Keywords

Introduction

Migrants have always sent money, ideas, and goods to their countries and regions of origin. However, the extent of these flows and the impact of such transnational practices have only come to the attention of policy makers in recent decades. These practices are mainly used to sustain people’s livelihoods and investments and have a significant potential to reduce poverty in the receiving countries (De Haas 2005; Carling 2020). This growing interest in remittances is partly derived from innovations that have allowed statisticians to more precisely calculate and document remittance flows and demonstrate their large contribution to national economies (Fagen 2006). This has led to a form of remittance euphoria (De Haas 2005) or a remittance mantra on the part of policy makers (Kapur 2004), who have used remittance policies to their own advantage or to assist international agents, directing their attention to the governance of remittances (e.g. Horst and Van Hear 2002; Regan and Frank 2014). For example, despite the previous contribution of remittances to the rapid growth of the private sector in Somalia (Ahmed 2000), during the war on terror, remittance agencies were shut down, assets were confiscated, and telecommunication lines were cut for specific listed people or organizations that were suspected to have links with Osama Bin Laden (Horst and Van Hear 2002). This clearly shows how remittances and other transnational practices are subject to governance and are seen as potential resources to manage crises, wars, and transitioning environments. This is particularly relevant in countries currently in transitioning phases (e.g. from war to peace or in the process of decolonization) or still experiencing war, conflict, and crisis. Under such circumstances, migrants continue to send remittances to support, build up, and invest in their countries of origin long after other types of support and investment have ceased (Fagen 2006).

The idea that remittances might be used for development purposes has also entered the body of literature focusing on environmental change adaptation (Black et al. 2011a; IPCC 2014; McLeman and Gemenne 2018). To increase societal impact, scholars often borrow terminology and concepts, such as climate change adaptation, from general climate change policies in this field of research (e.g. IPCC 2014). Therefore, studies of transnational practices related to environmental change often lack the aspect of remittances, with the importance of other transnational practices for adapting to and mitigating environmental changes emphasized. In most cases, migration is framed as an adaptation strategy to deal with environmental change and is then seen as one solution for dealing with the changing natural environment.

In the following, I will first provide an overview of this migration as adaptation discourse, with the aim of giving remittances a prominent place in the development of adaptation strategies dealing with environmental change. Second, I will discuss how remittances relate to environmental change, and how this adds to the development of a transnational society that facilitates adaptation to environmental change, increases knowledge-sharing on environmental change, and alters perceptions of environmental change. Special attention will be given to how transnational practices contribute to the circulation of ideas, knowledge, and an increasing awareness of environmental change, which is a necessary condition for the development of adaptation strategies for dealing with such change. Finally, I will reflect on the potential and the pitfalls of transnational practices when dealing with environmental change.

First, however, some notes on terminology are needed. In this chapter, the concept of environmental change encompasses all types of environmental change, including that linked to climate change and disasters. This avoids confusion about whether environmental change is attributable to climate change or not. I will only refer to climate change when explicit references are made by other authors or in the prevailing discourses. Additionally, the term remittances here not only includes money flows but also the circulation of ideas and knowledge, political views, norms, and values (Carling 2014; Faist 2007). To avoid conceptual confusion, I will explicitly refer to the distribution of human capital with regard to knowledge-sharing when discussing topics such as climate change discourses and adaptation strategies, and to social capital when referring to the establishment, expansion, or maintenance of particular social networks and ties (Eckstein 2006).

