IntroductionSolon Ardittis and Frank Laczko

Changing public perceptions of immigrationLaura Thompson

Migrant deaths at sea: Addressing the information deficitStefanie Grant

Producing and using indicators and indices in the migration policy fieldJan Niessen

Expanding the evidence base on irregular migration through research partnerships: Australia’s Irregular Migration Research ProgrammeMarie McAuliffe and Alex Parrinder

Key findings of comparative research on assisted voluntary return and reintegration of migrantsKhalid Koser and Katie Kuschminder

PublicationsMPP Readers’ Survey

MIGRATIONPOLICY PRACTICEISSN 2223-5248

Joint Managing Editors:• SolonArdittis(Eurasylum)• FrankLaczko(International

OrganizationforMigration–IOM)Editorial Advisers:

• JoannevanSelm(Eurasylum)• KarolinePopp(International

OrganizationforMigration–IOM)Editorial Coordinator:

• ValerieHagger(InternationalOrganizationforMigration–IOM)

Editorial Assistants:• MyleneBuensuceso(International

OrganizationforMigration–IOM)• AnnaLynConstantino(International

OrganizationforMigration–IOM)Editorial Committee:

• AderantiAdepoju(HumanResourcesDevelopmentCentre,Lagos,Nigeria)

• RichardAresBaumgartner(EuropeanAgencyfortheManagementofOperationalCooperationattheExternalBordersoftheEuropeanUnion–FRONTEX,Warsaw)

• PeterBosch(EuropeanCommission,Brussels)

• JuanCarlosCalleros(StaffOfficeofthePresidentofMexico)

• DavidCostello(Commissioner,OfficeoftheRefugeeApplications,fromtheGovernmentofIreland)

• HowardDuncan(Metropolis,Ottawa,Canada)

• NeliEsipova(GallupWorldPoll,NewYork)

• AraceliAzuaraFerreiro(OrganizationofAmericanStates–OAS,Washington,D.C.)

• PhilippeFargues(MigrationPolicyCentre–MPC,Florence)

• LukasGehrke(InternationalCentreforMigrationPolicyDevelopment–ICMPD,Vienna)

• ShahidulHaque(MinistryofForeignAffairs,GovernmentofthePeople’sRepublicofBangladesh)

• MichelleLeighton(InternationalLabourOffice–ILO,Geneva)

• WilliamMcClure(AustralianDepartmentofImmigrationandBorderProtection)

• JenniferMcDonald(Passport,ImmigrationandCitizenshipAgency,MinistryofNationalSecurity,Jamaica)

• SankarRamasamy(DepartmentofLabour,NewZealand)

• DilipRatha(WorldBank,Washington,D.C.)

• CécileRiallant(EC-UNJointMigrationandDevelopmentInitiative,Brussels)

• NandKishoreSingh(MemberoftheIndianParliament,NewDelhi)

• SimonTonelli(CouncilofEurope,Strasbourg)

• AdrianavanDooijeweert(DutchAdvisoryCommitteeonMigrationAffairs–ACVZ,TheHague)

• MaiaWelbourne(CitizenshipandImmigrationCanada–CIC,Ottawa)

Published jointly by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Eurasylum Ltd.

A Bimonthly Journal for and by Policymakers Worldwide

CONTENTS

Vol.V,Number1,February2015–March2015

TheConvoyproceedingitsTripfromZouarketoFaya(NorthernChad).©IOM2011

EDITORIAL BOARD

21_15

2

4

9

17

22

28

3235

Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE2IntroductionSolon Ardittis and Frank Laczko1

Welcome to the latest issue of Migration Policy Practice. This issue broadly focusesonthreemainthemes–publicperceptions

of migration, analysis of irregular migration andreturntrends,andmeasuringtheimpactofmigrationpolicies.

Changing how the world views migration

The first article, written by IOM’s Deputy DirectorGeneralLauraThompson,focusesonhowtoaddressnegative perceptions of migration. Despite muchevidencetothecontrary, thegeneralpublic isoftenquite misinformed about the scale and impact ofmigration today. Misunderstanding and negativeperceptions are often fuelled by sensational mediacoverage, which tends to focus on the costs ofmigration rather than its benefits. However, recentresearch conducted on behalf of IOM by Gallup,suggeststhatpublicattitudestomigrationaremorevariedthaniscommonlyrealized.Between2010and2012, Gallup conducted nationally representativesurveysinover140countries,andfoundthatonlyinEuropedoyoufindamajorityofpeopleinfavourofreducingimmigration.However,evenwithinEurope,attitudesvaryconsiderablybetweencountriesintheNorth and those in the South. This study, the firstglobalsurveyofpublicopiniononmigration,suggeststhatwe still donot knowenoughabout the factorsthatshapeattitudestomigration.Thearticlesuggeststhat such surveys should be replicatedon a regularbasis,sothatwecanmonitorbetterchangesinpublicattitudestomigrationacrosstheglobe.IOM’sDeputyDirector General also outlines an action plan and aseriesofconcretemeasuresthatcouldbeatakentoaddressanti-migrantsentimentandpromoteamoreevidence-baseddiscussionaboutmigration.

Migrant fatalities

Threearticlesinthisissuefocusondifferentaspectsofirregularmigration.Inthefirstarticle,StefanieGrantdiscussesthegrowingnumberofmigrantdeathsatseain theMediterranean regionandaround theworld.IOMdata(seemap)showsthatatleast5,000migrantslosttheirlivestryingtocrossbordersin2014.Duringthefirst fourmonthsof2015,at least700migrantsdiedaccordingtoIOMfigures(seetextbox).Althoughthis growingproblemhas attracted the attentionoftheworld’smediaandseniorpolicymakersinEurope,littleactionhasbeentakentoreducethenumberofmigrantfatalities.Norhasmuchactionbeentakentoassistthefamiliesof“missingmigrants”.StefanieGranthighlightsthefactthatmanyofthefamiliesofmissingmigrantsexperiencea“doubletragedy”.Notonlydotheylosealovedone,butoftenitisextremelydifficultfor them to find out any information regarding thecircumstancesoftheirrelatives’deathandburial.Asyet,thereisnointernationallyagreedcommonsetofproceduresandpracticesfordealingwiththeremainsofundocumentedmigrants.Ifthedeathofamissingmigrant cannot be legally confirmed, this can affectafamily’sentitlementtoinheritance,remarriageandguardianshipofchildren.

Assisted voluntary return and reintegration

Asirregularmigrationincreases,agrowingnumberofcountriesareinterestedinfindingsafe,humaneandcost-effectivemeans of returning irregularmigrantstotheircountriesoforiginthroughassistedvoluntaryreturn(AVR)programmes.IOMaloneassistednearly50,000migrantstoreturnhomein2013undersuchschemes. Despite the fact that AVR programmeshave been operating for over 30 years, relativelyfew studies have analysed the impact of returnand reintegration schemes. Khalid Koser and KatieKuschminder’sarticleisarareexampleofastudyonreturneesparticipatinginAVRprogrammesbasedonextensive field research conducted in 15 countriesaroundtheworld.This study isalso important froma conceptual perspective because it sets out todevelop a framework for defining and measuringthesustainabilityofapproachestovoluntaryreturn.

