Climate migration myths Misleading claims about mass migration induced by climate change continue to surface in both academia and policy. This requires a new research agenda on 'climate mobilities' that moves beyond simplistic assumptions and more accurately advances knowledge of the nexus between human mobility and climate change.

Although family physicians (FPs) are community-oriented primary care generalists and should be the entry point for the population’s interaction with the health system, they are underrepresented in research on the climate change, migration, and health(care) nexus (hereafter referred to as the nexus). Similarly, FPs can provide valuable insights into building capacity through integrating health-determining sectors for climate-resilient and migration-inclusive health systems, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Here, we explore FPs’ perceptions on the nexus in SSA and on intersectoral capacity building. Three focus groups conducted during the 2019 WONCA-Africa conference in Uganda were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Participants’ perceived interactions related to (1) migration and climate change, (2) migration for better health and healthcare, (3) health impacts of climate change and the role of healthcare, and (4) health impacts of migration and the role of healthcare were studied. We coined these complex and reinforcing interactions as continuous feedback loops intertwined with socio-economic, institutional, and demographic context. Participants identified five intersectoral capacity-building opportunities on micro, meso, macro, and supra (international) levels: multi-dimensional and multi-layered governance structures; improving FP training and primary healthcare working conditions; health advocacy in primary healthcare; collaboration between the health sector and civil society; and more responsibilities for high-income countries. This exploratory study presents a unique and novel perspective on the nexus in SSA which contributes to interdisciplinary research agendas and FP policy responses on national, regional, and global levels.

Environmental migration is a growing concern of academics and policymakers, who foresee a rise in the number of such migrants. However, most prevailing academic and policy discourses ignore the variety of perceptions of environmental changes among people living in highly affected areas across the world. We examine the perceptions of environmental changes and how these are seen to be relevant to migration in Senegal, DR Congo, and Morocco. In total, we conducted 410 interviews with people living in two regions in each of these countries. Results indicate differences in the perception of environmental changes across regions, gender, education, and livelihoods. The economic activities of individuals determine exposure and sensitivity to environmental changes, while educational levels increase familiarity with prevailing environmental discourses and policies. Despite country-specific and regional differences across research sites, few people perceived environmental factors as directly related to their own or family members’ migration projects.

Academic and policy domains are increasingly constructing 'migration as adaptation' as a policy ideal against alarmist, security-oriented approaches to the climate-migration nexus. However, our knowledge of how development actors in national contexts view and use migration as adaptation in practice remains limited. Based on 90 interviews with development stakeholders, this paper demonstrates the limited reach of the migration as adaptation policy ideal in Senegal's development sector. It is considered too vague a concept to operationalise and is in tension with the wider discursive context on migration and development, marked by sedentary bias which requires 'addressing the root causes of migration', including environmental change, to 'fix populations in place'. A dominant discourse accommodates sedentary bias. It allows for a narrow application of migration as adaptation through 'return migration' and 'diaspora mobilisation' projects. These target only existing migrants, avoiding new mobility solutions. A minority counter-discourse rejects sedentary bias, emphasising freedom of movement.

No abstract