By Lorenzo GUADAGNO, Platform on Disaster Displacement, Switzerland

In the decade and a half since the Cancun Adaptation Framework, which first anchored displacement, migration and planned relocations in UNFCCC negotiations, human mobility topics have become a fixture of climate change policy discussions. Today, different facets of the ‘climate and mobility’ nexus are integrated into different UNFCCC workstreams, including Adaptation, Loss and Damage, Just Transition, and Finance. Following limited progress at COP29, key processes remain ongoing, and many issues still need to be resolved before relevant arrangements can be fully operationalised. The coming months promise to be a key moment in the development of global and national architectures to support people, communities and societies facing the adverse effects of climate change – and a period of intense reflection and activity for human mobility stakeholders engaging with human mobility discussions.

In this issue of Southasiadisasters.net, we have gathered the contributions of professionals working at different intersections of climate change and human mobility, in an attempt to understand their operational and policy priorities for the coming months. Their contributions provide a diverse picture of the work needed to shape a more effective and just climate action, which addresses the impacts of climate change in a tailored and comprehensive manner, all while promoting approaches that leverage the resources and capacities of every member of every society.

The diversity of perspectives this issue provides reflects the complex implications of mobility issues for climate policy and action. As shown by the contributions from work in the field by OKUP, La Ruta del Clima, ICCCAD, among others, climate impacts manifest through different mobility patterns and decisions for different people and communities. Today, much of this mobility takes place in the context of economic and non-economic impacts that overwhelm local capacities and resilience. Diverse, context-specific responses, including elements of climate change mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage, are needed to protect and restore people’s agency and freedom of choice in the face of climate impacts, and to uphold their right to stay and right to move with dignity. These efforts need to be fully integrated into objectives and operations to resolve ongoing displacement and mobility, as highlighted by Miron.

Shaping the systems which will provide these responses is a key concern for many of the contributing colleagues.

On the Adaptation side, Slycan Trust, ILO and IOM have been closely following the development of the Indicator Framework for the Global Goal on Adaptation, which should capture information about migrants (both to disaggregate the specific climate vulnerability that is associated with migration status, and to identify the benefits of migration in support of adaptation).

On the Loss and Damage side, as highlighted by Schmidt, the technical assistance architecture has been established with the Santiago Network, and countries have started elaborating requests for capacity building and assessments, which should include displacement and other human mobility issues. The financial picture is a bit less defined, but work will take place in Spring 2025 to advance the Fund and relevant Funding Arrangements, and IOM advocates for a system that can address some of the gaps in responding to displacement and other forms of human mobility in the context of climate change. While a more detailed and comprehensive evidence base is still needed to fully support decision-making on technical assistance and finance on Loss and Damage, IDMC is working to provide more systematic and nuanced data on displacement, and other actors such as IMPACT Initiatives can contribute significant knowledge through their ongoing data collection efforts in humanitarian contexts.

On the Just Transition side, Anti Slavery International highlights how the protection of the rights of migrant workers should be an essential component of global dialogues and policies, and in particular in sectors that feature high exposure to climate impacts.

As outlined by the Hague Humanitarian Studies Centre researchers, promoting comprehensive climate action will also require understanding how climate change is embedded in broader social and political processes: responses will not be effective and sustainable unless they are designed to also address the social, political and economic factors that create and reproduce the vulnerability. As highlighted in the advocacy by Beyond Climate Collaborative, more needs to be done to fully embed analysis and reform of migration policies in response to climate change, both to multiply people’s choices in the face of climate impacts, and to address a key driver of marginalisation and vulnerability.

Addressing all these different perspectives cannot remain a global policy concern: human mobility, in all its relevant facets, needs to be embedded in processes to plan climate action at the national level. Moreover, local-level actors and institutions that support the implementation of relevant measures need to be fully equipped to address human mobility, climate change, and other drivers of risk in comprehensive, integrated manners. In the coming months and years, this will require strengthening local partnerships and collaborations, and enabling human mobility stakeholders, including representatives of migrants, displaced persons and other affected groups, to actively participate in the design and implementation of all climate action.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of AIDMI.