1 Solon Ardittis isManaging Director of Eurasylum Ltd. FrankLaczko is Head of the Migration Research Division at IOMHeadquartersinGeneva.Theyaretheco-editorsofMigration Policy Practice.

Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE 3

Aparticularuseful tool–a returnand reintegrationindex – was specifically developed for the study,whichcouldbepotentiallyreplicatedinotherstudies.The researchers found that in many instances,returneescouldnotbedescribedasreintegrated,andreturnwaslikelynottobesustainable.Oneofthekeyimplicationsforpolicyidentifiedbytheauthorsistheneed for further research focusing on how best todesigneffectivereintegrationassistance.

Australia’s Innovative Irregular Migration Research Programme

ThislatterstudywascommissionedbytheAustralianDepartment of Immigration and Border ProtectionIrregularMigrationResearchProgramme.Australia’sinnovative research programme is presented ina separate article by Marie McAuliffe and AlexParrinder. Irregular migration stories regularlyreceiveextensivemediacoverage,butrelativelyfewgovernments fund research to understand betterthecausesandconsequencesof irregularmigration.Australia’s research programme is innovative in thisrespect, funding high-quality, rigorous, quantitativeandqualitative researchon irregularmigration.Oneof the strengths of the programme is its intentionto inform policy and operational deliberations, butnot recommendor advocate specificpolicyoptions.An independent review of the research programmein 2014 found that the structures and relationshipsunderscoring the research programme represent a“bestpractice”model,drawinguponbothgovernmentandnon-governmentmigrationexpertise.Given theoften heated and politically charged debates aboutirregularmigration,aprogrammeofthiskindprovidingcarefully considered and researched evidence couldpotentiallybeamodelforothercountries.

Comparing migration policies: Are indexes a useful tool?

Atinternationalmeetingsandconferences,migrationofficials often agree on the need formore effectiveandwell-managedmigrationpolicies.Buthowshouldsuccess and progress bemeasured in themigrationpolicy arena? Over the last decade, academicresearchershaveincreasinglybecomeinterestedintheideaofdevelopinganinternationalindextomonitorandmeasure the impactofmigrationpolicies.Overadozen such indexeshavebeendeveloped.Usuallytheseindexescoveraspecificareaofmigrationpolicysuchaslabourmigrationorintegrationpolicies.Most

onlyfocusonimmigrationratherthanonemigrationpolicies.Inmostcases,theindexisdevelopedforonetime period and there are few ongoing continuousmigrationpolicyindexes.Nearlyalltheindexeshavebeen developed by civil society experts, sometimeswith the assistance of the private sector. Fewgovernments have agreed to sponsor or endorsemigrationpolicyindexes.However,thissituationmaychange, ifmigration is factored into the new globalpost-2015 development agenda. As things stand,according to theOpenWorkingGroup on the post-2015development agenda, Statesmaybeexpectedto agree on a target which will encourage them topromote “well-managed and planned migrationpolicies”,inordertoreduceinequalitiesandpromotedevelopment.It is interesting,therefore,toconsiderthe experience of the Migration Integration PolicyIndex (MIPEX),which isoneof the few indexes thatcontinues tobe implementedeachyear since2004.JanNiessen,Directorof theMigrationPolicyGroup,discusses the creation of the index and how it hasproventobeausefulpolicytooloverthelast10years.WethankallthecontributorstothisissueofMigration Policy Practice andinvitereaderstospareacoupleofminutestoparticipateinasurvey,whichaimstohelpusidentifyourreaders’profiles,theinstitutionstheyrepresentandtheirprimary interests inour journal.Shouldyouwishtoparticipate inthissurvey,pleaseclick here.n

Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE4

Boeing, Steinway, Levi-Strauss and Heinz areallhouseholdnames in theUnitedStatesandbeyond.Lesswellknownisthefactthatthese

successful companies were founded by German-Americanmigrants.Today46millionAmericansclaimGerman ancestry, making German-Americans, thelargestsingleethnicgroupintheUnitedStates.2Thisfigure reminds us that not so long ago, millions ofmigrantsleftEuropeinsearchofabetterlife.Today,Europeattractsmigrantsfromallovertheworld.

However, far from celebrating the fact that peoplewant to come to Europe, and other developedcountries,wearewitnessingatroublingrise inanti-migrantsentiment.Notonlyarethecontributionsofimmigrantsoftenignored,buttheprevalentdiscoursearound them is repletewithmyths and stereotypeswhich only feed a sentiment of opposition amongthegeneralpublic,hinderingmigrantintegrationandundermining social trust at the national and locallevels. Migration is too often viewed as a problemandthereisariskthatimmigrationpolicies inmanycountrieswillbeshapedbyfearsandmisconceptionsratherthanfacts.

This article presents and dispels some of the mostcommon myths associated with migration, outlinesrecentfindingsaboutpublicperceptionsofmigrationglobally,andsuggestswaysinwhichcommunicationaboutmigrationcanandshouldbeimprovedforthebenefitofmigrantsandnon-migrantsalike.

Misperceptions surrounding migration

Several studies suggest that there are manymisperceptions about the impact of migration inoriginanddestinationcountries,whichfuelnegativesentimentaboutmigration.

2 TheEconomist, “GermanAmericans:TheSilentMinority”,7February2015.

Acommonmisperceptionisthattherearetoomanyimmigrants. In some European countries, ordinarycitizens estimate the number of immigrants atthree times more than there really are. The 2014TransatlanticTrendssurveyconductedbytheGermanMarshall Fund showed that misinformation aboutbasicmigration facts is a significant determinant ofanti-immigrantsentiment:incountriesliketheUnitedStates, the United Kingdom and Greece, amongothers, the proportion of people who agreed thattherearetoomanyimmigrantsintheircountriesfellsharplywhenpeopleweretoldhowmanyimmigrantswereactuallyresidingthere.

Another misperception is that the majority ofmigrants are desperate peoplewho come from thepoorest parts of the world. People are generallyunaware of the fact that South–South migration(migration between developing countries) is just asgreatasmigrationbetweentheglobalSouthandtheglobalNorth(migrationfromdevelopingtodevelopedcountries).Aboutafifthofallmigrantsmoveacrossricher countries. Also, a growing number of peoplearemovingfromtheNorthtotheSouthinsearchofwork – for instance, Portuguese moving to Angolaor Spanish moving to Argentina and other SouthAmericancountries.

