On Monday, 20 March 2023, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finalised the publication of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) through the Synthesis Report (SYR6), which integrates the results of the three working groups and three special reports that followed between 2018 and 2022.
The final synthesis report draws important insights from the research carried out by the three working groups during the sixth assessment cycle but, unlike its predecessors, is the result of political negotiation as it is approved by governments. For this reason, the synthesis report influences the climate action agenda and, therefore, it is not insignificant to note that there is no trace of the position on climate migration developed by the IPCC in recent years.
But what is the IPCC?
It is a body of a technical nature that acts as a mediator between the scientific world and policy makers to achieve a greater understanding of climate change and to provide the necessary tools to take action. Synthesis reports are published at the end of each assessment cycle and are intended to draw conclusions and recommendations from the reports published during the cycle by the three thematic working groups. For the sixth synthesis report, the published reports are: Special Report Global Warming of 1.5 (2018), Special Report Climate Change and Land (2019), Special Report Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (2019), Report of the First Working Group the Physical and Scientific Basis(2021), Report of the Second Working Group Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (2022), Report of the Third Working Group Climate Change Mitigation (2022).
The reports contain recommendations and potential response strategies, as well as elements that can be included in potential new international conventions. In other words, the Intergovernmental Panel provides the most important reference standard on climate change, and its position on climate migration can only shake up the entire climate change debate.
The evolution of the IPCC position on ‘climate migrants’
The IPCC’s position has changed over the past decade due to the growing evidence base and data collection. In general, the IPCC states that climate change may have the power to reshape migration flows and that migration may be a viable way to adapt to the impacts of climate change and to protect the rights of affected people and communities.
At this point, it is worth recalling that the IPCC defines adaptation as a process aimed at moderating or avoiding damage (or even taking advantage of favourable opportunities) resulting from the current or expected climate and its impacts. Adaptation therefore aims to anticipate the adverse effects of climate change by taking appropriate measures to prevent or minimise the damage that may be caused, for example, by phenomena such as floods, droughts or heat waves.
The most recent snapshots of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Migration Evidence are to be found in 2014 and 2022.
At the fifth assessment cycle, the report ‘Climate Change 2014. Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability‘ by the second working group (pp. 72-73) predicted that climate change over the course of the century would increase the displacement of people, finding a high level of scientific agreement on the topic but a medium level of evidence. From a human security perspective, populations with fewer resources available for migration were the most exposed to extreme weather events, both in rural and urban areas, especially in low-income countries. From this it followed that expanding ‘migration opportunities’ could reduce the vulnerability to climate change of the most exposed populations, making migration an important and effective adaptation strategy.
In addition, the report stated that there was little confidence in quantitative projections, i.e. how many people would be forced to migrate due to the effects of climate change, due to the complex and multi-causal nature of migration. Not surprisingly, immediately afterwards it states that ‘climate change may indirectly increase the risks of violent conflicts in the form of civil wars and inter-group violence, amplifying well-documented causes of these conflicts, such as poverty and economic shocks‘. Essentially, the 2014 report ‘took time’ and showed the need to gather further evidence on the complex relationship between climate and migration.
It is worth noting that between 2014 and 2022, studies and, in parallel, data collection on climate migrations are multiplying. In the report ‘Climate Change 2022. Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability‘ produced during the sixth assessment cycle, while still stating that the relationship between migration and climate is complex, the IPCC states with greater certainty that climate is playing a key role in migration patterns.
Since the fifth round of evaluations, there has been increasing evidence of the influence of climate risks on migration through the deterioration of climate-vulnerable living conditions. In this sense, it is stated that most of this type of migration occurs within national borders, whereas the crossing of an internationally recognised border mostly occurs between neighbouring countries. On this point, it is stated that, since 2008, an annual average of more than 20 million people have been displaced within the country due to extreme events.
The most common climatic factors driving domestic and international migration are droughts, tropical storms and hurricanes, heavy rains and floods. Compared to the previous report, it is stated that the outcome of climate-related migration is highly variable and dependent on socio-economic factors and household resources that influence its success in terms of adaptation strategy.
In a nutshell, the greater the degree of voluntariness of migration, the greater the potential benefit for the areas of origin and arrival. Conversely, the more forced the migration (n.b. ‘involuntary’ is the term used in the report), the more negative the effects in terms of health, well-being and socio-economic factors will be for individuals and communities. The latter type of migration occurs when adaptation options are reduced or impractical, placing those affected in a severe state of vulnerability to climate change. This does not exclude the possibility of ‘immobility’ phenomena due to communities’ choice or lack of resources to leave their place of origin. This, in any case, can be the result of political decisions and planning at local, regional and national scales.
The real innovation of the 2022 report, however, lies in highlighting the welfare and rights implications of climate migration.
Vulnerability to climate change appears to be a dynamic and multidimensional phenomenon shaped by the intersection of historical and contemporary processes of political, economic and cultural marginalisation. In addition, the intersection of gender, race, social class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, belonging to an impoverished population and/or other social determinants can exacerbate vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.
