No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted global human mobility dynamics. This IMR Dispatch examines the historical, bidirectional links between pandemics and mobility and provides an early analysis of how they unfolded during the first nine months of the COVID-19 emergency. Results show, first, that international travel restrictions to combat the spread of the coronavirus are not a panacea in and of themselves. Second, our analysis demonstrates that the pandemic, government responses, and resulting economic impacts can lead to the involuntary immobility of at-risk populations, such as aspiring asylum-seekers or survival migrants. In a similar fashion, stay-at-home measures have posed dire challenges for those workers who lack options to work from home, as well as for migrants living in precarious, crowded circumstances. Moreover, global economic contraction has increased involuntary immobility by reducing both people’s resources to move and the demand for labor. Third, we show that people’s attempts to protect themselves from the virus can result in shifting patterns of mobility, such as increases in cross-border return migration and urban-to-rural movements. Drawing on international guidance for measures to combat pandemics and relevant frameworks on mobility, we propose approaches to alleviate the burden of travel restrictions on migrants and people aspiring to move, while still addressing the need to contain the pandemic and lessen its repercussions.

The discourse on climate change and migration has shifted from labelling migration merely as a consequence of climate impacts, to describing it as a form of human adaptation. This article explores the adaptation framing of the climate change and migration nexus and highlights its shortcomings and advantages. While for some groups, under certain circumstances migration can be an effective form of adaptation, for others it leads to increased vulnerabilities and a poverty spiral, reducing their adaptive capacities. Non-economic losses connected to a change of place further challenge the notion of successful adaptation. Even when migration improves the situation of a household, it may conceal the lack of action on climate change adaptation from national governments or the international community. Given the growing body of evidence on the diverse circumstances and outcomes of migration in the context of climate change, we distinguish between reactive and proactive migration and argue for a precise differentiation in the academic debate.

This article explores alternative ways that legal and normative frameworks can be used to uphold the rights of those who are displaced internally or across borders in the context of anthropogenic climate change. In particular, we argue that more efforts should be focused on developing soft law rather than trying to fit those displaced because of the effects of climate change into existing legal frameworks. The present hard law system governing the movement of people is not equipped to handle the complexities of population movements resulting from the effects of climate change, and an adequate transformation of these often static legal regimes is improbable. By contrast, soft law offers a number of advantages particularly well suited to the characteristics of those who move because of the effects of climate change and who currently fall into the gaps between protection frameworks. On the downside, soft law norms are not binding and the multiplicity of such initiatives may contribute to a fragmentation of protection systems, resources and attention. Therefore, the present article concludes by arguing for a two-track approach in which both soft and hard law contributes to the protection of those displaced in the context of climate change. On the one hand, in order to address some of the current protection gaps, existing, emergent and new soft law needs to be used and implemented more thoroughly. At the same time, ways forward also include encouraging the more effective and dynamic implementation of hard law, especially through regionalization, complementary protection and the deployment of some features of emerging climate change regimes.

Along Peru’s rainforest rivers, rising flood extremes are increasingly exceeding coping capacities of vulnerable households. Peru has detailed legislation that embraces planned relocation as a strategic solution to such situations and various relocation projects are underway across the country. This research brief analyzes well-being consequences for two communities requesting relocation, using qualitative data collected from experts and 30 affected people. Initial results emphasize that weak governance, poverty, third-party involvement, and community action have influenced relocation outcomes. Delays and fragmented implementation have threatened people’s well-being. One community, waiting for land to relocate since 2015, has suffered from continued hazard exposure, deteriorated material conditions, and reduced subjective well-being. The second community achieved relocation only after a decade in detrimental limbo. Although livelihood challenges persist, its inhabitants now benefit from better market access and decreased exposure, leading to higher subjective well-being. With rising needs for relocation worldwide, the cases highlight that detailed legislation is not sufficient to safeguard people’s well-being. Advancing from well-meant legislation to good practice requires adequate institutional capacity, effective mechanisms for oversight and accountability, better engagement of third parties, and dedicated efforts to strengthen community agency.