La Strada Documentation Center

The Global Forum on Migration

Document number
1317
Date
2007
Title
The Global Forum on Migration
Author/publisher
Suzanne Hoff, La Strada International
Availability
View/save PDF version of this document
Document type(s)
LSI publication, Research/Study/Analysis,
Keywords
GAATW Advocacy Update, Irregular Migration, Feminization of migration, Economic migration, Labour migration, Free movement, Undocumented migrants; Undocumented labour; Migrant rights; Migration management; Comprehensive approach to migration; Migration policy;
Summary
This is a special report by Suzanne Hoff, international coordinator with La Strada International, on the Civil Society Day (CSD) held on 9 July 2007 in Brussels, prior to the Global Forum for Migration and Development (GFMD). At the CSD, 200 civil society organisations presented their views on migration and development to the GFMD organisers. Following the CSD (and parallel to the GFMD), migrants’ rights groups held a Global Community Forum on Migration, Development and Human Rights. REPORT SUMMARY: Conceived as an informal, non-binding, multilateral and state-led process, the GFMD has been planned as an annual event open to all UN Member States (although the UN is not involved in the organisation of the Forum). The High Level Dialogue in September 2006 was an initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and was organised by the General Assembly. However, states made clear in 2006 that although they would like to continue the conversation on migration and development, they do not want this to be under the auspices of the United Nations (and therefore not subject to United Nations human rights conventions and to avoid UN standard setting becoming part of the meetings’ goals.) The GFMD wants to add value to the current debate on international migration and development by fostering international cooperation, enhancing inter-state dialogue and discussing and promoting practical and innovative policy ideas on the migration and development nexus. Because the GFMD is open only to governments, the Belgian government, in cooperation with the King Baudouin Foundation (KBF), organised on 9 July a ‘Civil Society Day” (CSD) for non-government representatives. This day was for civil society organisations to “discuss relevant issues and to offer organized input to the following governmental discussions” on 10-11 July. This input was offered by way of a report drafted by the KBF and presented to the GFMD by 12 civil society representatives on 10 July. Two hundred civil society representatives from around the world attended the CSD, selected by the KBF and an NGO steering committee. The participants were diverse, ranging from development and human rights NGOs and networks, to private sector and money-transfer associations, unions, faith-based and diaspora organisations, and independent researchers. Apart from the limited engagement offered by the CSD, NGOs and others had no opportunity for meetings with GFMD delegates or distribution of material. The agenda of the CSD largely mirrored the government agenda for the GFMD. Three themes framed the debates, which took place in eight sessions: I. Human capital development and labour mobility: maximising opportunities and minimising risks; II. Remittances and other Diaspora resources: increasing their net volume and development value; and III. Enhancing Institutional and Policy Coherence and Promoting Partnerships. REFLECTIONS ON THE CSD: Trafficking in human beings was not specifically discussed at the CSD but many recommendations and opinions expressed in debates on migration/migrant rights have been touched on in the anti-trafficking debate as well. The discussions and the recommendations reflected, in general, the voice of all civil society organisations present, but some critical voices were heard and I share some of the concerns here. In general, it is evident that the human rights approach to migration and anti-trafficking is still being undermined and that many of the discussions and recommendations were initiated partly as an attempt to actually reduce migration. The question to be asked is whether civil society should be hesitant to join discussions on ‘how to tackle irregular migration’. Regulation of labour migration by governments might only lead to more repressive measures being taken against irregular migrants and those groups that are left out. Specifically: • The recommendations on labour mobility seemed mainly designed for ‘highly-skilled’ workers, whereas all migrant workers should be allowed this right. • As for: “governments should ensure that decent working and living conditions prevail in countries of origin so that workers truly have the option to migrate or not to migrate”, it must be emphasised that governments should also ensure decent working and living conditions in countries of destination, irrespective of whether the migrant workers are regular or not. • Re: “Linking visas and admission to stay to only one employer”, we should rather lobby for visas independent of employers as this system puts the worker in a vulnerable position. • Too big a “focus on migrants as contributors to the socio-economic and cultural well-being of origin and destination societies”, might excuse governments from providing more development aid. • The recommendation on “regulation of recruitment agencies” should not lead to limiting the possibilities of persons to freely travel, or put them in a situation where they feel forced to use illegal migration channels. • Similarly, in relation to “circular migration and the need for more flexibility of visa and temporary residence permits”, clear questions arise, and were actually asked, on the setting of terms and whether indeed migrants would be forced to return if they do not leave voluntarily after their visa expires.
Related documents