Too often migration is perceived as solely animmigration issue. Not many are aware that withsome 5 million people, the British diaspora is theeighth largest in the world. The desire of Britishpeople tomove abroad andbecomeemigrants andthearrivalof immigrants intheUnitedKingdom,forinstance,aretreatedascompletelydifferentmatters.The migration policy debate in Europe is almostentirelyfocusedonimmigrationpolicyquestionsandneglectstheimplicationsofemigration.

Another common misperception is that developedcountriesdonotneedlow-skilledmigrants(MigrationPolicyCentre,2014).Infact,non-specializedworkerscontribute to the functioning of the Europeaneconomy by taking up jobs undesirable to natives,which in turn allows natives to take up higher-skilled andmore remunerative employment (OECD,2008). There is also little evidence supporting the

Changing public perceptions of immigrationLaura Thompson1

1 Laura Thompson is the Deputy Director General of theInternationalOrganizationforMigration(IOM).

5Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

claimthatmigrantsdepressthewagesoflow-skilledworkers; one study found that between 1990 and2000,allEuropeancountriesexperiencedadecreaseintheiraveragewagesbecauseofemigration,whileimmigration led to a positive effect on the averagewagesofnativeworkers(Docquieretal.,2014).

That migrants take jobs away from nationals isanotherstereotype.Empiricalevidencesuggeststhatcountrieswithhighunemploymentratesusuallyhavelower–nothigher–immigrationrates,partlybecausemigrantsmovewheretheyaremorelikelytofindjobs.Migrantsusually take jobsthatnativesareunwillingorunabletodo,thuscomplementingthelocallabourforce rather thancompetingwith it.Various studiesestimate that labour shortages at various levelswillbewidespreadacrossthedevelopedanddevelopingworldinthenearfuture(Hays,2014;BostonConsultingGroup,2014;McKinseyGlobalInstitute,2012).

Toooftenmigrantsareperceivedtorepresentadrainonthewelfaresystemindestinationcountries,whileresearch shows that migrants contribute to publicfinancesmore than they takeout in public benefitsand services in almost every European country(OECD,2013).Migrants,particularlythehighlyskilled,often contribute more, on average, to countries ofdestination thannativesdo,because such countrieshave not had to bear the costs of training andeducatingmigrantswhoarrivetowork(IOM,2011).

Contrary to fears that immigration depresses theinnovationcapacityofdestinationcountries,migrationhas been shown to enhance innovation. Successfulcompanies such as Google, Intel, PayPal, eBay andYahoo!–tonameafew–haveallbeenco-foundedbymigrants.Immigrantsaremorethantwiceaslikelyasthenative-bornto foundacompany(Wadhwaetal.,2012).Highlyskilledmigrantsanddiversityintheworkplacealsopositivelyaffectworkproductivity inrecipientcountries(Parrotta,2014;Traxetal.,2012).Migration is a global reality affecting nearly allcountriesoftheworld.Forpeoplearoundtheglobeto benefit from migration, there is a dire need topromote a debate in which the contribution ofmigrantstohomeandhostsocietiesisacknowledgedandmythsarecounteredwithaccurateandtruthfulcommunicationaboutbasicmigrationfacts.

Understanding public perceptions of immigration

The media has a key role to play in influencingattitudestomigration.Hardlyadaygoesbywithoutmigration hitting the headlines somewhere in theworld.Toooften,however,themediatendstofocuson the negative aspects of migration. One recentstudyof58,000migrationnewsstoriesconductedbyresearchersattheUniversityofOxfordfoundthatthemostcommonwordusedtodescribeimmigrantswas“illegal”,eventhoughbyfarthemajorityofmigrantsenter and reside legally. It was also found that themost common modifier of asylum-seekers was theword“failed”.Itwasalsotypicalforjournaliststousewordssuchas“terrorist”whenreportingonmigrationstories,stokingfearsthatmigrationcouldbelinkedtoterrorism(AllenandBinder,2013).

In World Migration Report 2011: Communicating Effectively about Migration, IOM reviewed theevidenceregardingthemedia’sportrayalofmigrants.Several studies show that themedia tends to focuson illegality, crisis, controversy and governmentfailure, and on more sensational stories, feedingmisperceptions surrounding migration. In order tocorrectthisnegativeportrayalofmigration,it isfirstnecessary to better understand howpeople aroundtheworld viewmigration andwhat factors, beyondmediadiscourse,influencepublicopinion.

The forthcoming IOM report How the World Views Migrationprovidesarareinsightintopublicattitudestowards migration around the world. Drawing ondatafromtheGallupWorldPoll,thereportpresents,for thefirsttime, a globaloverviewofwhatpeopleworldwidethinkaboutmigrationbasedonsurveysof183,772adultsconductedinmorethan140countriesbetween2012and2014.Someofthereport’sinitialfindingsarereportedherebelow.

First, public attitudes tomigration across the globearemore varied than onemight think, and are notpredominantlynegativeasonemightimagine(Figure1).Thestudyfindsthatmoreoftheworldisinfavourofmigration than against it.Worldwide, people aregenerally more likely to want immigration levels intheir countries to either stay at their present levels(21.8 per cent) or to be increased (21.3 per cent),rather than to see immigration levels decrease(34.5percent).

6 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

Figure 1: How the world views migration, 2012–2014

Source: IOM-Gallup World Poll, How the World Views Migration (forthcoming).*

International immigrants as percentage of total population (2013).

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2013). Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2013 Revision (United Nations database, POP/DB/MIG/Stock/Rev.2013).

Should immigration in this country be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?

Decrease

Stay the same or increase

(%Increase + %Present level) - %Decrease How the world views migration 2012 - 2014

Should immigration (in this country) be kept at its present level, increased, or decreased?

The World View Europe Africa North America Latin America and Caribbean

Asia Oceania

How the World views migration (2012-2014)

Present level Increased Decreased Don’t know/Refused

People in Europe are the most negative towardsimmigration,although justslightlyoverthemajority(52.1%) say immigration levels shouldbedecreased(Figure2).InNorthAmerica–anothermainreceivingregion–only39percentexpressthisview.OpinionsvaryacrossEurope:themajorityofadultsinnearlyallNorthernEuropeancountries,apartfromtheUnitedKingdom, would like to see levels of immigrationstay the same or increase. By contrast, residents inmuchof theMediterranean region–anentrypointtoEuropeformanyirregularmigrants–wouldliketoseeimmigrationlevelsdecrease.

Residents in Latin America and the Caribbeangenerallywantimmigrationlevelstostaythesameorincrease,withsomeexceptionssuchasCostaRicaand

Ecuador.OpinionsvarywidelyinAsia.Somecountriesfavour decreasing immigration, such as Israel (76%)and Pakistan (76%). Alternatively, the majority incountrieslikeJapanandtheRepublicofKoreafavourincreasingormaintainingimmigrationlevels.

