Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-10 (section)

===== 10.4.6.4.4 Migration and planned relocation =====

<div id="h4-23-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

There is ''medium evidence'' with ''high agreement'' that climatic risks are exacerbating internal and international migration across Asia (see Box 10.2; [[#IDMC--2019|IDMC, 2019]] ; [[#Maharjan--2020|Maharjan et al., 2020]] ). In coastal cities, formal ‘retreat’ measures, such as forced displacement and planned relocation ( [[#Oppenheimer--2019|Oppenheimer et al., 2019]] ), are commonly considered ‘last resort’ adaptation strategies once other infrastructural and ecosystem-based protect-and-accommodate strategies are exhausted ( [https://www.ipcc.ch/chapter/10#CCP2.3 CCP2.3] ) ( [[#Haasnoot--2019|Haasnoot et al., 2019]] ). In contrast, migration (which can take various forms from seasonal, temporary mobility to circular or permanent movement) is a regular feature across Asian urban settlements (Box 10.2, CCB MIGRATE, [[#Maharjan--2020|Maharjan et al., 2020]] ).

There is ''robust evidence'' ( ''medium agreement'' ) that across Asia, migration (and increasingly planned relocation) will continue to be a key risk management strategy, especially in low-lying flood-prone cities (e.g., in Southeast and South Asia) and across drylands (e.g., in South and Central Asia) ( [[#Davis--2018|Davis et al., 2018]] ; [[#Ajibade--2019|Ajibade, 2019]] ; [[#Lincke--2021|Lincke and Hinkel, 2021]] ). While there is insufficient evidence to project migration numbers under different warming levels, it is well established that migration as an adaptation strategy is not equally available to all ( [[#Ayeb-Karlsson--2020|Ayeb-Karlsson, 2020]] ), and climatic risks might reduce vulnerable populations’ ability to move due to loss of assets, thus reinforcing existing inequalities and differential adaptive capacities ( [[#Blondin--2019|Blondin, 2019]] ; [[#Zickgraf--2019|Zickgraf, 2019]] ; [[#Singh--2020|Singh and Basu, 2020]] ; [[#Cundill--2021|Cundill et al., 2021]] ; [[#Gavonel--2021|Gavonel et al., 2021]] ).

There is ''medium evidence'' ( ''low agreement'' ) about the effectiveness of migration and planned relocation in reducing risk exposure. Evidence on climate-driven internal migration shows that moving has mixed outcomes on risk reduction and adaptive capacity. On one hand, migration can improve adaptive capacity by increasing incomes and remittances as well as diversifying livelihoods ( [[#Maharjan--2020|Maharjan et al., 2020]] ); on the other, migration can expose migrants to new risks. For example, in Bangalore (India), migrants often face high exposure to localised flooding, insecure and unsafe livelihoods, and social exclusion, which collectively shape their vulnerability ( [[#Michael--2018|Michael et al., 2018]] ; [[#Singh--2020|Singh and Basu, 2020]] ). In greater Manila (the Philippines) and Chennai (India), planned relocations to reduce disaster risk have often exacerbated vulnerability, due to relocation sites being in environmentally sensitive areas, inadequate livelihood opportunities and exposure to new risks ( [[#Meerow--2017|Meerow, 2017]] ; [[#Ajibade--2019|Ajibade, 2019]] ; [[#Jain--2021|Jain et al., 2021]] ).

<div id="10.4.6.4.5" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="disaster-management-and-contingency-planning"></span>