A missing link? The role of international organizations in climate-related planned relocation

Planned relocation of communities to less hazardous sites is a complex process anticipated to become more prevalent as climate change accelerates. In many parts of the world, communities and national governments planning internal relocations rely on support from International Organizations (IOs) for decision-making and implementation processes. This IO assistance–ranging from policy guidelines to technical assessments, monitoring and evaluation to finance–varies widely based on diverse national and local contexts. Despite challenges including embedded power dynamics, many IOs are becoming more involved with planned relocation processes and therefore, a greater understanding of IO involvement in planned relocations to date is needed. Our analysis highlights an emergent gap in international climate mobility governance: while climate-related displacement and migration fall under existing IO mandates, there is no obvious institutional home for internal planned relocation. Current support from IOs to nationally and locally led planned relocation processes remains ad hoc and siloed, leading to gaps in international accountability and coordination, including a lack of human rights-based standards for IO engagement. In this article, we outline potential institutional arrangements dedicated to internal planned relocation and assess tradeoffs between pathways. Addressing this ‘missing link’ in institutional arrangements for internal planned relocation at the international level is essential to promote greater coordination and accountability between key stakeholders as planned relocation becomes more common in a changing climate. Key policy insights Governments and communities are increasingly relying on support from IOs to enable planned relocation away from climate harms. Unlike climate-related displacement and migration, no IO has a mandate for planned relocation, resulting in a ‘missing link’ in international governance. Current international support for communities and national governments on climate-related planned relocation is ad hoc and siloed, resulting in gaps in accountability and coordination. Addressing this void through stronger institutional leadership would hold IOs accountable for their engagement on planned relocation. Greater coordination among IOs would facilitate policy learning and knowledge exchange. Rather than creating a new entity to address this ‘missing link’, we conclude that a combination of institutional arrangements uniting existing IOs and multi-stakeholder mechanisms would best enable improved accountability and coordination. Attention to this international policy gap is urgently necessary as climate change accelerates.