People in North African countries tend to bemorelikelytowant immigrationlevelstodecrease(Egypt,72%; Libya, 54%). South Africa also shows over50percentwantingdecreasedlevels.However,intheGulfCooperationCouncil(GCC)countries,whichhavethehighestpercentageoftemporarymigrantworkersin their populations, relatively small percentages ofpeoplewanttoseeimmigrationlevelsdecrease,andahighpercentagewanttoseelevelsincreaseorstaythesame.

Figure 2: Should immigration (in this country) be kept at its present level, increased or decreased? Regional overview

Source: IOM-Gallup World Poll, How the World Views Migration (forthcoming).*

* See http://iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/news-and-views/press-briefing-notes/pbn-2015/pbn-listing/how-the-world-views-migration-io.html.

International immigrants as percentage of total population (2013).

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2013). Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2013 Revision (United Nations database, POP/DB/MIG/Stock/Rev.2013).

Should immigration in this country be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?

Decrease

Stay the same or increase

(%Increase + %Present level) - %Decrease How the world views migration 2012 - 2014

Should immigration (in this country) be kept at its present level, increased, or decreased?

The World View Europe Africa North America Latin America and Caribbean

Asia Oceania

How the World views migration (2012-2014)

Present level Increased Decreased Don’t know/Refused

7Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

People’s perceptions of their country’s economicsituation may be the strongest predictor of theirattitudes towards immigration. Adults who believeeconomic conditions in their countries are “fair” or“poor”arealmosttwiceas likelytosay immigrationlevels should decrease as thosewho say conditionsare “excellent” or “good”. Similarly, those who sayconditions are getting worse are nearly twice aslikelytofavourdecreasedimmigrationasthosewhosay economic conditions are getting better (48.0%versus 25.3%). The importance of economic factorsmayexplainwhyattitudestomigrationintheNorthofEurope,withtheexceptionoftheUnitedKingdom,seemtobemuchmorefavourablethanintheSouthofEurope.Thesignificantriseinthenumberofpeopletrying to enter Europe in irregular ways over thelast two years through the southernMediterraneancountriesmayalsoexplainwhyattitudesintheSoutharemorenegative.

Improving communication about migration: A few steps towards a global action plan

Althoughthe2013UnitedNationsHigh-levelDialogueonMigrationandDevelopmentstressedtheneedtoimprove the way in which we communicate aboutmigration, no action planwas developed or agreedupon to guide policymakers around the world, asto how best to address this challenge. Here aresome of the concrete steps that could be taken todevelopaglobalactionplanensuringmoreeffectivecommunicationaboutmigration.

• Monitoring public opinion – creating a global migration barometer

Understandingthewaythepublicperceivesmigrationgloballyisfundamentalifwewanttodevelopeffectivecampaigns addressing public attitudes tomigration.As a result, a global survey of public opinion aboutmigration on a regular basis is needed. This globalsurveycouldprovideabarometerofthewayinwhichpublic perceptions of migration change over timeandvaryacrossdifferentcountriesandregionsoftheworld.

• Gathering and using the evidence

Atthesametime,giventhewidespreadmisperceptionssurrounding migration, it is essential to invest ingathering facts and figures aboutmigration, aswellas in analysing and using such evidence for policypurposes. Better awareness of migration-relatedfacts and of the positive contributions of migrants

will facilitate the implementation of integrationmeasuresandreducethelikelihoodofextremismandxenophobia.

• Promoting information campaigns targeting destination countries

Thereisalonghistoryofusinginformationcampaignsin themigrationfield.However, inmost cases, suchcampaigns operate in countries of origin and targetwould-be migrants, warning them about the risksof irregular migration. A new type of informationcampaign is needed today targeting the generalpublic indestination countries, usingnewmeansofcommunicationsuchassocialmediatoreachtargetaudiences.

• Building a partnership with the media

It is fundamental to work in partnership with themedia to encourage a more balanced coverage ofmigration by supporting the information needs ofjournalists.Forthispurpose,itisimportanttohaveaclearunderstandingofthetypeofinformationmedianeedsandtheformatinwhichitisneededtofacilitateitswork.OneattempttodosoistheworkIOMisdoingin developing a one-stop shop for journalists calledtheMigrationNewsdesk,withtheaimofprovidingasteadyflowofunbiasedinformationonmigrationforthemediatouse.

• Ensuring that migrant voices are heard

Thevoicesofmigrantsarealsoanimportantelementinensuringabalancedperceptionofwhatmigrationreallyisandentails.IOMisdevelopinganoralhistoryproject called The Migrant’s Path, which aims tocapture the authentic voicesof globalmigration forposterity.

Conclusion

Oneofourgreatestchallengestodayistoensurethatevidenceabouttherealimpactofmigrationonsendingandreceivingcountriesreachesandisunderstoodbythegeneralpublic.Thiswillbenecessaryifwearetomaximize thebenefitsofmigrationwhilepromotinga human-rights-based approach to it. Accurate andtruthfulinformationaboutimmigrationwillalsoallowpoliticianstodevelopfact-basedpoliciesandlegislativeframeworks,whicharemorelikelytorespondtotheneedsoftheircitizenswhilepromotingtheprotectionandintegrationofmigrantsinhostsocieties.

8 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

International organizations and non-governmentalorganizations as well as the media and politiciansthemselveshaveafundamentalroleinthisendeavour.Thisarticlehassuggestedseveralpracticalstepsthatgo in the same direction. More work is, however,needed from all sides to understand what shapesindividual perceptions of immigrants, to addresspeople’s concerns about immigration, promote aninformeddebateon thematter, and tobring into itthevoicesofmigrantsthemselves.n

References

BostonConsultingGroup2014 The global workforce crisis: $10 trillion

at risk. BCG Perspectives, by the Boston Consulting Group,2July.

Docquier,F.,Ç.OzdenandG.Peri2014 The labour market effects of immigration

and emigration in OECD countries. The Economic Journal, 124(579):1106–1145.doi:10.1111/ecoj.12077.

Hays2014 The Perfect Talent Storm: The Hays Global

Skills Index 2014.Hays,London.

InternationalOrganizationforMigration(IOM)2011 World Migration Report 2011:

Communicating Effectively about Migration.IOM,Geneva.

McKinseyGlobalInstitute2012 The World at Work: Jobs, Pay, and Skills for

3.5 Billion People. McKinsey & Company/McKinseyGlobalInstitute.

Allen,W.andS.Binder2013 Migration in the News: Portrayals of

Immigrants, Migrants, Asylum Seekers and Refugees in National British Newspapers, 2010-2012. Migration Observatory report,Centre on Migration, Policy and Society(COMPAS),UniversityofOxford,Oxford.

MigrationPolicyCentre2014 Is What We Hear About Migration Really

True? Questioning Eight Stereotypes (P.Fargues, ed.). Migration Policy Centre,Robert Schuman Centre for AdvancedStudies, European University Institute,Florence.

OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationDevelopment(OECD)

2008 International Migration Outlook 2008.OECD,Paris.

2013 International Migration Outlook 2013.OECD,Paris.

Parrotta,P.,D.PozzoliandM.Pytlikova2014 The nexus between labor diversity and

firm’s innovation. Journal of Population Economics,27(2):303–364.

Trax,M.,S.BrunowandJ.Suedekum2012 Cultural Diversity and Plant-Level

Productivity. IZA Discussion Paper SeriesNo.6845, Institute for theStudyof Labor,Bonn,Germany.

Wadhwa,V.etal.2009 America’s Loss is the World’s Gain: America’s

New Immigration Entrepreneurs,PartIV.

“One of our greatest challenges today is to ensure that evidence about the real

impact of migration on sending and receiving countries

reaches and is understood by the general public.”

9Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

Migrant deaths at sea: Addressing the information deficitStefanie Grant1

Irregularmigrationbyseaisnotanewphenomenon.But in recent years the numbers have grown,border controls have tightened and routes have

become more dangerous. This has resulted in asignificantknownlossoflife,andunknownnumbersofmissingmigrantsandrefugees.Itislikelythatmostofthedeadremainunidentified.Althoughroutesmayalter, in response tosituations incountriesoforiginanddeparture,bordercontrols,smugglingoperationsandweather,thiscontinuinghumanitariantragedyisunlikelytoend.

There is an acute lack of accurate – or often any– information about these deaths, and there is apressing need to improve methods of recording,identification and tracing. This article reviews thecontextforthesedeaths,contraststheresponsestomigratorydeathswith responses todeaths in otherhumanitarian disasters, identifies current initiativesandsuggestssomewaysforward.

Migrant deaths at sea

Inthelasttwodecades,alargebutunknownnumberofmigrantsandrefugeeshavesetoutonseajourneystoseeksafety,securityandbetterlives.Anestimated348,000 journeys were made in 2014.2 MigrantjourneystakeplaceintheMediterranean;intheGulfofAden; in theCaribbean; inAsia, in theAndamanSeaoffMyanmar, theBayofBengaloffBangladesh,and the Indian Ocean between Thailand, Malaysia,IndonesiaandAustralia.

Withoutlegaloptionstoenterorseekasylum,manyturntosmugglersandaretransportedonunseaworthyboatsondangeroussearoutes.InEurope,theresulthas been an “epidemic” of deaths;3 the dead andmissing include asylum-seekers fleeing conflict and

2 Seewww.unhcr.org/5486e6b56.html.

3 S.Robins,I.KovrasandA.Valliantu,Addressing Migrant Bodies on Europe’s Southern Frontier: An Agenda for Practice and Research. Available from www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/isctsj/Research/WP-05-14/.

1 Stefanie Grant is a Consultant at Harrison Grant Solicitors,London,UnitedKingdom.

persecution–intheSyrianArabRepublic,EritreaandSomalia–andmigrantsleavingsituationsofextremeinsecurityandpoverty,manyfromsub-SaharanAfrica.Women,childrenandbabiesareamongthedead.4

IOM’s2014report,Fatal Journeys: Tracking Lives Lost during Migration,isthefirstcomprehensiveattemptto assess the number of deaths occurring globally.5IOMestimates fatalities in 2014 exceeded5,000, ofwhich over 3,000 occurred in the Mediterranean.Thereportestimatedatleast40,000deathsgloballysince2000.Anecdotalevidencesuggeststhatthetruenumber is likely to be very much higher. Over 400deaths were reported in the Mediterranean in thefirstthreemonthsof2015.6

Migratory deaths: Humanitarian tragedies

An important but unfortunate distinction has beenmadebetween lossof life in thecourseof irregularmigrantjourneys,anddeathsincommercialshippingaccidentsorinhumanitariandisasters.Thishasmeantthatdata–whichisroutinelycollectedwhenaplanecrashes,ashipiswreckedoranearthquakeoccurs–isnotcollectedwhenmigrantboatssink.

MostoftheinformationusedinFatalJourneysisfromcivil society organizations,7 often relying on mediareports.Thisillustrateshowlittleattentionhasbeengiven by States to recording these deaths. Statesgenerallydonotpublishfigures.Fatalitieshavetendedto be regarded as the unintended consequencesof State action to control borders, prevent irregularmigration, combat smuggling and trafficking, and

4 See, generally, S. Grant, “Migration and frontier deaths: Arighttoidentity?”In:Who Believes in the Rights of Migrants? (M.DembourandT.Kelly,eds.)(London,Routledge,2011).

5 T. Brian and F. Laczko (eds.), Fatal Journeys: Tracking Lives Lost during Migration(Geneva,InternationalOrganizationforMigration,2014).

6 See reports from IOM: www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/news-and-views/press-briefing-notes/pbn-2015/pbn-listing/iom-fears-over-300-african-migra.html; and UNHCR:www.unhcr.org/54db82536.html;(accessed19March2015).

7 T. Brian and F. Laczko (eds.), Fatal Journeys: Tracking Lives Lost during Migration (Geneva,InternationalOrganizationforMigration,2014),pp.207–212.

10 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

protect national security. Where irregular travelis seen as a form of criminality, this is used byauthorities to justify withholding of information onsecurity and operational grounds, and adds to theinformationvacuum.8Nationalstatisticsaregenerallynotcollected,nor–withveryfewexceptions–havesystematiceffortsbeenmadetoidentifythedead.InEurope,Frontex,theEuropeanUnionbordercontrolagency, publishesfigures for illegal border crossingsbutnotforborderdeaths.Actionhasyettobetakenin response to the Council of Europe ParliamentaryAssembly’s call to the EuropeanUnion to set up “apropersystemofdatacollectionofthemortalremainsof[migrant]liveslostintheMediterraneanandmakeitswiftlyaccessibletorelatives.”9

Inaction by States10 is in striking contrast to theirenergetic and principled responses to large-scaledeaths indomesticand international trafficaccidents–shipwrecksoraircrashes.Identificationofbodiesishereseenasan imperative, forburialandmourning,andforinheritanceandothercivilproceedingsaffectingthefamily,11“(t)hecarewithwhichourdeadaretreatedisamarkofhowcivilisedasocietyweare.”12

International protocols have been developed forrecording the dead in humanitarian disasters,identifying their mortal remains and working withfamilies. These build on well-established rules intime of war; they reflect the long humanitarianexperience of the Red Cross and its work to tracemissing persons; they also drawonfield operationsby international organizations.13 The work of the

8 SeePickeringandWebber,op.cit.,p.196.

9 Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Doc. 13532, 24June2014.

10 IncontrasttoItaly’sadmirableMareNostrumOperation,someEuropeanStateswentsofarastorefusesupport forrescueoperations in the Mediterranean. See: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/141015w0001.htm.

