Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-15 (section)

=== 15.5.3 Migration ===

<div id="h2-9-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Migration, including planned resettlement, is increasingly occurring in small islands to intentionally respond to or prepare for climate change impacts (Figure 15.7; [[#Magnan--2019|Magnan et al., 2019]] ). There is currently ''limited evidence'' and ''low agreement'' in the literature as to whether migration of various types is an effective strategy to adapt to localised impacts of climate change, as outcomes are highly context specific ( [[#Donner--2015|Donner, 2015]] ; [[#McNamara--2016|McNamara et al., 2016]] ; [[#Hermann--2017|Hermann and Kempf, 2017]] ; [[#McMichael--2019|McMichael et al., 2019]] ; [[#Piggott-McKellar--2019a|Piggott-McKellar et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Tabe--2019|Tabe, 2019]] ; [[#Bertana--2020|Bertana, 2020]] ; [[#Weir--2020|Weir, 2020]] ).

In situ adaptation options are frequently the preference of communities over resettlement ( [[#Jamero--2017|Jamero et al., 2017]] ) and in many documented cases, relocation—both planned and autonomous—is an adaptation option of last resort due to high economic and sociocultural cost (McNamara and Des Combes, 2015; [[#Jamero--2017|Jamero et al., 2017]] ; [[#Crichton--2020|Crichton et al., 2020]] ). In small islands, there is ''medium evidence'' and ''high agreement'' that the degree of migrant agency and choice in decisions about whether to move, where, when and how is an important determinant of success and therefore ‘adaptiveness’ (see Cross-Chapter Box MIGRATE in Chapter 7; McNamara and Des Combes, 2015; [[#Hino--2017|Hino et al., 2017]] ; [[#McMichael--2019|McMichael et al., 2019]] ; [[#Piggott-McKellar--2019a|Piggott-McKellar et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Bertana--2020|Bertana, 2020]] ). Two case studies of community relocation in Fiji (Denimanu and Vunidogoloa villages) recommend that participatory inclusion of all social groups in the relocation planning process, including in planning for livelihood sustainability in new locations, should be ensured in future planned community relocation to foster positive adaptive outcomes ( [[#Piggott-McKellar--2019a|Piggott-McKellar et al., 2019a]] ).

There are few examples of highly ‘successful’ and therefore adaptive international resettlement or relocation in response to environmental pressures in history. For example, the experiences of Gilbertese resettled in the Solomon Islands highlight that tensions with host communities over land and resource rights and limited knowledge of new environments (such as when communities previously reliant on marine resources are resettled in high island locations) can create new vulnerabilities ( [[#Donner--2015|Donner, 2015]] ; [[#Weber--2016a|Weber, 2016a]] ; [[#Tabe--2019|Tabe, 2019]] ). Even where gradual international relocation is supported and planned through policy as in the case of Kiribati’s ‘migration with dignity’ strategy, strong cultural connection to land and uncertainty about life in receiving communities in Australia and New Zealand means that many remain opposed to indefinite or permanent migration ( [[#Allgood--2017|Allgood and McNamara, 2017]] ; [[#Hermann--2017|Hermann and Kempf, 2017]] ). The same challenges could apply where domestic migration occurs between significantly different cultural, social and physical environments. However, planned migration for employment or education can reduce exposure in sending locations and spread risk through expanding economic opportunities and providing remittances, thus having inadvertent adaptation outcomes ( [[#Campbell--2014a|Campbell, 2014a]] ). Policies which support migration for employment by the most vulnerable—those that may wish to migrate but lack the resources to do so—may offer an adaptive strategy to environmental pressure, particularly where these incorporate adequate preparedness for life in host communities ( [[#Luetz--2017|Luetz, 2017]] ; [[#Curtain--2019|Curtain and Dornan, 2019]] ; [[#Drinkall--2019|Drinkall et al., 2019]] ). Research from the Maldives suggests that women and men do not possess equal capacities to use mobility as a strategy to adapt to climate change, with women less able to employ migration as an adaptation strategy due to gender roles, social expectations, economic structures, political laws and religious doctrines, and gender norms and cultural practices ( [[#Lama--2018|Lama, 2018]] ).

Forced relocation, involuntary displacement and low-agency migration (e.g., due to low migrant financial resources, or limited participation in migration planning) are commonly associated with unsuccessful outcomes and can therefore be considered an impact of climate change rather than an adaptation strategy ( [[#Weber--2016a|Weber, 2016a]] ; [[#Thomas--2017|Thomas and Benjamin, 2017]] ; [[#Tabe--2019|Tabe, 2019]] ). Resettlement of households, communities and larger island populations is increasingly discussed in the context of losses and damages when in situ adaptation limits are thought to be reached. Limited data and research relating to adaptation limits, transformational adaptation, tolerable and intolerable risk levels in small islands, and limited ability to directly attribute climate change to migration decisions (in the context of both slow-onset changes and extreme events) mean that policy applications are currently limited ( [[#Thomas--2018b|Thomas and Benjamin, 2018b]] ; [[#Handmer--2019|Handmer and Nalau, 2019]] ; [[#Nand--2020|Nand and Bardsley, 2020]] ).

<div id="15.5.4" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ecosystem-based-measures"></span>