Manasa Bollempalli

Climate‐induced mobility poses a mounting governance challenge for the European Union (EU), where climate action, migration control, and security policy intersect in uneven and contested ways. While EU discourse frequently frames climate change as a “threat multiplier,” migration governance remains anchored in deterrence logics, producing a structural gap in protection for environmentally displaced populations. This paper examines how the EU conceptualises and operationalises the climate–migration nexus through a novel comparative securitisation framework, document analysis and expert interviews. It identifies three securitisation logics, positive (humanitarian–development framing), hybrid (development–deterrence overlap), and negative (deterrence and externalisation), applied across four policy instruments, the European Green Deal (EGD), the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF), the Deterrence Policy Package (DPP), and non‐harmonised Member State protection measures. Despite their divergent rationales, these logics converge on three analytically distinct yet structurally equivalent pathways of exclusion, viz., exclusion by omission, exclusion by development–deterrence overlap, and exclusion by deterrence and externalisation. The paper argues that this convergence is produced by two cross‐domain mechanisms, viz., governance fragmentation between EU climate and migration institutions, and a shared discursive tendency to constitute climate‐displaced persons as objects of risk management rather than rights‐bearing subjects. It concludes by outlining pathways for integrating climate displacement into EU legal and policy frameworks, including harmonised protection categories, funding realignment, and cross‐DG coordination.

This article critically examines Australia’s approach to climate-induced mobility through the lens of securitization theory, focusing on whether and how Australia constructs climate mobility as a security issue. While irregular migration has long been securitized in Australian policy, climate change has received inconsistent security framing, and climate-related displacement remains unaddressed in legal or strategic terms. Drawing on policy analysis and expert interviews, the study examines how these divergent securitizations logics shape three major initiatives, the Pacific Step-Up, the Pacific Engagement Visa, and the 2023 Falepili Union treaty. Findings show that labour mobility programmes, though framed as regional climate resilience measures, primarily serve Australia’s domestic labour and geopolitical interests. The Falepili Union marks a partial normative shift, explicitly recognizing climate mobility as “mobility with dignity,” signalling an emerging regional governance model that integrates adaptation and sovereignty. The study concludes that Australia’s bifurcated approach remains burdened by inconsistent climate commitments, securitized migration logics, and colonial hierarchies, yet recent initiatives demonstrate the potential for planned, rights-based, and relational mobility frameworks. Achieving this requires a paradigm shift from reactive, control-oriented immigration policy policies to collaborative, forward-looking strategies that centre on dignity, agency, and shared regional responsibility, to ensure stable economic progress and long-term sustainability.

The objective of this paper is to examine how local practices of blue economy succeed in addressing the poverty–environment nexus in coastal communities. While many disciplines touch upon the concept of blue economy, little literature exists on how a sustainable blue economy approach can help bridge poverty–environment challenges, particularly at the community level. To illustrate this, we present three case studies of blue economy practices initiated and implemented by coastal communities in China, Samoa, and Vietnam. The outcomes from each case study are examined based on both their environmental and socio-economic impact. Lessons learned include the significant role of science and technology in innovating solutions, the crucial impact of community leaders in encouraging and amplifying both local needs and solutions, continuous advocacy, fulfilling the very important need for communities to witness tangible benefits of project implementation, and last but not least the availability of resources and know-how resulting from multi-stakeholder partnerships including local governing councils, NGOs, and community members. Local communities have an unrecognized potential for adaptation and innovation and that more proactive public policies are required to achieve environmental and poverty reduction objectives simultaneously.