Migration as an Adaptation Strategy for Dealing with Environmental Change

In the 1980s, scholars and policy makers became increasingly aware that the effects of environmental change were irreversible, arguing that these effects would inevitably force people to migrate or be displaced. Although environmental change has always been a driver of migration, scholars, and policy makers now expect increasing mass displacement and voluntary migration in the coming years (IPCC 2014; McLeman and Gemenne 2018). However, according to a migration as adaptation discourse, migration might also be seen as a solution for dealing with such environmental change. More specifically, migration might reduce the demographic pressures on the affected region and diminish the vulnerabilities of social and/or biological systems to environmental change. For instance, as many large cities are located by the seaside and are therefore vulnerable to coastal flooding due to rising sea levels (Hanson et al. 2011; Huong and Pathirana 2013), reducing the number of inhabitants living there could facilitate the reorganization of the given city in light of these changes. Furthermore, it may limit inequalities in the exposure to risk through the development of adaptation strategies. The latter might be done by considering local organization structures, cultures, environmental hazards, and impacts combined to define a specific adaptive capacity.

Proponents of the migration as adaptation discourse place much importance on the role of remittances in the development of adaptation strategies other than ongoing migration from the region in order to deal with environmental change and its adverse impact on people’s lives. Diaspora communities and migrants already living abroad are especially suited to develop and support alternative adaptation strategies, given their familiarity with local organization structures, cultures, and environmental changes, as well as the hazards in their regions of origin. Consequently, remittances that could help deal with environmental change might be increasingly shared (knowledge), sent (money), and discussed (ideas). In turn, these remittances might influence the need to migrate, have an impact on the adaptation strategies used to deal with environmental change, and affect how people categorize the drivers of their migration trajectories. In doing so, such transnational practices might entirely transform the relationship between environmental change and migration, and the migrant diaspora might become a real transformative agent in the region of origin (Black et al. 2011a, 2011b; Gemenne 2010; Gemenne and Blocher 2016, 2017).

In this regard, it makes sense to apply a transnational perspective to the study of the relationship between environmental change and migration. The migration as adaptation discourse offers an interesting line of thought, as remittances sent through migrant networks are expected to increase the resilience of local communities and people’s agency with respect to environmental change (Methmann and Oels 2015). Transnational practices and migration could contribute to innovative approaches to the development of countries/regions in response to environmental change—especially through the sending/receiving of remittances.

A conceptual framework developed by Adger et al. (2002) proposes that both emigration and immigration make communities more socially resilient and enable them to deal with external shocks, such as sudden weather events and slow-onset environmental changes (see also Bayala in this volume). Emigration, immigration, and the environment all impact each other. This relationship is characterized by constant feedback loops in which the social resilience of communities plays a mediating role. On the one hand, emigration reduces direct consumption and pressures on the local environment, which may reduce unsustainable resource use. Emigration also results in higher incomes and linkages through remittances, allowing more space for investments. On the other hand, immigration may lead to more consumption, which may jeopardize the sustainable use of resources. Nonetheless, despite increasing pressure on the local environment, immigration could introduce a new knowledge base and increase the human capital of a community, expanding its available networks. This may lead to more innovation, technological development, and a widening of the social capital of a community. This feedback loop between migration, immigration, and the environment has consequences for poverty, health, inequality, risk-spreading, and the livelihood options of communities.

Remittances as such reduce dependency on the environment by encouraging the search for and investment in alternative ways to sustain one’s livelihood (such as through education, training, or investment in alternative businesses). For example, remittances might lead to the sharing of and investment in more human capital through greater levels of enrollment in education. These investments in human capital diversify household incomes, reducing reliance on sectors sensitive to environmental change and increasing household savings and investments. Moreover, human capital might not only reorient people’s careers and diversify household incomes, but also increase human capital and knowledge-sharing concerning environmental issues and adaptation strategies.