11 Forexample,theresponsetolossofMalaysianAirMH380inMarch2014.

12 Public Inquiry into the Identification of Victims following Major Transport Accidents: Report of Lord Justice Clarke,Volume1,Cm 5012 (London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2001),paragraph2.3.

13 Inter-AgencyStandingCommittee,Protecting Persons Affected by Natural Disasters: IASC Operational Guidelines on Human Rights and Natural Disasters (Washington, D.C., Brookings–Berne Project on Internal Displacement, 2006); O.Morgan,M.Tidball-Binz,D. vanAlphen (eds.),ManagementofDeadBodies after Disasters: A FieldManual for First Responders(Washington,D.C.,PanAmericanHealthOrganization,2009),available fromwww.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0880.pdf.

International Commission on Missing Persons hasutilizeddevelopmentsinthefieldsofgenetics,forensicscience, and information technology to identify thedead and missing in conflict and in humanitariandisasters;onlinedatabasescanbeusedbyfamilies.14

Centraltotheseresponsesisrecognitionthatfamilieshave a right to know the fate of missing relatives,whether their fathers, brothers, sisters, mothers orchildrenhavedied,andifsowheretheirremainsareburied.This right iswellestablished in internationalhumanitarian law. Humanitarian practice respectsa family’s right to know the fate of his/hermissingrelatives, including those missing on migratoryjourneys.Interpolrecognizesthat“forlegal,religious,cultural and other reasons, human beings havethe right not to lose their identities after death”.15

For families, the legal and human consequences ofnot knowing are profound: funeral and mourningceremonies cannot take place; legal issues such asinheritanceandlandownershipremainunresolved;awifecannotremarry.

Action to record fatalities and establish identities,where lives are lost in accidents and humanitarianemergencies, is both a matter of good policy anda central component of the human rights duty torespect the right to life. Similar approaches shouldbetakeninthecontextofmigrantdeaths.Butthesedeathspresentparticularchallenges.

Challenges to identification

In November 2013, a conference was held undertheauspicesof theRedCross and theUniversityofMilan to review themanagement and identificationofdeadmigrantsintheMediterranean.16Itidentifiedanumberofproblems.Theyincluded:afailuretousesharedstandardizedprotocolsandformsforrecordingand managing information at the national andregionallevels;variableforensiccapacityinurbanandrural settings; lack of antemortemdata to comparewiththefindingsfromdeadbodies;“underdevelopedor inexistent” collection of information on all non-

14 Seewww.ic-mp.org/the-missing/.

15 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Article 3,Guiding Principles/Model Law on the Missing(Geneva,ICRC,2009);Interpol,ResolutionNo.AGN/65/RES/13.

16 “First conference on themanagement and identification ofunidentifieddecedents,withanemphasisondeadmigrants:TheexperienceofEuropeanMediterraneancountries”,Milan,Italy,30Octoberand1November2013.

11Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

identified bodies, including migrants; existingdatabases were not accessible, “least of all by thevictimsthemselves”.

Thesefindingsreflectgeneralshortcomingsinnationalforensic procedures, deathmanagement and deathregistration,bothinsideandoutsideEurope.

LastandSpikerboer’sresearchinsouthernEuropeanStates found that in the absence of “specific lawsdealing with the burial of unauthorized bordercrossers . . . bodies have been scattered amonggovernment, religious and specially designatedcemeteries. . . . Depending on the practice of eachindividualcemetery,recordsmayormaynotspecifylocationandcauseofdeath...”.InItaly,unidentifiedbodieswerebroughttomunicipalmorgues,hospitals,cemeteries and institutes of forensic pathologywithoutacommonrecordsystem.17

RobinsandKovrasfoundthatontheGreekislandofLesbos, amainmigrant entry point for theAegean,bodieswere disposed of “with no consideration for...potentialfutureidentification”;thevastmajoritywere buried in unmarked graves. Post-mortemdatawas not linked to the gravesite. They visited acemeteryontheislandofMytilene,andsaw:

bodies lightly covered by earth, while the onlymark on the grave is a broken stone on which iswritten the (purported)nationalityof themigrant,anumberandthedateofdeath[e.g.Afghan,no.3,5/01/2013]. In the absenceof any identity paperson thebody,ora survivor to confirm the identity,theidentitiesofthevictimsarerarelyknown...theclaimednationalityisoftenbasedonamoreorlessinformedguessonthepartoftheauthorities.18

Similar problems are reported from the UnitedStateswhere “there is no centralized repository forall reportsofmissingpersons last seencrossing theU.S.-Mexico border. A family can report a missingperson to an office in one state, while the body is

17 T. Brian and F. Laczko (eds.), Fatal Journeys (Geneva, IOM,2014),p.99.Seealso:C.Cattaneoetal.,“Unidentifiedbodiesandhumanremains:An ItalianglimpsethroughaEuropeanproblem, Forensic Science International, 195(1–3):167.e1–167.e6.

18 S. Robins, I. Kovras and A. Valliantu, Addressing Migrant Bodies on Europe’s Southern Frontier.

discoveredinanother.Thereis...noconsistentwayfor theserecords tobeconnected”.19 InMexico, theInter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights(IACHR)reportedthat:

lackofinformationconcerningthechainofcustodythattheremainsfollowedmakesitdifficulttotracktheremains...whentherearenowrittenrecordsor photographs of the evidence being sent, whorequested that the evidence be sent, when therequestwasmadeandwheretheevidencewastobesent;orwhenthereisnorecordofwhoreceivedthe evidence, when and where the evidence wassent,andwhohastheevidenceinsafekeeping....20

Survivors are an important traditional source ofinformation.But,anecdotally,itappearsthattheyareoftennot interviewedwhen theydisembark, ornotgiven an opportunity to reportwhowas on a boat,andiftheysawanyonedrown.

Globally, the circumstances of these deaths createparticular challenges to identificationbecause, interalia, they are “open” disasters, deaths occur in atransnational context, illegality deters reporting byfamilies,andconsularnotificationmaybeineffectiveorinappropriate.

“Open” disasters.Afteracommercialshipiswreckedoraplanecrashes,numbersandidentitiesareestablishedusing passenger lists. These are “closed” situationsbecausethegroupatriskisknown,anddatafromthebodies– post-mortem data–canbecomparedwithinformationfromfamilies–antemortem data.Butinan“open”disaster, thepopulationat risk isdefinedonlybywhomayhavebeenpresent:whichmigrantshappenedtobeontheboatwhenitsank,andwithnopassenger list this information is often very difficultto obtain. Another complicating factor is thatmanyirregular migrants carry no form of identification;documents may have been taken by smugglers, ordestroyedinordertoavoiddetection.

