Re-thinking the relationship between environmental stress and migration

Ashni Shah
June 18th, 2024

To bring awareness to Refugee Week UK 2024, each day we will be sharing a blog post by MSc students on the Forced Displacement and Refugees course in the LSE Department of International Development. For a complete listing of Refugee Week events or to get involved, check out the Refugee Week website. You can also check out seasons 1 to 3 of the LSE ID ‘Refugee Realities’ podcast on Spotify and Apple music.

‘Climate migration’ has long been a disputed concept, and the interconnection between environmental stress and migration is complex. The interconnection is mediated by economic, social, and political factors, such as livelihood options, infrastructure availability, and power structures. Importantly, historical contexts also play a role that is often overlooked.

Debates in the field

With increasing interest in sustainable development, and Western security concerns relating to a narrative that population growth and environmental degradation would cause displacement, debates on environmental stress and migration regained prominence in the 1980s. Two distinctly opposite positions emerged; the ‘maximalists’ and the ‘minimalists’. In this debate, migration is speculative, focused on possible numbers, destinations and drivers. This is apparent on the maximalist side, which argues that environmental stress causes migration. Norman Myers, a famous maximalist, estimated that global warming could “cause as many as 200 million people to be put at risk of displacement”.

Maximalists spread a security discourse, framing ‘climate migration’ as a threat that will eventually lead to conflict. By contrast, those in the minimalist position contest the maximalists’ securitised framing and promote a contextual, multi-causal understanding of migration. A securitised image of migration is simplistic because power relationships and the political economy, as well as the capacity to adapt to environmental stress, can determine migration outcomes. The minimalist side of the debate has recently dominated, by challenging the idea of environmental stress as the single cause of migration and highlighting that the interconnection is not apolitical.

‘Climate mobilities’ has been argued to be a better term than ‘climate migration’, because it captures the variation in patterns of movement in the context of environmental stress. For instance, people may not migrate, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Voluntary non-migration reflects people’s high aspirations and capabilities to stay in their place of origin. The concept of non-migration challenges the idea that migration is the only outcome in the context of environmental stress.
Importance of context

Economic, social and political contexts are important factors that interact with environmental stress to determine migration outcomes. For example, environmental stress in the highlands of Ethiopia interacts with impoverishment, landlessness, livelihood options and desire for education, to shape mobility. Aspirations to be educated in urban areas is related to the limited livelihood opportunities from low land productivity and landlessness in rural areas, which in turn is partially driven by environmental stress.

Power structures also shape a household’s ability to access resources and their likelihood to migrate amidst environmental stress; in Kenya, collective community power structures reinforce resistance to out-migration, whilst in Bangladesh, land appropriation from marginalised groups, by powerful local elites, results in their increased vulnerability to environmental stress. So, political factors, such as the distribution of power within societies, can determine people’s capacity to migrate or adapt to environmental stress.

In a comparative study of Shishmaref (Alaska) and Nanumea (Tuvalu), climate hazards, specifically flooding, have been found to interact with other pressures to migrate. Both communities are seen as almost uninhabitable and have suffered from funding stoppages by development actors and government institutions. This has resulted in a lack of housing and water infrastructure in Shishmaref and Nanumea respectively. The study shows how social pressures of inadequate infrastructure are related to environmental pressures, which in turn contribute to migration decisions.
Case study: the oil economy of Bangladesh

Also, going beyond multi-causality, the concept of pluralism allows environmental stress and migration to be understood in a more comprehensive way, as a contextualised relation. In other words, there are additional factors to consider, such as histories, that influence each of environmental stress and migration. This is illustrated below, through a case study on the oil economy of Bangladesh as presented in Neel Ahuja’s book, Planetary Specters.

Bangladesh is extremely prone to both slow-onset and rapid climate disasters, such as sea-level rise, flooding and cyclones. This has contributed to migration out of vulnerable areas, which Ahuja claims, follow the same paths that were taken by labour migrants to Bangladesh’s cities and the Gulf states, during the rise of neoliberalism. Current patterns of migration from coastal regions prone to flooding follow historical patterns of out-migration from those rural areas to Dhaka and Chittagong at a time of growth in the manufacturing sector.

Out-migration to the Persian Gulf states, following the oil boom, was also part of Bangladesh’s development model. These migration flows echoed colonial strategies of labour accumulation from South Asia, which had a “specifically racial character”. At the same time, the expansion of the oil economy and consequent oil consumption brought about environmental stress, such as carbon emissions and waste production. So, Ahuja’s case study shows that historical factors, such as colonialism and extractive capitalism, have shaped both migration and environmental stress.

Environmental stress does not simply cause migration, but instead there exists a complex interconnection. And while social, economic and political factors mediate the interconnection between environmental stress and migration, recognising historical factors using the concept of pluralism, provides a more holistic understanding. So, it is clear why the minimalists overruled the maximalists, but there is value in going beyond the minimalist position to re-think the relationship between environmental stress and migration.

The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not reflect those of the International Development LSE blog or the London School of Economics and Political Science.


About the author

Ashni Shah
Ashni is pursuing a MSc in Development Studies at the LSE. She completed a BSc in Economics and Management from the University of Bristol in 2019. With work experience in consultancies, education institutions, and charities, Ashni’s academic interests lie in migration studies, climate change and colonial history. Her current research takes a historical approach to understanding the relationship between climate change and migration.