Such knowledge transfers may occur through both emigration and immigration, and could directly increase the awareness of environmental change discourses and knowledge of adaptation strategies for dealing with environmental change (Adger et al. 2002). Recipients of remittances might request specific kinds of remittances (Carling 2014) to deal with an environmental issue they are confronting (such as investment in solar panels, water pumps, local projects dealing with climate change mitigation, housing, etc.). This could also further knowledge-sharing about and awareness of local environmental issues and potential solutions. Furthermore, the expansion of social networks through migration might increase access to information and technological knowhow (Adger et al. 2002), with remittances leading to more investments in agriculture or aquaculture, for example, and other sectors that are susceptible to the adverse impacts of environmental change (see also De Haas 2005; Taylor et al. 1996). An example of such practice was found in fieldwork conducted in Morocco (Van Praag et al. 2021). During this study, a bottom-up project in Tinghir offered an interesting example of what this knowledge transfer could look like. In this newly set up project, an emigrant currently living and working in Spain stayed in contact with his former school colleague still living in Tinghir. Their interactions inspired them to set up a project in a neighborhood in Tinghir the design of which includes ongoing societal trends and issues. The project aims to tackle youth unemployment and emigration, changing standards of living, working with obsolete and polluting materials and hereditary rights, as well as with growing desertification. This knowledge transfer is accompanied by financial remittances to put its ideas into practice. The project aims to mitigate climate change by installing solar panels and a greenhouse to grow specific crops and to make the community more socially resilient to ongoing climate changes. The knowledge on climate change was adapted by members of the community to the local climatic, social, and economic context. For instance, alternatives were sought to prevent young people from migrating elsewhere and to circumvent current land rules and policies. This exchange inspired the project members to add additional social objectives to the project and to expand the project’s objectives. This example demonstrates how knowledge transfers work in both directions and inspire mitigation and adaptation strategies for dealing with environmental changes (see Van Praag et al. 2021). Finally, immigration could introduce context-specific factors and nuances in ongoing scientific debates on climate change in the reception society, debates which are often too generic, and which consequently complicate the development of local and differentiated climate change knowledge and solutions. The actual impact of climate change on a certain region may vary depending on local geography, system flexibility, resources, and so on. These context-specific climate changes and impacts need to be considered together with the adaptive capacity of the region by consulting local stakeholders and sector-specific experts (Bierbaum and Stults 2013). Apart from these context-specific climatic factors, cultural and religious factors also need to be taken into account, as they matter in how people adapt to climate change. For example, in a study by Mertz et al. (2010) conducted in the Sudano-Sahelian zone of West Africa, ‘prayer’ was indicated as one of the most important ways of dealing with environmental change, aside from migration.

The model proposed by Adger et al. (2002) discusses how migration could generally contribute to the development of adaptation strategies for dealing with environmental change. The following discusses two points that need further consideration to better understand the potential and also the pitfalls of using transnational practices to adapt to environmental change. The first concerns the understanding, awareness, and circulation of ideas on environmental issues. The second concerns the importance and structures of migration histories, practices, and cultures. These points of attention are relevant when studying the potential of transnational practices, as there is a large variation in such practices in relation to the conditions in which remittances are sent and received, to specific remittance sending patterns, and to the frequency and quantity of remittances sent (Faist 2007; Carling 2008a, 2014; Isaakyan and Triandafyllidou 2017).

Understanding, Awareness, and Circulation of Ideas on Environmental Issues

Remittances occupy a central place in the growing body of research on transnational societies. Sometimes, distinct forms of remittances are distinguished (such as financial and social remittances), which may be conceptually useful to understanding the importance of remittances in dealing with environmental change. The concept of social remittances (Levitt 1998; Levitt and Nyberg-Sørensen 2004; Boccagni and Decimo 2013, Vari-Lavoisier 2020) was introduced to describe the ways migration has contributed to the diffusion of knowledge, ideas, norms, and values. Social remittances should not be seen as entirely separate from financial remittances, with this distinction mainly used to emphasize that remittances are more than just money flows (Carling 2014). In this section, I will delve deeper into these social remittances by focusing on the circulation of ideas and knowledge that often accompanies money flows. This is especially important in the context of environmental change, because such flows are crucial in the development of policies and strategies for adapting to environmental change.

