Climate change is increasingly driving migration throughout the world. Yet, as climate change weakens economic growth in countries in the Global South, many are finding themselves too poor to migrate, stripping many of a key climate adaptation tool. This was one of the main findings of a recent study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
“Ongoing climate change is keeping many people in the Global South in poverty, making it more difficult for them to migrate”
“Climate change reduces economic growth in almost all countries in the world. But it has very divergent effects in poorer and richer countries,” stated Jacob Schewe, one of the study’s authors. Schewe explained that while migration related to climate change has increased, it has done so to a lesser degree than expected as “many people in need are lacking the means to migrate. They have no choice but to stay where they are.”
PIK researchers analyzed countries’ income levels—a key factor influencing migration flows—between 1990 and 2020. They found that economic growth affects national income levels, which in turn influences global migration patterns. In very low-income countries, individuals who are experiencing high levels of poverty cannot afford to move, even if they need or would like to migrate, such as in the context of climate change.
Anders Levermann, a co-author of the study explained, “ongoing climate change is keeping many people in the Global South in poverty, making it more difficult for them to migrate. Thus climate change deprives people of an important way to adapt to its impacts and increases the gap between rich and poor.”
“Reframing the commonly known ‘poverty trap,’ the IPCC used the term ‘climate trap’ to highlight the vulnerabilities and the vicious cycle of multidimensional poverty refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs) face amidst climate change. ”
The PIK research complements a previous study, which projected that climate change effects could decrease emigration by over 10% for the lowest-income countries by 2100 in medium development and climate scenarios (in comparison to a scenario without climate change) and decrease emigration by 35% in more pessimistic scenarios. These studies raise the question then whether people who would choose to migrate as a means of climate adaptation instead find themselves trapped in less-than-ideal situations.
In fact, as we wrote about last year, the IPCC coined the term ‘climate trap’ in Chapter 8 of its Sixth Assessment Report on climate impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Reframing the commonly known ‘poverty trap,’ the IPCC used the term ‘climate trap’ to highlight the vulnerabilities and the vicious cycle of multidimensional poverty refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs) face amidst climate change.
As the authors describe, refugees and IDPs, who tend to be concentrated in climate ‘hotspots,’ often live in legal limbo and face significant economic obstacles that hinder their ability to migrate safely, even regionally. Climate Refugees’ Executive Director, Amali Tower, saw this firsthand during a regional visit to the Lake Chad Basin. Many people who were initially displaced by climate change—often due to water scarcity and lack of arable land—were eventually brought closer to conflict situations as the impacts of climate change worsened poverty and fueled economic instability. While the outcomes are various, it is clear that climate change exacerbates existing issues and restricts the options of many who may otherwise want to migrate.
Yet while such complex relationships exist between immobility, mobility and climate change, policy and media actors in the Global North continue to raise alarm bells about ‘mass migration’ from the Global South due to the effects of climate change, with language that continues to securitize migration and treat displaced people as a threat. Instead, as we have highlighted previously, countries in the Global North should take a more effective and just approach by funding loss and damage for countries in the Global South that are facing setbacks and even reversals of years of development progress as a result of a crisis they played no part in creating.
The agreement last November at COP27 to establish a new Loss and Damage Fund is a promising first step toward climate justice, but it remains to be seen how this fund will be operationalized. There is also a lack of clarity about how anticipated funding arrangements will deliver on the fund’s goals of providing new, additional, predictable and adequate financial resources to countries facing the brunt of the climate crisis.
Ideally, individuals should have the ability to choose whether they stay or move in the face of climate change, but as the PIK study authors and many others have made clear, some will simply not have the option, removing a key climate adaptation tool. Regardless of whether people are truly able to choose, it is imperative they have access to adequate resources and protections to preserve their livelihoods, safety and rights.