2016). Destination areas may gain economically as populations and capital relocate and provide a new source of labour, capital and innovation to inland areas (see Section 4.4.2.6.2; de Haas, 2010). Income inequality may be reduced, but only through migration to areas with growing economies. Remittances can provide flexibility in livelihood options, supply capital for investment and spread risk (Scheffran et al., 2012).

Drawbacks of migration and displacement at the destination can be increased competition for resources and within labour markets, pressure on frontline services and on social cohesion as a result of heightened cultural or ethnic tension (Werz and Hoffman, 2015), as well as cultural, social and psychological losses related to disruptions to sense of place and identity, self-efficacy, and rights to ancestral land and culture (McNamara et al., 2018). The unplanned and unassisted voluntary relocation of the inhabitants of Nuatambu and Nusa Hope in the Solomon Islands to areas further from the coast poses a series of practical challenges with sanitation, access to drinking water and transport (Albert et al., 2018).

The success of planned relocation in terms of the balance of co-benefits and drawbacks varies across relocation schemes (Hino et al., 2017) and outcomes are highly uneven (Genovese and Przyluski, 2013; Ford et al., 2015; Nordstrom et al., 2015; Bukvic and Owen, 2017; Hino et al., 2017; Jamero et al., 2017). On the one hand, well designed and carefully implemented programmes, such as the ongoing resettlement of indigenous communities in Alaska, can improve housing standards and reduce vulnerability (Suppasri et al., 2015; Albert et al., 2018). On the other hand, relocated communities have often become further impoverished (Wilmsen and Webber, 2015), because they are removed from cultural and material resources on which they rely, compounded by poor implementation processes that may fail to ensure fairness, social and environmental justice and well-being (Herath et al., 2017; Mortreux et al., 2018; Nygren and Wayessa, 2018).

<div id="section-4-4-2-6retreat-block-6"></div>

<span id="governance-of-retreat"></span>