 To je pravda, o definitonih. En del, da so vzvečen, da smo, da smo tudi hodnih, izvršili, da smo počkaj v počke. Zato sem počkaj, da smo tudi zelo, da smo počkaj, da smo počkaj, da smo počkaj, da smo počkaj, da smo počkaj, da smo počkaj. Moj nekaj prišličen, če je vse prišličen, začal so izveni, ki je v tem način, začal za daljevne, v najboljih vrstevnih debatih glimačnega in migračnja, nekih je glimačna. Kaj so prišličen, kaj je naredil glimačnega? Če smo vzelo, da smo prišličen, da smo prišličen, kaj je odvijet, nekaj je vzelo neko za odzivno. Kajnih gtz, giz, kaj je tudi, the idea behind all this, of course, is that this knowledge can inform policymaking in be more relevant to reality. We don't pretend to make models, which in this case is the idea that we are not to be interested in this in the future. We are not interested in this in the future, of course. We are interested in the future, in the future. in odnušljaj stvari. Zatečne državno sem prusno, da v ljudi nišlašenje se dar nožilni, da vedno odnišljajo kategorije, v svojo ide, na kaj možno izvršila. Pes odkušn interacting, izqičen sem zelo, da so na tem ide, da to je negruzina z Evropnega taj možno. Kaj so mi poznaši? Vsi vidim to za sam obstavna, in instinti 2009. preserving population living in urban areas. Now it is increasing rapidly. It is increasing rapidly. it is increasing rapidly in upslub terms. In proportion, we are actually seeing a very rapid urbanization. There have been periods where urbanization is being faster. It is also quite regionally uneven. vseh zelo je 70-80% zelo, tako da je nekaj proces zelo, načo je zelo. Zelo je bilo počet, da je vseh zelo, da je všeč nekaj začnega. Zelo je zelo, da je zelo populacija. Zelo je zelo. To je zelo. To je zelo. To je zelo, da je zelo, vzelo, da povrstje delovim, ovo malo delovim, jaz se nekaj ne je urbano. In taj bilo vse z njih, odsledajča in vzelo. In, kako se je naprej zelo, ta je, da je, da je več naša urbana... ...ja več naša povrstva v urbanih različnega bilo, da je vzelo, da je, da je je vzelo, boje nekaj prv. because they are the poorest ones, and this applies especially to least developed countries, low-income countries, which already are facing challenges of providing the basic infrastructure for the urban populations. In other words, urbanization is costly. There is an effort which needs to be made in providing basic infrastructure, which is potentially the real challenge. Zatim, če si je odčeli? It is the proportion of the total population living in centers which are defined as urban. It is not the same thing as urban growth. Which is an absolute figure. Now the two things are important because you can have an increase in urban population without having an increase in urbanization. You can also have an increase in urbanization without necessarily having a large growth in the total population. Način, kako bomo prejmovali. I češem, kako se však zelo vsočili, je, da neko sem spredne pustili, bo tega prejzena v zelo v Zorbanju sem jasno vsočila. Zelo vzelo vsočila je nekaj nekočnega. Na zelo však, da način se izvažimo v zelo v zelo v Zorbanju, način se jasno tega prejzena v zelo v zelo v zelo v zelo v zelo v zelo v Zorbanju .. in vseh, da je to vzvečen, je to nekaj 10-20%, ki je vzvečen, da se vzvečen je vzvečen političnjo vzvečen. Zato, ko je vzvečen vzvečen? Vzvečen je vzvečen? Parti je demografična, But it's only part of it. Migration is often considered to be one of the main factors behind urbanization, but the only two countries where rural urban migration is actually the main component of urbanization are Indonesia and China. In the rest of the world it is natural population growth. It is also essentially a change in the economic base of a country. What is very often forgotten is that while in 2009 the majority of the world's population resided in urban areas, already by the mid-80s the majority of the world's population was employed in activities which were not agriculture and not in primary sector. So the changes in economic activities are very often the driver of urbanization. And of course this is related to the location choices of enterprises and national strategies which are for example where do national governments decide to invest in infrastructure, which could be ports, railways, the infrastructure which attracts private capital and concentrates activity in certain areas. There are economies of scale of course in concentrating activities which are economies of scale which are relevant to industry and services, not so much to agriculture, but they are to agricultural processing. So how do we measure urbanization? I think it's important to take into account that even when we say that in 2009 most of the world's population lives in urban areas, that is an estimate. The UN is very careful to say that it is an estimate. We often forget it and treat it as if it was the truth. Now it's important to remember that it is an estimate because it is based on previous censuses and some countries have not had censuses for more than 20 years. So it is really based on what has happened in the past and it could be a far away past and of course it could have been in periods where different economic trends and patterns were shaping population distribution. We also usually think of regions as being homogenous but if you look for example of Africa there are huge differences between West and East Africa. So it all needs to be taken quite carefully thinking. The other thing we usually think of is that urbanization means cities but this is really not the case. The mega cities which are usually what we think is fastest growing are not at all the fastest growing and it is only 10% of the total urban population. Of course it is the wealthiest urban population usually so that's where you have concentrations of consumption and investment in infrastructure and so on and in decision making, that's usually where governments reside. Cities are also quite a small proportion. It is very much the largest and fastest growing proportion of small towns. Now this is important because small towns are usually the ones where governments is particularly lacking and to have successful cities or cities which are livable and contribute to sustainable