In Adger et al.’s model (2002), awareness of environmental change and adaptation strategies derives from knowledge-sharing between migrant networks and is thus a part of remittance transfers. In migrant networks, people can more readily discuss their understanding of environmental change and make each other aware of particular environmental/climate changes and the surrounding discourses. In this context, such information and dialogue could be especially enlightening, as not all parties may necessarily be aware of climate change and/or environmental issues, or refer to them using similar terms. By gradually becoming more familiar with environmental issues or distinct discourses on these matters, people can more easily and successfully develop adaptation strategies (De Longueville et al. 2020; Van Praag and Timmerman 2019; Van Praag et al. 2021). Developing an awareness of environmental/climate change and how this applies to the local context could thus be the first step toward a discussion of scientific and other discourses on this topic.

Too frequently, ongoing debates and adaptation/mitigation policies on environmental change assume that everyone perceives environmental change in a similar fashion (IPCC 2014; Van Praag and Timmerman 2019; Van Praag et al. 2021). This leads to a lack of inclusion of the views and agency of the people involved (Stern 2000; McLeman and Gemenne 2018; Khare and Khare 2006; Rigby 2016). At the same time, to develop inclusive local adaptation plans, to encourage people to implement and invest in innovative strategies, it is necessary that they are aware of ongoing climate change in particular, as it is important to understand how this accelerates all kinds of environmental change, leading to social tipping points, often jeopardizing sustainable livelihoods.

Thus, it is important that all the parties involved understand that environmental change and the associated risks are perceived differently across and even within cultures (Vedwan 2006; Mertz et al. 2009, 2010; Leclerc et al. 2013). These differences are further reinforced by perception biases concerning different types of environmental change, in which some changes are easier to acknowledge than others are (Howe et al. 2014; Few et al. 2017; De Longueville et al. 2020; Bele et al. 2014). For example, environmental change is especially acknowledged when it affects people’s own livelihood activities (Bele et al. 2014; Howe et al. 2014; Wodon and Liverani 2014; De Longueville et al. 2020). In many cases, this means that especially people working in agricultural production are aware of climate changes. For transnational communities, this often means that, if migrants have relatives conducting agricultural activities and/or living in rural areas, they are themselves also more familiar with climate changes in their regions of origin. However, this is not necessarily the case for all migrants. As for instance shown by Hut and Zickgraf (in Van Praag et al. 2021), migrants from the Democratic Republic of the Congo living in Belgium often come from more advantaged families and urban areas. Despite the large impact of climate changes in DR Congo, the livelihood activities of their migrant networks are not necessarily confronted with climate change, which reduces their awareness of climate change in their region of origin as well.

Therefore, to better conceptualize and prevent the disadvantageous effects of environmental change, additional sources of information are required that allow for a more comprehensive understanding of local and changing needs related to accelerating environmental change (Vedwan 2006; Mertz et al. 2009, 2010; Leclerc et al. 2013; Van Praag et al. 2021). Failing to include local people’s views on and thoughts about their immediate natural environment impacts the way people respond to change and whether they actively develop adaptation strategies. As knowledge-sharing is a mutual process, both the senders and the receivers of remittances can play an active role in knowledge construction on environmental issues and the development of adaptation strategies (Carling 2014). For example, in my Moroccan fieldwork in Tinghir, I discovered that large migration flows occurred after World War Two, which also shaped remittance flows. People with migrant networks still receive remittances, but mainly for special occasions, religious festivities, or for a particular cause (such as training enrollment, surgery, house renovation, diesel pumps, etc.). Only when inhabitants of Tinghir and/or migrants themselves had set up a specific non-governmental association dealing with poverty, pollution, renovation of the sewer system, and so on, were remittances also spent on adaptation to climate change (such as solar panels for water pumps, trees, etc.).

