Population, migration and global environmental changes

The shift of the population from the countryside to urban areas has been rapid over the past 50 years. In the 1950s and 1960s, economists considered widespread migration beneficial. Many believed that workers in rural areas were engaged in low productivity (example: agricultural) occupations. In urban areas, their labour could be transferred into higher productivity, such as manufacturing and service sectors.

By the 1970s and 1980s, there was a reversal of opinion, and rural migration has come to be seen as having a negative impact on the development and environment of many countries. With low productivity, rural migrant workers failed to have high productive jobs. This drains rural areas of those workers who could contribute to increasing productivity in the rural sector. In the urban areas, these jobless migrants instead contributed to the already difficult environmental and social pressure.

Many economists fear that future environmental changes, if left unchecked, will lead to many millions of people migrating by 2060 away from affected areas. Some economists held a different view. According to them, migration of millions would create a serious problem for the policymakers and individuals. Migration will take people away from areas of environmental risk (low-lying megacities). The large population who do not migrate are situated in areas under threat and will be at risk of becoming trapped, where they will be more vulnerable to environmental shocks. Preventing migration is not a ‘no risk’ option. Doing so will increase displacement, irregular migration, conflict, and human suffering in many settings. In some circumstances, migration might constitute a strategic transformational adaption, increasing individual and community long-term resilience to environmental change. According to a recent UN report, 100 million people were displaced globally. They had an enormous impact on the global environment.

Recognizing that the factors driving migration go far beyond the environment and that the consequences go far beyond the movement of people, policymakers need to take a broad perspective. Diverse areas of policy intervention relating to sustainable urbanization, climate change adaption, conflict resolution, and humanitarian assistance will be crucial to addressing the future challenges posed by environmental change and migration.

A growing urbanizing global population over the next 50 years will create demand for more food, energy and water. Many of the modern mega cities are located in coastal areas or river deltas, which are vulnerable to rising water levels. Changes to climate may cause degradation of agricultural land, desertification, and increased water and food scarcity levels. To some, this might be a ‘perfect storm’ of global events. Until now, the connection between economics, demography, environment, and migration have been far from certain still less the consequences for public policy; consequently, previous analyses of environmental migrants have been described as anything from alarmist to conservative. Expert environmentalists view the drivers of migration and how global environment change might directly or indirectly influence the pattern and volume of human migration.

The consequence of migration with a particular focus on ecological regions, which is vulnerable to environmental change, is low elevation coastal areas, drylands, and mountain regions. However, the impact of global environmental change on future migration patterns is uncertain because further growth of development, governance and ecological scenarios has diverse implications for migration influenced by environmental change. There are some unsound estimates about the number of environmental migrations by 2060, as migration is a causal phenomenon. It is problematic to assign a proportion of the actual or predicted number of migrants moving due to environmental change. Generally, it is assumed that many people living in ‘at risk’ low-income countries will migrate. The interaction of migration and global environmental change does have real impacts on migration. The existence of migration drivers does not necessarily imply that migration will occur: whether migration occurs or not depends on a series of intervening factors and personal and household characteristics. Substantial social, economic and human capital are required to enable people to migrate internationally. Besides environmental changes, migration occurs because of the wars, and search of a better life in rich countries. In the recent conflict between Ukraine and Russia 6.6 million people have migrated from Ukraine, and 1 million from Myanmar to Bangladesh to save a life. The Syrian refugee crisis is another example. There is a widespread acceptance that climate change is occurring due to human activity and that it poses significant challenges to economies and societies across the globe.

In addition to climate change, there are several other ways human activity affects the global environment with significant consequences for people’s wellbeing. It is clear that a substantial amount of land, water, and ecosystem services is being converted to new uses to benefit some, but will have significant consequences for sustainability over the medium to long term. Environmental changes in migration can be traced back to the 1970s when it was discussed with the terminology ‘environmental refugee’ at the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It has been argued then that the world faces a significant challenge in dealing with millions of additional migrants or refugees if no action is taken on migrant environment change. Another concern has its roots in the growing security challenges. Environmental change will drive future migration, but it could worsen war and conflicts.

Many existing estimates of ‘environmental migration’ have roots in the migration of refugees and security challenges. But this has been extensively criticized. Predictions of the number likely to migrate due to the consequence of environmental changes have attracted the attention of the policymakers, particularly because the validity of the figure has been questioned.

Critics have commented on the speculative nature and the difficulty in disaggregating environmental migration from other forms of migration. The prediction does not distinguish between population ‘at risk’ and those actually migrating due to demographic change.

The world economy is growing fast, and the demand for labour in rich economies is booming for various skill levels. The population in richer economies is ageing fast, leading to high demand for low-skilled migrant labours.

Gaps in earnings between some of the poorest and the wealthiest economies still remain high. Migration to rich economies is routine. Yet it will have considerable political challenges as local political and social governance remain problematic. Much of this migration is towards regional economic zones. Environmental pressures and disasters increase frequently, and they create a significant number of displaced people posing operational and geopolitical challenges.

High global economic growth helps build connectivity between communities and reduce urban- rural divides. Uneven distribution of economic growth leads to uncertainties in some places and imposes restriction on population mobility. Emphasis on security and control lead to increased irregular migration by those with assets and capital and increased risk for the most vulnerable such as the elderly, women, and children. Resources are devoted to controlling and security which means a reduced scope for effective planning to sustain rural communities and offset the effect of urban growth. A low level of social cohesion means that migrants and minority groups moving from rural to urban areas are exposed to increased risk and danger and may be targeted as threats to order and stability. Emphasis on security and control leads to a strong policy focus, which diminishes the scope of regional cooperation and plans to affect the long-term effects of population movements associated with increased exposure to environmental risks.

High growth with better education and health care limits population growth, assisted by more inclusive governance in some of the poorest economies. The world population is estimated to be 7.5 billion by 2030, 7.7 billion by 2045, and 7.4 billion by 2060. Fifty per cent of this will happen in Africa, and South and Central Asia. Due to the First World economic growth, there will be increase in GNI per capita, people will move for a better life. Pressure linked to social inequalities is another reason for migration. The risk of stability and violence leads to tension between migrant and non-migrant communities. As such global environment will experience some negative impacts of migration.

If the world economy stagnates, social, economic and political scenarios would disintegrate in many poor economies and marginalization of the population would persist. In richer economies, the age structure will pressure retirement ages or the need for new labour sources. Wage growth in richer economies is limited, but the gap with poor economies remains large. There is more willingness to migrate, internally or internationally, as local scopes are limited and economic and other transformation remains limited in poor economies. People with better skill from poor countries continue to relocate to richer economies by filling in job for low skilled workers in richer economies and accelerating the brain drain, although the number of people wanting to move will outstripping opportunities.

The expectation of higher income will lead rural migrants to urban areas. Potential unemployment has not been a deterrent to migration. Measures which aim to improve the standard of living of urban dwellers relative to rural dwellers only increase migration and increased urban unemployment creating pressure on essential services like electricity, sanitation, pollution, degradation of environment, such as air pollution, deforestation, water scarcity, waste disposal, reduction in bio-diversity, atmospheric changes and soil degradation. Therefore, the policy responses to protect the environment by government could be land reform, working with the local community, creating economic opportunity for the poor, pricing to reflect social costs and benefits etc. 

The writer is former Director General, Export Promotion Bureau. He can be contacted at hassan.youngconsultants@gmail.com