Incorporating locally appropriate means of communication and deliberation into decision-making around planned relocation gives agency to affected communities, as case studies from Vietnam and Peru demonstrate.

As floods, droughts and coastal erosion intensify due to climate change, planned relocations multiply in response. Yet, these are often carried out without genuine prior consultation, ignoring local knowledge and methods of communication. Based on two case studies – one in the Mekong Delta, the other in the Peruvian highlands – this article examines how tools such as participatory mapping, local radio, and community messaging networks allowed communities to exercise agency in order to deliberate, make decisions and rebuild their futures on their own terms. It also analyses how these practices relate to human rights and to communication for social change, and draws lessons for state actors, international agencies and local organisations.

Mapping a way out in the Mekong Delta

 In a number of provinces of the Mekong Delta in southern Vietnam, rural communities have faced increasing threats from coastal erosion, soil salinisation and the resulting damage to their livelihoods. In response, projects such as CS-MAP (Climate-Smart Mapping and Adaptation Planning) have incorporated community-oriented participatory mapping methodologies to identify safer areas and plan informed relocations.

The CS-MAP mechanism was developed by the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) in collaboration with CGIAR’s Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) programme, and was later implemented and validated through participatory processes with local communities following serious salt-water intrusion during El Niño in 2016.[1] Through participatory workshops, residents identified the areas most at risk of salination and discussed possible local adaptation options. These observations were subsequently combined with scientific data on topography, hydrology and infrastructure, producing maps that were validated by the community before being submitted to provincial authorities. This approach allowed communities to be not just recipients of external plans, but protagonists. This strengthened their visibility in official decision-making and allowed them to question the appropriateness of sites proposed by external actors, including local authorities and development agencies, and better negotiate with them.

The result not only ensured residents’ physical safety, it was also more legitimate in social and cultural terms: families knew why certain decisions had been made and what they implied for their livelihoods. In addition, the process enabled spaces for inclusive dialogue: women, older people and people with less access to resources were able to have their say, especially when workshops were organised with local translation and gender-sensitive facilitators. However, the process was not perfect: there were structural limitations to implementation, such as a lack of long-term resources to keep maps updated. In addition, many families had expected some financial support for relocation, but in most cases assistance was limited or unclear, which created uncertainty after the mapping stage. Many had to resort to local loans to build housing, which led to debts that had an adverse impact on their livelihoods after relocation.

Community deliberation in the Peruvian Andes

In the Peruvian highlands, the rapid retreat of glaciers has disrupted agricultural cycles, access to water and the ability of communities to remain on their land. According to figures reported by IDL-Reporteros, an online newspaper based in Lima, and by the aid organisation CARE Peru – both cited in The Guardian – more than 72,000 families left rural areas between 2018 and 2024, driven by prolonged droughts, soil erosion and lack of institutional support.[2] However, many other communities chose to reorganise internally and make collective decisions before deciding whether to move, developing local strategies to adapt in place whenever possible.

One notable example can be found in the Sacred Valley, north of Cusco, where Water Users’ Associations operate as community regulatory bodies for water use. Through open assemblies, these organisations prioritise the equitable use of water for essential crops, adjusting traditional practices to new climatic patterns. These decisions are made through face-to-face deliberation involving not only community leaders and water user representatives, but also women farmers, young herders and older adults, whose experience is key to recognising risks and evaluating alternatives.

Popular communication networks have also emerged using accessible media such as loudspeakers mounted on vehicles, radio messages and WhatsApp groups in Quechua. Together with the assemblies, these channels allow communities to share alerts on water sources, coordinate meetings and above all open spaces for discussion on options for remaining, diversifying production or undertaking relocation within the local area.

In one community in Calca, for example, hand-painted maps were drawn directly on the walls of communal buildings to visualise areas at risk and possible relocation sites within the district itself. Discussions were broadcast over loudspeakers and through voice messages sent to mobile phones, allowing those who could not attend in person – such as older adults or people with disabilities – to take part as well. This community communication strategy made possible a collective decision-making process based on local, accessible and shared knowledge. However, this process was not problem free either. In some cases, community proposals developed through these participatory methods were reportedly not incorporated into municipal planning processes, partly because local authorities required formal technical studies or registration within official planning frameworks. This limited the extent to which community-led initiatives could access public funding or technical support, showing that participation without formal recognition still leaves important gaps in implementation.