In this regard, it could be argued that migrants could contribute and become transformative agents in their regions of origin and in the design and development of environmental policies, and they could do so in multiple ways. First, as noted by Isaakyan and Triandafyllidou (2017), transnationally mobile migrants in particular could serve as such transformative agents. These migrants are those “who travel frequently (more than once a year or more than three times in two years) between their place of origin (in North Africa, Asia, and Eastern and Central Europe) and their place of destination in the EU because they are involved in economic or civic activities in both places” (Isaakyan and Triandafyllidou 2017, pp. 2787–2788). Thus, being physically present and spending time in their regions of origin enable them to design, follow up, and implement projects and, more specifically, to circulate ideas, knowledge, and awareness of environmental issues. These migrants can learn more about local specificities, translate boundaries and cultural structures, and support policies that are better adjusted to the local needs and structures of their communities of origin.

Second, migrants could serve as translators and cultural mediators for both regions and the various discourses and debates involved. This is important, as the acquisition of knowledge relies on various learning methods, which can themselves shape people’s perceptions of environmental change. Two main learning methods can be distinguished: the first involves direct, personal experience and the second relies on statistical evidence description (Weber 2010; Spence et al. 2011). This distinction might also include a differentiation between skills and tacit knowledge on the one hand and knowledge of the official discourses and statistics on environmental change and environmental migration on the other (Bremer et al. 2017). The outcomes of these learning methods are also affected by distinct cultural interpretations, religious beliefs, and local specificities (Van Praag et al. 2021). Given the specific local focus of the transmission of such remittances, including the circulation and sharing of ideas and knowledge, this entails a lengthy process that demands a lot of effort that is also tailored to the specific context.

Migration Histories, Practices, and Cultures

The second point of attention when considering the model of Adger et al. (2002) is that migration patterns, migration histories, the relationships between senders and receivers, the characteristics of both sending households/individuals and migrant networks, as well as the environments in which they all live need to be taken into account to develop an understanding of the role of remittances (Carling 2008a) in a changing natural environment. Environmental change has a different impact on different segments of a population living in an affected region. For example, people in wealthier groups, who are often affected by environmental change to a lesser extent, are often the first to migrate. This could lead to brain drain at both the national and regional levels in the country of origin (Stilwell et al. 2004). By contrast, the groups most vulnerable to environmental change often do not have the option to migrate or are only able to migrate to nearby villages or cities. Thus, people whose everyday livelihoods are most impacted by environmental change are more likely to migrate internally (Gemenne 2010; Black and Collyer 2014).

These differences in migration trajectories and possibilities are also reflected in people’s abilities to send financial remittances to those left behind. The nature of knowledge-sharing and the circulation of divergent ideas concerning environmental change are also affected. Thus, the differential impact of environmental change on populations affects their ability to migrate or not. This has resulted in very specific migration trajectories and/or immobile groups who want to migrate but are unable to do so (McLeman and Gemenne 2018), which affect the potential of migrants to become transformative agents in dealing with environmental change and/or in developing adaptation strategies. Based on these differences in the ability to migrate, a distinction should also be made between internal and transnational migrants, and consequently internal and international remittances (Carling 2008b). Thus, the distance of the migration trajectory, and especially moving to regions in which distinct discourses on environmental change prevail, determines the significance of knowledge transfers (Van Praag et al. 2021). Hence, the combination of sending financial remittances and knowledge transfer are decisive factors in determining the extent to which remittances actually lead to climate adaptation in the region of origin.

Keeping this in mind, if migrants are more aware of the local context and specific environmental change, they may be more conscious of the need to send remittances to deal with environmental change and undertake action. In line with the premises of the new economics of labor migration (Stark and Bloom 1985; Taylor 1999; Stark 2005), being able to remit might even be seen as an important motivation for migration. These remittances may also increase migrants’ capital in their regions of origin. They can be used to ensure the maintenance of their assets in their communities of origin and to prepare for a potential return to this community (Carling 2008a). In this case, sending remittances to deal with environmental change not only enhances the subsistence of non-migrant members of the immigrants’ household and social networks, but also prevents devaluation and degradation of their property, inheritance, and assets.

