“The key is to invest earlier”

Amy Pope in an interview with Katharina Wilhelm Otieno

Many governments primarily treat climate change as an environmental or development issue. How would you explain the security dimension of climate impacts, and what role does migration play in this? 

Climate change is increasingly shaping stability by affecting livelihoods and access to resources. When communities face pressures such as water scarcity, food insecurity or repeated disasters, this can increase vulnerability and contribute to tensions. 

Migration is part of this picture, but it should not be seen as a threat. It is often a coping or adaptation strategy. The priority is to manage mobility in a way that reduces risks, supports communities and prevents situations where people are forced into unsafe or irregular movements. From IOM’s perspective, the focus is on practical solutions that reduce vulnerability, support resilience and ensure that mobility, when it happens, is safe, orderly and dignified. 

The term “climate mobility” includes both short-term displacement due to extreme events and planned relocation. Which types of movement are currently growing the fastest and in which locations? 

Most climate-related movement today takes the form of internal displacement linked to sudden events such as floods, storms or extreme weather. These are increasing in frequency and impact across regions including parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America. 

At the same time, we are seeing a gradual increase in mobility linked to slower-onset pressures, such as drought or environmental degradation, particularly in regions where livelihoods depend heavily on natural resources. 

Planned relocation remains more limited but is becoming more relevant in specific contexts, including small island settings and areas exposed to recurrent risks. But across all forms of climate mobility, the key trend is that movements are primarily local or regional. 

Are there indicators to identify hotspots for climate-related tensions and displacement at an early stage? What measures can then be taken, and where has this worked in practice? 

Yes, but these indicators should be understood as early warning tools, not as predictions of crisis or conflict. What we can increasingly identify are areas where climate hazards, displacement risks, livelihood pressures, weak services and other vulnerabilities overlap. 

This means looking at data on floods, droughts, storms and sea-level rise alongside information on population movements, housing, livelihoods, access to services and local coping capacity. When these pressures are seen together, governments and partners can act earlier. 

IOM is supporting this kind of work through its Climate Mobility Innovation Labs, including the Risk Index for Climate Displacement. In the Philippines, for example, this work is helping to bring together climate risk, displacement and vulnerability data to better identify areas where communities may face higher risks and where investment in preparedness, adaptation and local services is most needed. 

The measures that follow are practical: improving early warning, strengthening local infrastructure and services, supporting livelihoods, planning safer sites or relocation where necessary and using mobility data to guide preparedness and recovery. The goal is to act before climate pressures become displacement crises.

While climate mobility is expected to increase, resistance to immigration is also growing in some countries. What additional tensions or conflicts could arise from this? 

Tensions related to human mobility can emerge when communities already under pressure face sudden increases in demand for housing, land, water, jobs, schools, health services or public infrastructure. These pressures can affect both people on the move and the communities receiving them. There is also a political risk. When migration is presented as a security threat, or when climate mobility is confused with irregular immigration, it can fuel fear, discrimination and xenophobia. That can make it harder to protect people, harder to support host communities and harder for governments to plan practical solutions. 

This is why IOM emphasises early planning, good data, community engagement and support to local authorities. The objective is to help people move safely where movement is necessary, to help people stay safely where that is possible and to ensure that host communities receive the support they need. 

The refugee definition under the Geneva Convention does not explicitly cover climate-related displacement. What realistic ways for reform or complementary approaches do you see to address protection gaps? 

The first point is to be precise. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol remain central to international protection, but climate change or disasters are not, by themselves, standalone grounds for refugee status. That does not mean there are no protection needs, and it does not mean existing law is irrelevant. In some situations, refugee law, human rights law or regional protection frameworks may still apply, especially where climate impacts interact with conflict, persecution, violence, discrimination or serious threats to life and dignity. 

The most realistic way forward is not a single new global treaty in the near term, but a combination of complementary approaches. At the international level, this means better use of existing human rights obligations, non-refoulement principles, disaster risk reduction frameworks, the Global Compact for Migration, the Global Compact on Refugees, where relevant, and the work of state-led initiatives such as the Platform on Disaster Displacement. 

What about the regional or bilateral level?

At the regional level, there is significant scope to develop practical arrangements that reflect actual mobility patterns. This can include free movement protocols, temporary protection or stay arrangements after disasters, humanitarian visas, labour mobility schemes, cross-border pastoralist arrangements and agreements that allow people to move safely before, during or after climate-related shocks. 