Transnational deaths. Antemortem data is unlikelyto be available for comparison where deaths occur

19 R. Reineke, “Lost in the system:Unidentifiedbodies on theborder”. Available from https://nacla.org/search/node/Lost%20in%20the%20System%3A%20Unidentified%20Bodies%20on%20the%20Border.

20 IACHR,Human Rights of Migrants and Other Persons in the Context of Human Mobility in Mexico, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc.48/13(Washington,D.C.,2013),paragraph186.

12 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

far from the individual’s home, often without anygeographicallinkbetweentheplaceoftheshipwreckand the country of origin. The dead and missingmay have passed through a number of countrieson complex migration routes. Many families willnotknow thata relativewas–ormayhavebeen–travellinginaboatwhichwaslost,andfewcantraveltotheplacewherethedeadwerebrought, inordertosearchoridentify,becauseofcost,distanceorvisarequirements.

Illegality and reporting.Wherefamiliesarethemselvesirregular migrants they often fear that reporting amissing relative to the police will endanger theirownimmigrationposition.Unlessaclearandvisibledistinctionismadebetweenrecordingandidentifyingdeaths and enforcing border control, this fear willdeterwitnessesfromgivinginformation.

Consular services. Where foreign nationals dieabroad,informationistypicallytransmittedtofamiliesthroughtheconsuloftheirstateofnationality.21Butconsularnotificationmaynotbeeffectiveinthecaseof irregular migrant deaths if family addresses arenotknownorareremote fromacapital. Itmaynotbeappropriateinthecaseofrefugeeswhohavelefttheircountries illegallyandwhose familiescouldbeputatrisk.Inacivilwar,administrativestructuresdonotfunction.

Steps forward

The 2013 Milan expert conference recommended,interalia,that:

•every unidentified body should be adequatelymanaged,analysedandtrackedtoensureproperdocumentation,traceabilityanddignity;

•common forensic protocols and standards areimplementedatthenationalandEuropeanlevels;

•national and European capacities are built foridentification;

•“(s)earchableandopendatabases”aredevelopedatthenationalandEuropeanlevels;and

•focalpointsareestablishedforfamilies,including“provisions for families to easily obtain andprovide informationontheirmissing lovedones,freeofchargeandthreats”.

21 As was the case for tourists who died in the 2004 Asiantsunami.

InNovember2013,theInternationalCommissiononMissingPersonssetoutitsAgendafortheFuture.Itnotedtheneedtoimprovetheavailabilityandqualityof data, and proposed an international mechanismtodealwithallmissing-personcases–fromconflict,human rights abuses, organized violence andmigration.Butitalsowarnedoftheriskthatforensicsciencehadoutstrippedethicalstandards,emphasizedtheneedtoapplyhumanrightsstandardstotheuseof forensic genetics, and stressed that the interestsandwelfareoftheindividualmusthavepriorityovertherightsandinterestsofsociety.22

Amajor impediment to identification is the lack ofmechanismstolinkpost-mortemdatafromcountrieswhere dead migrants are found with antemortemdatafromfamiliesincountriesoforigin.

These four initiatives show how recording andidentificationcanbedone:

Partnership with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and intergovernmental organizations. InYemen,alocalNGOworkingwithUNHCRsearchesforandcollectsthebodiesofthosewashedashorefromshipwrecksintheGulfofAden;personaldetailsofthedeceasedarerecordedandthebodiesareburiedinaspecialcemetery;prayersaresaid.23MostofthedeadarefromEritrea,EthiopiaandSomalia.

Collaboration between civil society, government, families and forensic scientists. Civil societyorganizations in Central America are working withrelatives ofmigrants to create a regional system tocentralizetheexchangeofinformationaboutmissingmigrantsandunidentifiedremains.24Databankshavebeen created in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,and in Chiapas, Mexico. The databanks containinformation on the background to each case ofdisappearance [date of departure, date of mostrecentphonecall,therouteandother information],antemortem data [a physical description of thepersonwhenhe/shewasalive],andgeneticsamplesandprofilesoffamilymembers.DNAsequencedfromfamiliesiscomparedwithDNAfromtheunidentified

22 “The missing: An agenda for the future”, InternationalCommission on Missing Persons Conference report, 29October–1November2013,p.18.

23 Seehttp://shsyemen.org/en/?cat=4.

24 IACHR,Human Rights of Migrants and Other Persons in the Context of Human Mobility in Mexico (Washington, D.C.,2013),paragraphs199,203and409(27).

13Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

dead. The IACHR describes the creation of nationalforensic databanks and the sharing of informationwith other forensic databanks as a “best practice”that States on themigration routebetweenCentralandNorthAmericashouldreplicate.25

National inquiry commission.TheItalianGovernmenthas established a special commission to identifybodies from two shipwrecks off Lampedusa inOctober2013,workingthroughforensicexpertsfromLaboratorio di Antropologia e Odontologia Forense(LABANOF, Forensic Anthropology and OdontologyLaboratory).26 The commission has asked familymembers to provide documentary and personalevidence.27Thisinformation,includingDNAsamples,willbecomparedwithpost-mortemdatatakenfromthebodies.ThisisthefirstinvestigationofitskindbyaEuropeanState:itisanimportantprecedent.

Civil society work with families. The Colibrí CenterforHumanRightsintheUnitedStatesassistsfamiliestosearchforrelativesbytakingforensicallydetailedmissing person reports and working with partners,including forensic experts and consulates, to helpidentify the dead. The Center collects and tracksdataonthemissingandunidentifiedalongtheentireUnitedStates–Mexicoborder.28

Practical steps

Improving information in thiscomplexarearequiresactionatdifferentlevels–international,nationalandlocal.

The starting point is that the response to migrantdeathsshouldbeessentiallysimilartothatfordeathsincommercialaircrashes,shipwrecksorhumanitariandisasters,whereimmediatestepsaretakentocountthe dead, record the missing, identify the victims,interviewsurvivorsandpreserveevidence.Prioritiesincludethefollowing:

•Developing methodologies and definitions thatmakedatacomparablebetweenregions,countriesandwithinnationaladministrations;

25 IACHR,op.cit.,paragraph203.

26 Italian Government Special Committee forMissing Persons,LABANOF,Medico-LegalInstitute,UniversityofMilan.

27 Forexample,photoID,videofootage,medicaldocumentation,X-rays, personal effects (e.g. combs, toothbrushes),informationoncharacteristicmarks(e.g.tattoos,scars),anddetailsofsurgicaloperationsandillnesses.