Remaining barriers

These cases demonstrate that communities affected by climate change are not passive subjects, but crucially important collective actors capable of deliberating, making decisions and creating their own proposed solutions. However, despite the use of these inclusive practices, exclusions remained.

A critical issue in both contexts was the gender barrier: in many meetings, female participation was only significant when specific strategies were designed (facilitating groups, differentiated spaces, inclusive language). Without this, women tended to be listeners, not decision-makers, even though they often bear the brunt of the loss of housing or access to water. Language exclusion was also noted, particularly in Andean areas where technical decisions were delivered in Spanish and using incomprehensible terminology. It was only when the meaning – not just the language – was translated that information became shared knowledge.

The conditions for agency

In both territories, communication was a tool of power. Wall maps, voice messages, rural assemblies and telephone networks were not just ‘media’, but environments in which agency occurred, the sense of displacement was reconfigured, and collective alternatives were shaped. Replicating these strategies requires recognising that not every channel is useful if it is not well adapted to the local area, language, pace of life or accepted practices of each community. Experience also shows that the right to participate is not exercised in a vacuum. It requires binding consultation protocols, with adequate time, allocated resources and genuine co-management. Where local authorities listen to but do not recognise community decisions, exclusion is reproduced in new forms.

In terms of funding, there is an urgent need to abandon a vertical, top-down project model and promote flexible funds, co-managed between governments and communities, allowing relocations to be adjusted to environmental changes and local priorities. Whether to say “yes” or “no” to a relocation cannot depend on a family’s ability to borrow money.

From a human rights perspective, this implies that relocation cannot be understood as a favour, but as a state obligation subject to standards of consultation, participation and reparation. From the perspective of communication for social change, it implies that every action must include strategies designed not only to inform, but to empower and sustain collective dialogue before, during and after displacement.

Recommendations

To move towards inclusive, sustainable and fair relocations, the following safeguards and strategies are proposed:

Key safeguards

1. Binding consultation protocols, defined with the community, which guarantee the right not only to be informed, but to co-create alternatives.[3]
2. Legal recognition of community decisions, such as assemblies, internal community agreements or public votes, even if they do not take conventional forms.
3. Human rights monitoring mechanisms, including by community-based organisations, and reports which are accessible in the local language.
4. Co-managed funds, directly involving communities in the allocation of resources for relocation, infrastructure and livelihood recovery.

Transformative communication strategies

1. Community communication networks using well-known channels (radio, loudspeakers, mobile messaging) to translate technical information into culturally relevant formats.
2. Participatory audiovisual materials, designed by and for communities, in their languages, and using references relevant to their locality.
3. Radio and social media campaigns led by young people and displaced leaders, communicating from the inside and not from the outside.
4. Documentation of processes in real time, to create shared memory, to feed back decisions and sustain the community bond during displacement.

Climate displacement is not just a matter of infrastructure or technical assistance. It is a deeply human, cultural and political process. Human rights and communication for social change must therefore move from the periphery to the centre of public policy design, international agency programmes and financing agendas. UNHCR, state agencies, funding organisations and local governments should incorporate these safeguards and strategies as mandatory intervention criteria. Relocating is not just about moving houses, but about rebuilding lives with real participation, meaningful information and guaranteed dignity.

José Daniel Rodríguez Arrieta
Professor of Political Science, and Human Rights, University of Costa Rica
josedaniel.rodriguez@ucr.ac.cr

IG: @josedanielcrc
X: @josedanielcr

linkedin.com/in/josé-daniel-rodríguez-arrieta-53722614

 

[1] CGIAR–CCAFS (2019) Climate-Smart Maps and Adaptation Plans (CS-MAP) of the 13 provinces in Vietnam’s Mekong River Delta, available at: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/resources/publications/climate-smart-maps-and-adaptation-plans-cs-map-13-provinces-vietnams

[2] ‘In the shadow of melting glaciers: life in the heartland of the Incas’ former empire – a photo essay’, The Guardian, 22nd June 2025

[3] United Nations (2007) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, art. 32 (2)

READ THE FULL ISSUE