At the national and bilateral level, governments can make a major difference through regular migration pathways, planned relocation frameworks, evacuation and admission arrangements, access to documentation, portability of social protection, recognition of skills and qualifications and measures to ensure that migrants and displaced people can access basic services without falling into irregularity or exploitation. 

How should climate finance, disaster preparedness and migration management be better aligned so that resources are invested proactively in resilience, host communities and safe mobility pathways, rather than only after crises occur? 

Those three aspects need to be planned together, not treated as separate tracks. The key is to invest earlier: in the places people are leaving, in the communities receiving them and in safe mobility options where movement is necessary or already happening. 

For IOM, this means helping governments to turn climate mobility risks into practical investment priorities. Through the Climate Mobility Investment Facility, IOM supports countries to develop bankable pipelines for adaptation, resilience and development investments – for example around flood risk, drought, sea-level rise, planned relocation and host community support. This is also why IOM’s Climate Mobility Innovation Labs are important: they use data and local partnerships to identify climate mobility risks and develop practical, locally led solutions.

So the shift we need is from responding after displacement occurs to financing preparedness, resilience and safe mobility before crises escalate. That means stronger early warning, anticipatory action, local services, resilient infrastructure and regular pathways that allow people to move safely and with dignity when staying is no longer viable.

Planned relocation is a sensitive but sometimes necessary tool. What conflicts can arise from this? What standards are needed to ensure that planned relocation respects rights, cultural ties and livelihoods? 

Planned relocation is one of the most sensitive areas of climate mobility. It should never be treated simply as moving people from one place to another. It affects land, livelihoods, culture, identity, family unity, access to services and relationships with host communities. 

If relocation is poorly planned, it can create new tensions – over land ownership, compensation, jobs, public services or the loss of cultural and ancestral ties. That is why it should be considered carefully, usually as a measure of last resort, when risks cannot be managed safely in place. 

The key standards are clear: relocation must be government-led, rights-based and community-centred. Affected people need to be consulted from the beginning, have access to clear information and be supported to protect their livelihoods, housing, cultural ties and social cohesion. The objective is not relocation for its own sake, but to expand people’s choices – helping communities stay safely where possible and supporting planned, rights-based movement where staying is no longer safe. 

IOM has supported work on planned relocation and climate mobility in the Pacific, where sea-level rise, coastal erosion and recurrent hazards are already affecting communities. In countries such as the Solomon Islands, the focus is on helping governments and communities plan ahead, assess risks and ensure that any movement is safe, dignified and sustainable. 

Cities are key destinations for both internal and cross-border climate-related migration. Which approaches can support municipalities in practice to prevent security risks? 

Cities are important in many mobility contexts, but we should be careful not to overstate the point. Climate-related mobility takes many forms. Some people move to towns and cities, while others move temporarily, locally, across rural areas or within their own region. 

Where municipalities are receiving people affected by climate impacts, the issue is not migration itself as a security risk; it is whether local authorities have the resources, data and planning tools to manage population change in an inclusive way. 

Municipalities need support for housing, basic services, healthcare, education, skills development and access to decent work. They also need to be able to include mobility and displacement risks in urban planning, infrastructure investment and climate adaptation plans. 

Social cohesion is essential too. That means supporting both newcomers and host communities, reducing pressure on services and creating opportunities for participation at the local level. 

What three priorities should the international community set in the next two years to address climate, security and migration in a coherent way, and how could success be measured? 

Over the next two years, the first priority should be to invest earlier in resilience and adaptation in the places most exposed to climate impacts. 

The second priority should be to make mobility part of adaptation policy. This includes planned relocation where necessary, better support for internally displaced people and host communities, and safe and regular pathways where migration can help people adapt. 

The third priority should be to align climate, development, humanitarian and migration finance. Too often these systems work separately, while communities experience the risks together. More coherent financing, better data and stronger local partnerships are needed to move from reacting after crises to acting before risks become displacement emergencies. 

Success should not be measured by whether people move less. It should be measured by whether fewer people are forced to move in crises, whether communities have safer choices, whether local authorities are better prepared and whether affected people have access to protection, livelihoods, services and dignity.

Amy Pope is the director general of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). 
iom.int

This story is part of The 89 Percent Project, an initiative of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now.