development what is really important is governance. So how does this all fit with mobility and with rural urban linkages? Again, the evidence is that this is not such a homogenous process and linear process. There is evidence of urbanization in some African nations. There is also evidence of urbanization in some regions in Africa. For example, this happened in Ghana in the 80s where small towns declined because cocoa prices declined. And so small towns which are just above the threshold of being classed as towns, so they were just above 5,000 inhabitants, when prices of international commodities went down, people started moving out and the small town became a village again. This may look different if we don't understand processes at the local level in the context. Similarly, India usually comes up with census data which are very much what was not expected in the sense that urbanization has not progressed as rapidly as was projected 10 years ago or even 20 years ago. What we have more indications of is greater mobility. Again, I should say that this sort of movement is not recorded by census data. So we know it's happening, we think it is happening because we have small scale usually qualitative data or small scale surveys, but we do not really know for sure that it is happening, but we think it is happening. I think that it's common experience that it is happening. We also see that there is a great variety of destinations and the points of origin. So the whole idea that urbanization is linked to movement from rural areas to urban areas really is not that clear from the information we have, but we do know that rural urban linkages are increasingly important for livelihoods. So this is something that some work has looked into this and I think, again, it is important to look at how diverse mobility and rural urban linkages can be. So the successful side, if you want, is the accumulation strategy. You accumulate assets by moving into different places and having access to different sources of income, of activities of several kinds. What I'm going to talk about now is generalization. So please bear with me, it is just very broad pictures which is just to differentiate this from the survival strategy, which is the other facet of mobility and rural urban linkages. So as an accumulation strategy, we are usually talking of household level and that means that individuals within households can specialize. So you may have someone who is one of the children who gets the investment in education and goes to the city and then sends money to relatives who may then invest in intensification of production in rural areas. The assumption here is that you have a division of labor which remains the unit. So you have cross investment between farm and non-farm activities. There is quite a lot of documentation of this, for example in Nigeria, in Vietnam and in other countries where migrants to the cities literally send money, not only money but also information about markets and this is the engine which the proximity to the city is not only proximity to markets but also to a source of cash or capital within the household. This works when there is good infrastructure and there are good market links between rural and urban areas. So in a way the context again is extremely important and this is what governments and local governments can do and that again is when the functions and the capacities of local governments is extremely important in determining what they can actually do. Also secure land tenure and access to natural resources are important and also access to labor markets including education and the acquisition of skills. Now when you don't have that, mobility can become a survival strategy and this is often at the individual level so the same person will go through a series of jobs throughout seasonal periods throughout the year. This usually means that people are not skilled when they do these sort of things so they may move to the city to work as unskilled laborers or move from the city to the rural areas as wage laborers on a seasonal basis. Mobility is dictated by lack of opportunities rather than by the availability of opportunities so it's more in migration terms this would be more push factors rather than pull factors. It also usually involves insecure living and working conditions in either rural areas or urban areas or in both and this is the case for example of construction workers very often. All the unskilled workers who do not have adequate accommodation when they go to the cities who work in very often exploitative conditions and so on. These are also the workers who have been most affected by the crisis, the financial crisis in recent years and of course there is limited access to assets, to the basic assets which are natural capital, physical and human capital. So there are these two roles in a way which are how livelihood strategies can build on rural urban linkages. So on the basis of this this is more or less the conceptual basis we started from to look at climate change and the impacts of climate change on mobility. Very broad terms, climate change and poverty have very strong links and I think this is very familiar to all of you. Climate change affects groups who rely primarily on natural resources for their livelihoods. That would seem to be rural populations but actually it is also the urban poor simply because the urban poor usually live in locations which are exposed to environmental hazards which are usually the cheapest areas where land is cheaper, where there is no competition from people who can have access to better housing. It could be on flood plains for example it could be on very steep slopes areas which are subject to landslides or very simply areas where there are no services. So there is no surface drainage so flood would be affecting these areas more often. There is no sanitation so when there are floods, when it rains you have old sewage which comes out and so on. So that sort of environmental hazards are very strongly linked to climate change. Flooding is actually one of the key hazards related to climate change in urban areas. Now, this is around one billion people. Very often one third of residents in many cities. So we are not