However, in other cases, concerns about environmental change mitigation and adaptation may only arise after migration and after being exposed to climate change discourses in the immigrant country. Finally, behind the need to send and receive remittances, it could also be argued that environmental change itself is a significant driver of migration. This would also make the link between environmental change and migration more straightforward (Gemenne 2010), but as we have seen above, the role of environmental change in the decision to migrate remains complex.

Migrants as Transformative Agents in Transnational Societies: Potentials and Pitfalls

As Carling pointed out (2014, p. 2019): “Remittances can transform receiving communities, and they weigh heavily in the assessment of the benefits and vulnerabilities that migration brings.” This is no different when investigating the transformative potential of remittances in rapidly changing natural environments of communities/regions of origin. More specifically, in the context of environmental change, the sending and receiving of remittances could have far-reaching transformative effects. Due to the specificity of environmental change discourses, remittances in which knowledge about environmental change and how to deal with this is exchanged can especially contribute to transnational societies. In such societies, changes can be discussed and innovative solutions sought to deal with such complex matters at the local level. The mutual impact of such knowledge transfers is strengthened by money flows that ensure this knowledge is implemented in such way as to improve the social resilience of communities.

In addition, there should also be some kind of sustainability in the sending of remittances. This could, for example, be ensured through the visits and cooperation of transnationally mobile migrants (Isaakyan and Triandafyllidou 2017). Such agents contribute more actively to the sharing of human capital, as they spend more time in their regions of origin, facilitating the circulation of ideas. This exchange is important in taking into consideration local realities, difficulties, and structures, and in order to correctly interpret the ‘new’ kinds of information shared by migrants. Another way in which the sustainability of remittances might be enhanced is by structurally embedding them in community building, for example by targeting them at community projects. Overall, what is important is that there is mutual understanding and alignment between receivers and senders concerning how remittances will be used, leading to the development of better adaptation strategies.

Dealing with environmental change in terms of mitigation and adaptation is often approached from a local/international policy perspective. However, it remains important to bear in mind that although remittances are appealing to policy makers, remittance flows mainly comprise the sum of many individual transfers (Carling 2008a). Thus, one should be aware that remittances are generally not shared by entire communities or implemented at the community level. As migrants usually communicate with their immediate social network—consisting of family members and friends—at the community level, remittances may be fragmented, widespread, and not necessarily shared with those implementing adaptation strategies dealing with environmental change. Thus, if policy makers wish to rely on remittances as part of their environmental strategy, policy initiatives should stimulate and coordinate the use of remittances for community-wide development projects. They could be done, for example, by promoting the channeling of remittances, through the stimulation of direct and indirect investment of remittances, or through the sound management of remittances (Carling 2008b).

Moreover, in addition to the increased control and management of money transfers, there is also a need for better coordination of knowledge transfers and human capital, which may also not be equally distributed across all community members and/or migrants. This could lead to fragmented information and knowledge-sharing that is not necessarily applied to the local context. In the case of environmental/climate change discourses, for example, this could result in the sharing of discourses and theories on issues such as the ozone layer, the melting of the ice caps, or the general need for a reduction in CO2 emissions. Insofar as such discourses and information remain abstracted from local specificities and lack insight into practical adaptation strategies, they may jeopardize the development of local environmental change strategies (Van Praag et al. 2021).

Conclusion

This chapter gave an overview of the linkages between migration trajectories, transnational practices, and environmental change to foster an understanding of how migrants and their transnational practices could potentially serve as agents of change. It considered how these factors might contribute to a growing awareness of and adaptation to environmental change through financial remittances accompanied by knowledge exchange, thereby enhancing the social resilience of their communities. Thus, the chapter reflected on how transnational practices might reduce future vulnerabilities to environmental change in a sustainable way.

