<United Nations, New York
Preparatory Presentation for Roundtable 3
United Nations High Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development

23 April 2013

Taking convergence forward: New responsibility sharing and cooperation in migration, mobility and human development

Johan Ketelers
Secretary General
International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC)
Check against delivery

Excellencies, distinguished delegates, dear colleagues and friends,

I first want to express gratitude to all organizers for this invitation in my capacity as Secretary General of ICMC, which has taken a leadership role in organizing civil society contributions to this October’s United Nations High Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development (HLD).

I, therefore, will speak not just on behalf of one civil society partner (ICMC), but also echo some of the thinking of civil society in a broader sense.

By way of preamble I would like to build on the following premises:

• the fact that civil society across the world is marked by growing convergence;
• the principle that the strongest partnerships are built when the sharing of responsibilities is well organized.

Civil society is a converging network of actors genuinely aiming to collaborate better. While it is understood that many partners are in themselves already important networks (just like ICMC is through its worldwide network of members), the bigger network that is under construction will span many more and many different types of actors.

This growing convergence has become clear during the previous meetings of the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) and is evident again given the presence in this room of many of these civil society leaders and networks, including the NGO Committee on Migration (CONGO), Migrant Forum in Asia, Migrants Rights International, the Scalabrinian Center for Migration Studies, United Methodist Women, the global trade unions, Georgetown University, and the Migration Policy Institute.

When it comes to migrants and migration it may be said that civil society is active everywhere, in ever stronger partnerships and forms of cooperation. Civil society is well aware that almost all forms of migration and human mobility touch on, or are touched by, development — whether it be individual, community or economic. All these dimensions contribute to integral human development.

Allow me to immediately emphasize that the aim of civil society’s on-going collaboration is not to single-mindedly confront intergovernmental and governmental structures, but instead to achieve closer cooperation for the purpose of further improving the lives of migrants, their families and the communities and countries to and from which they move.

We and many of our civil society partners cooperate concretely with IOM, UNHCR, the ILO, UNICEF, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and others on better protection of migrants and refugees, including on issues such as refugee resettlement, boat people, migrant children, domestic workers and victims of migrants smuggling and human trafficking.

Much of this work is carried out in concrete cooperation with governments, who are often funders or partners on the ground. A growing part of this global civil society network is comprised of migrants and diaspora associations, working on a range of policy, programme, investment and business initiatives to improve their lives and those of their families, and contribute to positive development in their new country as well as in the country of their birth.

All of this indicates that civil society is exhibiting growing convergence, through the building and consolidation of common ground and better understanding of the various roles and responsibilities that we all have — though do not always share — in responding to the important challenges of migration and development.

However, the core of my message is not to present a state of affairs but much more to highlight that we urgently need to continue increasing this convergence and move to coherence in order to build much more effective partnerships.

Allow me to briefly elaborate on the following three points:

• the need for more effective cooperation;
• the need for improved mechanisms of cooperation;
• the road leading from convergence to greater coherence.

I. More effective “cooperation”

Cooperation obviously means acting together. Unfortunately, much of what we seem to be doing — at times even in the name of “cooperation”— is actually thinning our response:

a. Our response to migrants and human mobility has been “thinning” by undervaluing – at both ethical and structural levels – the concept of solidarity.

1. Existing solidarity structures have come under siege due to a shrinking humanitarian space worldwide (as deplored by UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres); the economic crisis; and self-defensive attitudes of tightened borders feeding, and fed by, the growing social fear of ‘others’.
2. The solidarity with migrants is also thinning, as these are still insufficiently recognized and integrated as full persons in society. Integration is not so much a theory that needs to be developed on behalf of migrants, as it should be a process that embraces all actors — including migrants themselves — from the very first policy-making steps. Sharing responsibilities is as much about joint policy-making as it is about joint programming.
3. We also witness a thinning of solidarity with partners wherever institutional thinking prevails over social responsiveness. Partnership is a bridge between institutions, structures or organizations. But what is more important is that effective partnership builds, first and foremost, directly on the needs being addressed through the pooling of each partner’s competencies. The question of “who” the partners are should therefore remain subordinate to the question of “what” each partner can effectively do. Only by embracing our diversity will we consolidate our partnerships and deliver concrete positive change.

b. Our response to migrants and migration has also been “thinning” by losing solidity.

