MIGRATION PROFILES: ADDRESSING KEY CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE Introduction The European Commission (EC) in its Communication on Migration and Development in 2005, first outlined the case for the preparation of country Migration Profiles. Initially, Migration Profiles were conceived of as a concise statistical report, prepared according to a common framework, which could make it easier to understand the migration situation at a glance in a particular country. Over time, the Migration Profile has evolved from being a means to bring together data from a wide range of sources, to a more elaborate process involving consultation with many different actors. The key goal is to help identify and develop strategies to address data gaps and produce the evidence required to manage migration effectively. The process of preparing Migration Profiles can promote discussion about migration policy, coherence and coordination between ministries and other stakeholders. Migration Profiles have rapidly become a tool to promote evidence based policymaking. Prepared for more than 80 countries, Migration Profiles range from short 5 10 page statistical overviews, to longer more comprehensive reports based on extensive consultation and analysis of the migration situation of a particular country. Migration Profiles have continued to attract widespread government attention at recent meetings of the Global Forum for Migration and Development (GFMD) in Greece in 2009 and Mexico in 2010, with many more governments seeking advice and guidance on how to prepare a Migration Profile. In 2011, the Swiss Chair of the GFMD organized thematic meetings on Migration Profiles in New York, Batumi and Manila. The Global Migration Group (GMG) has also focused its attention on Migration Profiles. The GMG has provided extensive comments on the Migration Profiles template, and is proposing that a set of core indicators could be included in each Migration Profile. 1
Since 2007, IOM has supported the preparation of reports for more than 32 countries many of which were the result of an Extended Migration Profile exercise in Europe, South America and Africa. Currently, IOM is assisting governments in Bangladesh, Korea, the Philippines and Afghanistan to prepare their own Migration Profiles. Much of the funding for this work, and especially for Extended Migration Profiles, has come from the EC but IOM has also financially supported many profiles using the resources of its 1035 Facility Fund. IOM is currently preparing a practical, user friendly guide entitled, Migration Profiles: Making the Most of the Process which aims at assisting Governments interested in implementing a Migration Profile exercise. Key Challenges for the Future How can Migration Profiles become a more useful tool to support evidence based policymaking in the future? Based on its experience of working with governments around the world, IOM has identified 10 key challenges, which are summarized below. 1. Promote a common understanding of Migration Profile concept. 2. Facilitate more systematic sharing of Migration Profile experiences among countries. 3. Extend geographical coverage of Migration Profiles to all countries worldwide. 4. Extend scope of issues covered in the Migration Profile. 5. Improve quality/analysis of Migration Profile reports. 6. Address research gaps and improve data management through capacitybuilding. 7. Promote Migration Profiles as a tool to enhance monitoring and evaluation. 8. Enhance the use of Migration Profiles as a tool to promote the mainstreaming of migration into national development plans. 9. Strengthen government ownership of the process and use of Migration Profiles for strategic policy development. 10. Encourage sustainability and updating of Migration Profiles. 2
1. Promote a common understanding There are many different types of Migration Profiles (see Table in Annex). As a result there is a lack of a common understanding of what is a Migration Profile. For many actors, Migration Profiles are still viewed primarily as statistical reports. A stronger and clearer distinction needs to be made between Migration Profile and Extended Migration Profile. The key difference lies in methodology, consultation and ownership. Extended Migration Profiles tend to cover a wider range of issues relevant to migration and development, such as labour market conditions, human development indicators, migrants rights safeguarding, impact of migration, etc. Another distinctive feature of Extended Migration Profiles is the emphasis on establishing an ongoing consultative process. This means that the Migration Profile is prepared in full consultation with a wide range of actors and stakeholders inside and outside of government. As for ownership, unlike a Migration Profile prepared externally by research institutions, the Extended Migration Profile is owned by governments and it is they who define the priorities, objectives and scope of a country profile since the very beginning of the process. International agencies provide technical assistance to support this process. The EC, GFMD and GMG agencies could all help to promote a common understanding of Migration Profiles by defining more clearly what is meant by the terms Migration Profile and Extended Migration Profile. 2. Facilitate more systematic sharing of Migration Profile experiences among countries There has been insufficient sharing of experiences among countries, or among agencies to promote a common approach to Migration Profiles. To date, the Migration Profiles have been developed in a somewhat ad hoc manner, depending on the availability of funding and the priorities of different donors. The creation of a common global database where all Migration Profiles could easily be accessed would help to promote the sharing of information. Together with the GFMD and GMG, the EC could host a series of regional workshops on Migration Profiles to promote the sharing of experiences among countries. 3. Extend geographical coverage of Migration Profiles to all countries worldwide Geographical coverage of Migration Profiles remains uneven. Many regions of the world such as Eastern, Central and Southern Africa and most of Asia have thus far prepared very few Migration Profiles. Most of the countries of origin of special relevance to the European Union have yet to prepare an Extended Migration Profile, for example, countries in Northern Africa, Turkey or Albania. 3