The potential and actual impacts of remittances on the receiving countries have already been largely debated within and outside academia. It has been argued that remittances do function as transformative agents in the context of increasing and disruptive environmental changes. Simultaneously, however, remittances are often sent to regions that are relatively unattractive for investments and/or are hindered by restrictive immigration policies, jeopardizing the full potential of remittances (De Haas 2005; Fagen 2006). Thus, both senders and receivers should be actively involved in any transformative process aiming to develop transnational societies (Carling 2014). At the same time, we should heed Kapur’s (2004) warning against the remittance mantra, as remittances should not be considered a holy grail in solving all developmental issues or in coping with environmental issues.

While other scholars have already taken up this line of thought, I would like to emphasize some specific differences when applying it to environmental issues. In general, the use of remittances—in the form of money flows, knowledge, political ideas, norms, and values—has largely been seen to complement existing initiatives and policies of the state, market, and international organizations, turning migrants into development agents (Faist 2007). An adapted version of this approach can be found in policy documents and in academic literature on environmental migration. Analogous to the main premises of the ‘migration as development’ discourse, migration has also been conceptualized as an adaptation strategy for dealing with environmental change. Migration is here seen as a way to reduce demographic pressure, change the demographic composition of the communities of origin, and facilitate the development of adaptation strategies through remittances (Adger et al. 2002; Black et al. 2011b; Gemenne and Blocher 2016, 2017).

Despite the potential of such a ‘migration as adaptation’ approach, the research remains inconclusive on its actual effects. It appears that contextual and organizational factors play a determining role in whether migration can actually serve as a means to adapt to environmental change (Hillman et al. 2015; Wiegel et al. 2019). Furthermore, the extent to which migration is an adaptation strategy itself remains conceptually unclear, as does the question of whether it might be used when other adaptation strategies fail (Gemenne 2010) or whether it should even be considered a form of maladaptation (Juhola et al. 2016).

Building on the insights presented in this chapter, the premises of the migration as adaptation discourse and/or migration as development discourse need to be reconsidered, as they jeopardize the development of sustainable policies dealing with environmental change. First, migrants have to meet demands that are hard to accomplish. More specifically, many migrants feel a pressure from their country/region of origin to be loyal and care for their families, their region, and their natural environment. Moreover, the remittances they send should be spent on development purposes and to support their entire region of origin when dealing with climate change. These demands are reflected in the fact that many diaspora policies are seen as supplementary to actions undertaken by the state, the market, and international organizations (Kapur 2004; Faist 2007). At the same time, in the receiving country, migrants are also expected to work, integrate, and spend their money there. Both perspectives seem to overlook or ignore the fact that this is a lot to ask from a specific group in society, namely migrants, who also migrate for specific purposes, interests, and ambitions. Additionally, both perspectives tend to forget the fact that they are discussing private money, approaching it rather as a policy solution.

Thus, due to the specific position that migrants occupy both in their regions of origin and in their immigration countries, alternative structural solutions and policies are needed to deal with the mitigation of and adaptation to environmental change, without relying on individual money transfers sent by migrants. In this regard, policy makers could provide more structural support for and facilitate the sending of remittances and specific types of investment. However, this still mainly refers to money flows. The sharing of knowledge, raising awareness, and brainstorming on adaptive solutions to deal with environmental change are far more difficult to monitor and manage than the provision of funds or the sending of money. In this respect, transnationally mobile agents could play an active role in the creation and transformation of transnational societies in which knowledge, in particular, is shared (Isaakyan and Triandafyllidou 2017).

Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that the presence of such transnationally mobile agents will vary across migrant networks, communities, and cultures, as will their interest in environmental issues. Moreover, due to the unequal distribution of remittances within and across communities and countries, this solution clearly would not benefit all those who are confronted with environmental change. Remittances could even strengthen existing inequalities within and across communities and countries. As we saw, migrants do not necessarily originate from the regions most affected by environmental change, nor are they always the most affected by or most vulnerable to the effects of environmental change on their daily livelihoods (McLeman and Gemenne 2018). Consequently, there remains a need to develop innovative policies and actions that do not rely solely on such transnational practices.