So much of our thinking — and working — is reduced to “slices”, is it not? We have divided the work in slices to gain managerial efficiency. We slice protection with different conventions, distinct institutions and separate actors. We do the same with social reality, which is sliced into different pieces such as: migrants and health, migrants and remittances, migrants with high skills, migrants with lower skills…

No doubt such slicing is helpful in more than a few ways — but not if the slices remain disconnected, or – worse – if they do not add up!

Migration is undoubtedly an epoch-making phenomenon fundamentally changing the future of our world, societies and communities. All managerial slices therefore need to step up and add up to the fuller reality of today’s migrants and human mobility, which leads to integral human development.

We therefore need a change in mentality in contrast with such “thinning” in a careful — but determined — building of structural solidarity. This includes rights and obligations, political willingness and vision, inclusive decision-making and well-organized and monitored implementation.

Let me be clear: I am advocating not necessarily for a new “institution”, but rather for a better “system”:

• with better mechanisms that include all existing actors,
• based on standards, respecting the full person and the societal reality of migrants, and
• based on shared responsibilities.

II. The need for better mechanisms

The greater and more fruitful sharing of responsibility is built through mechanisms that continuously need to be refined through dialogue between partners and migrants.

a. The first mechanisms are international Conventions. They are excellent tools built on logic and consensus that have not always been easy to achieve. International Conventions offer binding norms, guidance, reference frameworks and benchmarks in setting goals. Today we need to monitor their effective implementation rather than to increase their number. Notably, we must ensure the ratification of the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families as well as of the ILO Convention concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers.

To improve the effectiveness of these instruments:

1. Instead of writing more Conventions, we need to better manage their implementation. This also means that we must do more than develop ‘migration’ as a separate unit of development. We must also integrate our collaborative efforts under a much broader sky: the management of rights and protections as universal standards that pertain to all human beings – whether in the context of migration and human mobility or not.
2. Such “management” clearly includes many civil society actors in the field; collaborative mechanisms with these need to be built or strengthened.
3. Firm resolve and clear UN resolutions are needed to bring our minds and efforts together on concrete actions in the same direction.

b. In building and strengthening these mechanisms we should take confidence from the many instances of responsibilities already shared. Even though they remain still too “sliced” and at times also ad hoc, there is evidence of high potential in deepening these collaborative mechanics. To name but a few examples:

1. in refugee resettlement: longstanding partnerships of many civil society groups with governments and with UNHCR in refugee identification and processing; with IOM in cultural orientation; with national and city governments in actual resettling, employment and integration;
2. for migrants in crisis, including migrants in transit: UNHCR’s “10 Point Plan for Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration” and the Lampedusa model/Praesidium partnerships of civil society, government and international agencies in the protection and assistance of vulnerable boat people;
3. in labour migration: civil society collaboration everywhere on awareness-raising, the building of standards, and protection, and monitoring with respect to domestic workers, recruitment practices, regularization of status for migrant workers and their family members and circular migration (though all these efforts clearly need to be improved and further developed);
4. among migrant and diaspora groups: the increasing intra-national and transnational engagement with governments and others in both rights and economic opportunities in countries of destination and origin.

c. We also need — and it is time for — better mechanisms in development planning

Let me add some words of caution with regard to the expression “mainstreaming” migration into development planning:

1. We believe – and we know that there is strong convergence in civil society on this – that migration and human mobility are not at the service of development. We appreciate very much the language in the title of this panel, calling to “integrate” migration into development planning. It is much better than the “old ” expression so commonly used, “mainstreaming migration into development planning”.
2. Why? We worry that over-enthusiasm for “mainstreaming migration into development planning” can justify or generate dependence on migration in lieu of true development planning. Indeed, we should reinforce sustainable human development by creating opportunities for decent work at home, thus providing people with an alternative to migration. In other words, it is important to recognize that migration and development are two distinct processes with clear interacting – including causal – relationships, but one should not be pursued on behalf of the other.

d. In searching for and developing better mechanisms for migration and mobility, one does not escape the question of better governance — and I hesitate to say global governance. Although all of our institutions have obviously changed over time, migration and human mobility seem to be the writing on the wall that to increase effectiveness we need to move on from some of the forms and logics fixed long ago.