talking of marginal populations, we are talking of populations which are growing. If you take for example the Millenium Development Goal which was on reducing poverty part of it was reducing the number of residents of urban slums by 100 million. This goal has been exceeded. The problem is there are more people who have moved into slums so effectively in absolute terms there has been an increase although there has also been a reduction which means that the MDG, the relevant MDG has been successful. This is food for thought in terms of what are going to be the important post MDG's objectives. It also highlights how in many ways these are the non-income dimensions of urban poverty which are perhaps more relevant than the income dimensions. We were talking about this recently. If you go to Manila in many places and the bridges which are on small rivers not bridges which you can literally not notice when you are going by car there will be people living in slums which are attached under the bridge. Now when you see people coming out of these places in the morning they will be perfectly pressed with iron shirts and they will go to jobs which are very often in offices, service workers. You would not identify them as the poor the way we think of the poor. So urban poverty in many cases is not necessarily related to income but to the cost of living and to the inadequate provision of shelter, accommodation and basic services. So what happens with climate change then? How do we see migration as a response to climate change? The reason why we started looking at this is that in the climate change debates I would say probably five or six years ago there was this huge conviction that climate change would result in something like over 200 million migrant refugees who would move from low income countries possibly towards rich countries and there would be this vast wave of environmental refugees. Now there is a growing consensus that it is not that simple. So there are huge differences between people who are displaced by climate change impacts and that is likely to be short term. So people who are displaced by floods or by landslides or other extreme lands then there will be voluntary migration people who cannot engage in economic activities because of climate change for example because of drought and so on and then there will be distressed migration which is forced migration of a different kind. What seems to be important however is that if we do not understand the diversity of the destinations the durations and the composition of flows it's very difficult then to formulate and implement appropriate policies which do protect migrants and there is also the assumption that most movement is going to be towards cities and this is usually seen as a very negative sort of movement. The UN does every two years a very interesting report which is on population policies population distribution policies by governments and there has been a steady increase in policies which try to stop people migrating to the cities. So these vary from being policies for rural development to policies which just make it more difficult for migrants to reside in cities. So we went to three countries and looked at locations where climate change is actually occurring. These are areas with environmentally fragile contexts and with a tradition of high mobility before climate change. These are areas where people have moved a lot because you may have no rain one year because you don't really have a fall over position which is locally available, people move. Now we assume that these were also areas where the main type of impact would be slow onset. So droughts or changes in rainfall variability and so on. What we found and we were quite surprised to find this was that everybody in these places could trace a catastrophic event to a very precise date. Initially we didn't think these were particularly important events. They didn't seem to be so when we looked at the climate side of things. When we asked people what actually happened and what people were talking about was something different. It was the combination of non-environmental crisis if you want, with environmental crisis. Basically it was the foreclosure of opportunities for diversification of livelihoods locally. So people had to move. In Bolivia it was the closure of mines. That was in the 80s and coincided with El Nino. So basically people farmers used to go to the mines when there was a crisis in agricultural production found that they couldn't do it. In Senegal it was the collapse of international crisis for crown nut. And in Tanzania it was the beginning of land grant. And so all this created catastrophic events which forced people to change quite substantially the way they were making their livelihoods. And we identified three different types of migration. And I think this is quite a good finding because in a way these were people who were coming from the same areas but they responded in quite different ways. So a typology of mobility can be useful to try and understand how people can actually respond and how sustainable these responses are. So seasonal mobility, rural to rural, and male dominated, this was the response of the poorest groups, very often from poor locations as well, from areas of rain-fed agriculture and where there wasn't really much to do locally. But what was important, and this was for example the case in Senegal, in Senegal you would think why do people bother to continue to do family farming? This is crops which fail pretty much every other year. Why are they still staying there? And the feeling we had was that actually it is the combination of family farming with other activities which provides a range of possibly not one safety net but something that if this fails there's this other possibility or even another one, all minimal, all not particularly effective but all of them together did provide some sort of resilience. What we also thought was quite interesting is that most of these farmers were working seasonally on family farms. So family farms which can afford it usually have quite a large proportion of grown up children of the family labour which has gone to the cities, sending back cash. Now what you have then is