4. Extend scope of issues covered in Migration Profiles There is scope for revising the Migration Profile template originally developed by the EU in 2005. In a new guidance document Migration Profiles: Making the Most of the Process (see Annex attached) IOM has suggested some ways in which the Migration Profile template could be broadened to include a wider range of topics, should this be of interest to governments. For example, to date very few Migration Profiles have focused on the implications of internal migration or environmentally induced migration on national development. Many other topics could be included in a Migration Profile depending on the interests and priorities of the country concerned. The GMG could prepare a common set of core international migration indicators for Governments interested in developing a Migration Profile, in order to include a small section that would be standardized and comparable. 5. Improve quality/analysis of Migration Profile reports Originally conceived as statistical reports, many Migration Profiles were essentially descriptive documents providing little analysis of the impact of migration on development and little assessment of policy approaches. The quality of Migration Profiles can be improved by linking researchers in countries of origin and destination, through twinning exercises or by establishing peer review groups assisting the elaboration of a Migration Profile since the very beginning. 6. Address research gaps and improve data management through capacitybuilding Relying on existing research studies also made it difficult to produce strong analytical reports. It is not enough simply to pool together existing data, there is also a need to invest in gathering new data and conducting original policy oriented research to better inform policymakers. In some countries these problems were compounded by weak local research capacities. In its new Migration Profile guide mentioned above, IOM argues that the Migration Profiles should be linked to efforts to boost migration research capacities and greater investment in new migration research. Establishing an Extended Migration Profile should be an exercise which involves capacity building measures to collect new data, add migration questions to existing surveys, and update administrative data systems. Specially designed surveys and studies may also be required in order to answer complex or fast changing migration policy questions. 7. Promote Migration Profiles as a tool for monitoring and evaluation The Migration Profiles were originally conceived of as a tool which could facilitate the monitoring and evaluation of migration policies and programmes, but to date have not served this purpose as few profiles have been updated. In the future, Migration Profiles could potentially become a tool to promote the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of migration policies and programmes on development, but this will require the gathering of new data and the development of new indicators. A first step would be to ensure that the Migration Profile process includes a presentation and analysis of existing 4
evaluations of migration programmes and projects. Often this type of information is dispersed between many different ministries and agencies. 8. Enhance the use of the Migration Profile as a tool to promote the mainstreaming of migration into national development plans If the Migration Profiles are updated on a regular basis using the same format they could potentially become an important means to monitor the impact of migration on development over time. This kind of information is essential if migration is to be mainstreamed into national development plans. Currently the GMG Handbook on Mainstreaming Migration into Development Plans is being pilot tested in four countries. It will be important to learn lessons from this experience in order to see how Migration Profiles can better support mainstreaming exercises in the future. To support mainstreaming efforts, Migration Profiles will need to move beyond the pooling together of existing data, to the collection and analysis of new data to inform policymaking. 9. Strengthen government ownership of the process and use of Migration Profiles for strategic policy development It is important to link the preparation of a Migration Profile to a process of consultation with policymakers. From the outset decision makers and programme managers should clearly define what kind of information should be included in a Migration Profile and why that information is relevant to policy development. Migration Profiles should be owned by governments and it is they who define the priorities, objectives and scope of a country profile. International agencies can support the process by providing technical assistance. Governments should be encouraged to link the preparation of a Migration Profile to a particular unit or ministry which would be given special responsibility for promoting the use of Migration Profiles by policymakers and programme managers as well as for guaranteeing a regular update of the Migration Profile. 10. Encourage sustainability and updating of profiles The elaboration of an Extended Migration Profile is a sustained process of activity that assesses the present and longer term impact of migration on development. It is a dynamic tool, which should be regarded as a process through which governments can improve coherence between migration and development policies. In order to render Extended Migration Profiles efficient as a policy tool, they need to be updated on a regular basis, e.g. every second or third year. To date donor funding for Migration Profiles has tended to be for only one or two years, donors should consider providing resources to promote longer term Migration Profile initiatives in order to promote the sustainability and regular updating of Migration Profiles. Sustainability is more likely to occur where Migration Profiles are linked to ongoing efforts to mainstream migration into development planning. 5