I am well aware that my question raises many more questions, but we should keep the focus on governance mainly with a view to improving effectiveness. We thus need to ask if the present division of labour between the various international bodies is still sufficiently adequate to deal with the societal, economic and political changes ahead of us.

Is there not, beyond the current vertical approach of stand-alone institutions, actors and responses, a huge potential to also “develop” horizontal and more complementary dynamics? Is migration not the ideal field to test this approach?

Many debates on this issue have already taken place (ICMC for instance in 2010 published “Working in Concert: Building common ground for the global governance of migration”, after organizing 12 months of multi-stakeholder roundtables on global governance in migration). Allow me to emphasize how urgent it is that we make up our minds!

We may decide it is still appropriate to maintain the present “vertical approach”, which would then call for a global structure specifically charged with a norms-based migration mandate. We may instead choose to follow the growing understanding that what is required is a more horizontal approach redefining types of partnership and responsibility.

Personally, what I deem important is not so much that we choose one option over the other, but that we indeed take a decision. We can even have both of these approaches, the first in the form of an institutional entity, and the second to define the dynamics linking many existing institutions. Or else, we can stick to the horizontal approach. But what is imperative is that we make a decision, commit to it, and move forward.

The inter-agency Global Migration Group (GMG) may be looked upon as one such attempt; however, to date the prevalent vertical logic remains, which hinders horizontal dynamics and potential. The concept of a platform (secretariat) connected to the UN or to IOM may prove to be a possible solution. This can only be effective if the necessary financial means are found, consensus is reached on its governance value, effective commitment of all participants is secured, and all partners around the table are fully recognized as equal. Again, solutions lie less often in the structures themselves as in their connection or interaction with other bodies.

III. Moving from convergence to effective coherence

a. Civil society has a call in this. Speaking up is proof of responsibility – not irresponsibility. In fact, there is a clear call for civil society: in the field and in capitals, locally and internationally. Civil society is subject and object and actor and agent and partner and performer in all phenomena of migration, human mobility and human development. And all of that is about our lives, our families, our societies, our world together.

b. As we approach the HLD — the whole process as well as its Roundtable 3 on strengthening partnerships, cooperation, mechanisms and coherence, four points emerge:

1. “Convergence” is manifest in civil society’s request for the HLD to produce a commitment to collaboration as an outcome of this year’s High Level Dialogue: a commitment to a civil society-states collaboration in a “five-year-seven-point plan”. The plan is on the tables at the back and on civil society’s GFMD website, signed by 100 civil society organizations so far — many of the leading civil society actors in migration and development worldwide.

2. The plan sets a frame of five years for work on a set of issues on which there already is strong convergence, in civil society but also among many governments and international agencies. Key to the plan is that progress on the issues is not all dependent on a “race” to achieve everything by the end of the day 4 October, when the HLD finishes, but aiming rather at what can be achieved over the next five years, with benchmarks along the way — reasonable and also reasonably ambitious and measurable ones.

3. The seven issues are at the heart of the growing convergence, constitute major challenges in migration, mobility and development:

• 1. regulating the migrant labour recruitment industry;
• 2. addressing protection needs of migrants in distress, including migrants in transit;
• 3. ensuring migrants’ and migration’s rightful place on the post-2015 development agenda (i.e., in the “next generation” of Millennium Development Goals);
• 4. guaranteeing labour rights and decent work for migrant workers;
• 5. addressing vulnerabilities and rights of migrant women and children;
• 6. promoting the implementation of national legislation reflecting international standards regarding migrants and their families;
• 7. redefining the interaction of international mechanisms for protection of migrants.

4. With broad convergence as a starting point, civil society’s five-year- seven-point plan is an invitation to move towards coherence and efficiency not in thin and separate slices, but together. It is a response to the invitation of governments to build concrete solutions, and an invitation of civil society to develop more efficient interaction. This is work with governments, not against.

And so, by way of conclusion, this is what we expect:

• a change in mentality, towards greater solidarity and solidity to better address migration and human mobility;
• a fuller recognition of the migrant as a whole person in his and her whole environment: so that the focus is truly human mobility and integral human development ;
• the embrace of civil society, including migrants as full partners, in managing all rights and obligations involved.

Thank you

Johans UN presentation 23 April updated.pdf (577.55 KB)