cash-rich households with labour shortages which will then attract wage labourers from other areas. I think we are underestimating how much this represents transformation in family farming and small scale farming which relies increasingly on mobile labour and seasonal migrant workers. Temporary migration is more towards towns. I would say not cities but smaller urban centres. This is also very often across borders but it's not really international migration. It's still local. If it involves crossing a border it's fine but it's local. It could be for example from Bolivia to Argentina and these sort of distances. A large number of women very much the reason for this is demand for housemates. And one of the reasons for this is that the emergence of middle class where women in the cities are educated and are employed but you still do not have the infrastructure to provide childcare, domestic work which is usually undertaken by women. So the demand for housemates is very high in locations or contexts where there is no common responsibility through the provision for example of childcare, nursery schools and so on. That remains very much something for the family or looking after all the relatives. It remains something that women are supposed to do but women are already out of the household they are already working. So replacement women come in and that creates this other type of movement. This in turn I think and that was another of the interesting findings is that this link to international migration. Now for a long time international migrants used to invest in the larger cities especially in property housing. The whole centre of Addis Ababa has been built by international migrants. The whole centre of Dakar in Senegal and so on and so forth. So much so that then the cost of land has become so high that even international migrants cannot afford that. So they have moved to small towns so there is increasingly requests for young men for example or boys even to work in construction work for young women to work as housemaids for the relatives or the old relatives who have stayed behind and so on. So it's a creation of an economy which is still dependent on international migration but there are several steps between international migration and how this then creates internal migration. And of course again we're back to the issue of governance in small towns. The living and working conditions are huge risks for migrants going to these areas. And then permanent rural urban migration to the cities. Well, this one really is not something which is affected by climate change at all. So any concerns by policy makers that urbanization and the growth of the larger cities is going to be affected by climate change actually has no evidence whatsoever from the case studies that we conducted. These are people who wouldn't move through cities anyway because they're better educated, they're wealthier and they want to use different types of opportunities. So what does it say about mobility as adaptation in general terms? What we found is that it is adaptation to climate change but it is also adaptation to other types of transformations but we need to be quite careful in thinking of it as adaptation only. It can be just coping so that there is room for policies to protect migrants at the same time the most vulnerable households in areas which are affected by climate change are everywhere those who do not receive remittances. Injection of cash from elsewhere seems to be absolutely essential part of household finances. And again, remittances are used for investment and that has been something which has been discussed for a long time. Are remittances the way to development? How can we convince migrants to use remittances in a way which is productive and not just related to consumption? But I think the answer is very simple. If there is high potential, so if there is infrastructure, access to markets, there is security of tenure, people will invest. Otherwise they will not invest just because it is their home area. And I think that is a very reasonable approach to investment and risk. So in general terms, migration helps with development but only when the developmental gaps are limited remittances are not a shortcut to development. They will not replace public investment in public goods, in public infrastructure and so on. So migration mobility is just one part of rural urban linkages. The other elements which link urban and rural areas, people, enterprises and in general economic activities cannot be replaced only by what is essentially individual or household level investment. And so supportive institutions are a pretty important part of that. The feeling is that when we talk about migration and remittances we tend to forget about institutions and how the enabling environment is so important to then make migration more of an adaptation strategy rather than a coping strategy. So the policy implications is that when we talk of climate change development is of course the best form of adaptation but it has to be pro-poor. Otherwise it increases social polarization. Strengthening rural urban linkages also helps but again only if it is pro-poor. So what does it mean to be pro-poor? I think this revolves around access to assets in condiversification and also rights issues. So it is generally an issue of a matter of rights, access and enabling environments. And so to conclude, I think we have been very confused for a long time, does mobility drive transformations or does it reflect transformations? And I think that the work we have done in the context of climate change which is a transformation which is not obviously created by mobility to a large extent at the global level at least, it suggests that mobility is a response to transformations and it's not the other way around. It cannot be stopped but it is extremely diverse. In some ways maybe talking of migrants can be misleading. There is such a diverse group that it may become quite confusing to think of them as something just because you are migrating you share too many characteristics. And so again local institution especially in small towns are by far the weakest ones but also the ones which play the most important role. Thank you.