Climate migration management? Contrasting international policy approaches with evidence from Ghana

Donors and international organizations are seeking to manage migration out of climate-affected areas through local climate change adaptation and resilience-building. This article assesses the prominence of such approaches, considers their possible efficacy through an empirical case, identifies weaknesses, and offers alternatives. First, we identify and discuss international policy approaches seeking to shape climate-related mobility, drawing on document review of bilateral donor and international organizations’ policy and strategy documents regarding adaptation and climate-related migration. Then, we consider the efficacy of in place, or ‘in situ’, approaches that emphasize adaptation to limit mobility in practice. This is through a case-based analysis of dams and irrigation in the dry savannah zone of Northern Ghana, where poverty and outmigration are the highest in the country, and climate change severely undermines rural livelihoods. Donor-supported national efforts in this region explicitly link in situ adaptation and resilience-building with aims to limit outmigration. In addition to extensive background research including historical analysis, satellite and climate data analysis and a household survey (n = 403), this particular case analysis is based on individual and key informant interviews (n = 16 and 8, respectively), focus group discussions (n = 6) and document and policy review from Ghana, with focus on the Upper West Region. We document significant limitations broadly relevant to in situ approaches: they are unlikely to address diverse climate impacts as well as non-climatic factors shaping migration, and they will likely struggle to accommodate highly differentiated needs, preferences and mobility patterns within populations. Conversely, we find that in situ approaches seeking to reduce climate-related outmigration dominate among donor policies – often over focus on poverty reduction or development outcomes. These findings call for rethinking of donor and domestic policies that seek to limit outmigration through adaptation and resilience building. Rather, there is a need for development – and choice-oriented approaches that constructively integrate local adaptation and migration options for improved development outcomes.Donor policies often emphasize in place (in situ) climate change adaptation and resilience to reduce migration over poverty reduction and development outcomes.Improved local outcomes require policy and programming that actively integrate adaptation and migration as complementary strategies rather than either/or alternatives.Continued in situ adaptation and resilience-building efforts are needed to support greater choice in migration decisions; by improving local conditions, they can limit distress migration and enable more voluntary migration.In situ efforts have limited ability to address diverse migration preferences and drivers; they should be complemented by support to adaptive forms of migration to improve overall outcomes.