For these reasons, the IPCC warns that adaptation actions must be consistent with climate justice concerns and address short- and long-term risks through inclusive, transparent, participatory and rights-based decision-making processes, including with historically marginalised communities. Climate justice initiatives that explicitly address multidimensional inequalities can reduce inequalities in access to resources, goods and services, as well as participation in decision-making and leadership.
What is stated in the IPCC Sixth Synthesis Report?
To understand the political value of the synthesis report, it must be remembered that the IPCC uses three processes that lead to the conclusion and publication of its reports:
- through ‘approval’ the Summary for Policymakers is finalised and published. In this case, the publication is discussed line by line and an agreement is reached between the IPCC member states in consultation with the scientists responsible for writing the report;
- through ‘acceptance’ the reports produced by the working groups after the Summary for Policymakers approval process are finalised and published.
- through ‘adoption’ IPCC synthesis reports are finalised and adopted, as in this case. The publication is discussed section by section and agreement is reached between the participating governments in consultation with the authors. In addition to adoption, the approval process described above for the Summary for Policymakers is followed.
On the basis of the above, it is clear that the Synthesis Report and its Summary are of fundamental importance in understanding the next climate agenda, also being able to infer what states might be more inclined to commit to and what not.
The Summary explicitly and categorically recognises that “human activities, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature exceeding that of 1850-1900 by 1.1°C in the period 2011-2020. Greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and current contributions from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles, and consumption and production patterns among regions, among and within countries, and among individuals‘. Regarding climate migration, however, there is only a vague acknowledgement of the topic and it is stated that future exposure to climate risks is increasing globally due to socio-economic development trends, including migration, growing inequality and urbanisation.
Similarly, the Synthesis recognises that there is a high degree of consensus that climate change is driving new patterns of mobility and in particular forced displacement. However, many of the insights and analyses developed by the second working group are missing.
While in the 2022 main report analysed above, climate migration could be seen as a possible form of adaptation, recognising that not all climate migration – especially if forced – can be analysed under this lens, in the synthesis published on 20 March 2023, references to climate change adaptation are almost completely removed. The synthesis report states that reducing future risks of climate change-induced forced migration is possible through cooperative and international efforts to improve adaptive capacity and achieve sustainable development. According to the report, increasing adaptive capacity minimises the risk associated with forced migration and immobility and improves the degree of choice with which migration decisions are made, while policy interventions can remove barriers and expand alternatives for safe, orderly and regular migration to enable people in vulnerable situations to adapt to climate change.
Migration as adaptation to climate change and the need to analyse migration through the lens of climate and environmental justice
As we have seen, migration can be seen as a powerful tool to adapt to climate change, but the main question is “who should migrate?”.
In general, the concept of ‘migration as adaptation’ brings with it two interesting reflections:
- people are already migrating to escape the risks of climate change
- this concept can be a way to flip the narrative that sees ‘climate refugees’ as the next threat and show migration as part of the solutions
What has been said, however, is not without thorny issues.
First of all, one must ask oneself who can move and migrate, especially under safe conditions.
Probably those who have more money and time will be able to make a safer migration. Sometimes, in many contexts of crisis, this is only possible for those who are directly or indirectly part of local potentates or who can enjoy the money of those same multinationals that devastate the territory concerned. For everyone else, e.g. those who are dispossessed of their land because of oil pollution, there is nothing left but a long road with many dangers.
Secondly, in line with the first point, there is the risk of not correctly portraying the violated rights of people vulnerable to climate change, often leading to reading this phenomenon in the context of economic migration. The latter type of migration, although legitimate, calls for a different type of rights to be protected, different policy instruments to be deployed and different national and supranational reference legislation.
Third, migration as a form of adaptation, especially if implemented through policy instruments and managed at the national level through governance mechanisms, could increase already existing inequalities. Without taking into account, and this would seem to be confirmed by the decision to remove all reference to migration as a form of adaptation, that IPCC member states are still reluctant to fund international adaptation projects.
Beyond the thorny issues, however, it must be emphasised that this concept can only be revitalised through a proper exploration of the demands of climate justice and an analysis that succeeds in starting from a human rights-based approach useful for recognising the broad spectrum of climate vulnerabilities. Indeed, there is now no doubt that climate inequality can be a multiplier of injustice: if multiple human rights are interconnected with the environmental situation, the climate crisis can only exacerbate inequality, discrimination and violence.
It is increasingly urgent to adopt systematic and cooperative approaches that address the needs of individual communities affected by climate change, including by creating spaces for dialogue and co-construction with them during negotiations. This cannot disregard the need for proper implementation of adaptation policies, especially in countries of origin of migration, and the recognition of forms of protection for climate and environmental migrants in countries of arrival.
Finally, it must be remembered that the IPCC’s role is to assess the available evidence and that its assessment can only ‘change’ in the light of growing evidence on climate change-induced migration. This is why research projects, also promoted by civil society organisations, that aim to investigate and enrich the understanding of the phenomenon of climate migration and its different declinations are of utmost importance.
If you liked the article, Share Us!
