Conclusions

Recent research on the climate–food security–migration nexus showcases the complexities of the relationships between the three phenomena. In many instances, food insecurity fuelled by worsening climate extremes indeed appears as an underlying driver of migration; however, the relationship is complex. Food insecurity is driven by multiple factors, among which climate change plays an important part by adding further pressure on existing systems and communities. Yet multiple examples show how climate extremes cannot be considered the sole drivers of food insecurity or migration, given prevailing power dynamics, fragilities in governance, structures of globalized food production and other social factors. Furthermore, different adaptation strategies can often be employed before households opt for migration. Migration also takes many forms, depending on the context in which it occurs, with variable outcomes in terms of adaptation and food security. In some cases remittances appear to contribute to better climate adaptation and food security results; in other examples, local dynamics prevent these achievements, in an overall framework where internal migration can result in worsening situations and international migration pathways remain scarce and difficult to access for the most vulnerable populations.

This complexity informs the identification of potential areas for policy development to prevent catastrophe and support resilience by improving the outcomes of food security interventions, addressing the adverse drivers of migration and considering the situation of migrants in transit and at destination. Research and evidence point to the need for highly contextual interventions that address inequality and related power dynamics, including from a gender perspective, leverage local and Indigenous knowledge, and carefully assess possible maladaptive consequences for vulnerable populations. Policymaking on climate migration is evolving quickly, under the umbrella of innovative research and guiding international frameworks, notably the Global Compact for Migration and the adaptation and loss and damage tracks of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change. As it does so, attention to human rights obligations and practices are critical to bridge protection gaps for the most vulnerable. In this setting, oversimplifying discourses – for example, discourses that remove agency from migrants and leverage potential fear of migration to justify climate action and food security interventions – risk advancing xenophobic messages.

With this in mind, and considering the multiple interactions between climate change, food security and human mobility, potential non-exhaustive areas of intervention can be identified to advance an innovative agenda that targets the situation of the most vulnerable:

• It is crucial to assess the multicausality of shocks by recognizing the intricacies of the connections between climate change, food security (and food insecurity), and human mobility at large. The assessment must give adequate attention to local realities, gender dynamics, power asymmetries, and the conditions in which climate change exacerbates existing challenges. Policies that fail to address local social and economic realities may create climate adaptation strategies that reproduce, rather than alleviate, vulnerabilities.
• It is also necessary to assess the impacts of migration on both the receiving and sending communities, as well as the impacts on the communities and individuals that remain in place. This assessment should consider the ongoing and expected transition from rural to urban areas (within and across political boundaries) and the level of preparedness that exists in receiving communities, in terms of their legal frameworks and climate change adaptation plans. Any agenda that emerges from this assessment can be informed by emerging research carried out in different geographies, and has the potential to identify enabling conditions that can lead to positive migration outcomes – in terms of climate adaptation and food security – depending on local circumstances.
• Evidence and information, however, is not enough, and the role of climate finance in practically supporting disaster risk reduction and other preventative and adaptation strategies is critical to putting evidence and knowledge into action. Resources on the ground are needed to enable people to successfully face future climate change impacts, whether they remain in place or move in response.
• Finally, innovative solutions need to analyse the local contexts of vulnerability, and place human well-being at the forefront of those solutions, considering migration as a viable mechanism to manage climatic risk. The role of the food industry in delivering policies aimed at reducing global hunger can be revisited in line with multiple practices affecting community well-being, reducing food security and directly driving displacement. Policies oriented towards innovation and technology for climate risk management need to be assessed to recognize the limitations they impose on smallholder farmers and on smallholders’ ability to innovate, when resources for action are limited. This process, however, should not try to refit these considerations into old policies, but rather should begin a new, in-depth, inclusive process with affected communities.