28 Seehttp://colibricenter.org.

•Agreeing on common methods of recordinginformationandof trackingbodies foruse inall situations where a migrant body is found or amissing migrant is reported; these should buildon Red Cross and international humanitarianexperience in recording, identifying and tracingthe dead and missing due to conflicts andhumanitariandisasters;

•Use of these recording methods by all thoseinvolved in rescue or management of bodies,includingnationalandinternationalcoast/borderguards,commercialvessels,police,coronersandmortuaryofficials;

•Trainingfortheseofficials;

•Maintaining a strict distinction between recordsforthepurposesofbordercontrolandrecordsfortheidentificationofthedeadandmissing;

•Theimmediatecollectionofdataandpreservationofevidence;

•Systematiceffortstoidentifythedeadandmissing,recognizingthefamilies’righttoknowthefateofmissingrelatives,reportthemissing,identifythedeadandaccessinformation;

•Thecollectionanddisseminationofbestpractices.

The need for data banks is clear. Decisions onappropriate governance structures should be madeafter consultation between States, civil society,and humanitarian agencies, with substantive inputfrom migrant and refugee communities, and afterbuilding on experience from Central America. Incountries where there is evidence of corruption orcollusion between State authorities and smugglersand traffickers, a State-ledprocessof recording andidentificationwillnotbeappropriate.

Databanksshould:

•beoverseenbyabodythatrepresentspartieswithalegitimateinterest,suchasnationalauthoritiesresponsible for death registration, national andintergovernmentalorganizationssuchastheRedCross,civilsocietyandfamilies;

•ensure scientific, secure and independent datahandling;

•protect the privacy and security of families;irregular migrants, refugees and victims oforganizedcrimeareespeciallyvulnerable;

•havenodirectlinkstobordercontrol;and

•beaccessibletofamilies.

14 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

Conclusion

Migrantdeathsatseaareunlikelytoend.Itwillneverbepossibletorecordandidentifyallwhodieoraremissing.Butstepscanbetakentoaddressthepresentsituation inwhich information is recorded [ifatall]carelessly, randomly, in incompletenational formatsorinnoformat,withtheresultthatdatacollectedin

one place cannot be compared with data collectedinanothercountry,orsometimesevenanotherpartof the same country. One forensic anthropologistwhoworks to identify thosewho die at theUnitedStates–Mexicanborderputitthisway:“Ifthisweretohappentous,Godforbid,we’dwanteveryjurisdictionpossibledoingeverythingtheycouldtotrytoidentifytheperson.”n

Migrant deaths in the Mediterranean, January–April 2014 and 2015

*Data until 15 April.

“Migrant deaths at sea are unlikely to end. It will never be possible to record and identify all who die or are missing. But steps can be taken to address

the present situation.”

15Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

Lastyeararecordnumberofmigrants,asylum-seekers and refugees lost their lives whilemigrating, with over 5,000 dying on sea andlandroutesaroundtheworld.Thisyear,thesenumbers continue to increase, with figuresalready drastically higher than the sametimelast year. The recorded numbers are highestin theMediterranean region,whereover 900migrantshavediedtodate,ascomparedwithjust47bymid-April lastyear.Over theEasterlongweekend,nearly1,500migrantsarrivedinItaly,theprimarycountryofdestination,andinjustfivedays later inthemonth,nearly5,600

Migrant deaths: Numbers continue to increase in 2015Tara Brian1

1 Tara Brian is a Research Officer at the InternationalOrganization for Migration (IOM) Headquarters inGeneva. (This article was produced with researchassistancefromMilenEmmanuel.)

wererescued,accordingtoItalianauthorities.2Whiletheserescueshavebeenmassiveinsize,overall, arrival figures to Italy are similar tonumberslastyear,meaningtheriskofdeathismuchhigherthisyear.Deathsareexpectedtoincreaseas theweathergetswarmerand thesmuggling season begins in earnest. As wasthe case in 2014, the Mediterranean regionhasseenthehighestnumberoffatalitiesintheworld,accountingfor78percentofrecordeddeaths globally thus far in 2015, and 65 percent last year. Themajority of those dying inthe Mediterranean are sub-Saharan Africans,andofthedeceasedwhoseregionoforigin is

2 See IOM, “IOM monitors latest migrant rescues inMediterranean”, 14April 2015.Available fromhttp://iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/news-and-views/press-briefing-notes/pbn-2015/pbn-listing/iom-monitors-latest-migrant-resc.html.

16 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

known,sub-SaharanAfricansaccountforover 96 per cent. Thesemigrants aremainly fromWesternAfrica– includingNigeria,Mali,Côted’Ivoire and Guinea-Bissau, among others.OthersarefromtheSyrianArabRepublic, theIslamic Republic of Iran and Iraq, and a smallnumber from theHornofAfricahavedied atsea.Regionoforiginisunknownforjustover20percentofthosewhodieintheMediterranean.These counts of the dead include migrantswhose bodies are found, as well as thosewho are reported missing. Countless othersdie without the knowledge of the media orinternationalcommunity.

TheHornofAfrica–primarilythecrossingfromtheHorntoYemen,hasseenover80drownthisyearduringthevoyage,upfromlastyear’s61.NumbersintheCaribbeanarenearlyfivetimeshigherthanmid-Aprillastyear,withmorethan40 deaths thus far in 2015.While boats tendtobemuchsmallerthanintheMediterraneanand casualties from individual shipwrecksrarelyaslarge,thelatestincidentoffthenorthcoast of Haiti claimed as many as 40 lives.3Over40havediedalongtheArizonastretchofthe United States–Mexico border in the firstthree months of 2015, and nearly the samenumber are known to have died crossing the

3 See The Guardian,“Haitishipwreck:40migrantscouldbedead,UScoastguardsays”,10April2015.Availablefrom www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/10/haiti-shipwreck-migrants-40-dead.

BayofBengal,althoughthisfigureundoubtedlyunderestimatesthetruecosttohumanlife,asdata are extremely hard to come by. Othershave died this year once reaching Thailand– some beaten by smugglers and othersof poor health. Numbers fleeing Myanmarand Bangladesh have soared, reaching anestimated 62,000 last year, nearly triple thenumber of departures estimated in 2012.4

OtherdeathshaveoccurredinEastAsia,CentralAmerica, Southern Africa and within Europe.Still more die along land routes in Africa,travellingthroughSouthAsiaoftentotheedgesof the European Union, and along numerousroutes around theworld not as visible to thepubliceye.Itislikelythatthemajorityofdeathsgounreportedand,asStefanieGrantexplainsinherarticleinthissamevolume,themajorityof thosewhodiearenever identified,even iftheirbodiesarerecovered.

IOMiscontinuingtomonitormigrantfatalitiesandwill issueasecondglobalreportonthese“fatal journeys” in theautumnof2015.Moredata and information on migrant fatalitiesaround the world can be found on IOM’sMissing Migrants Project at http://mmp.iom.int/.n

4 See United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesRegional Office for South-East Asia, “Irregular maritimemovements inSouth-EastAsia–2014”(2015).Availablefromhttp://storybuilder.jumpstart.ge/en/unhcr-imm.

17Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

Thispaperisaboutthedevelopmentofindicatorsand indices which can be used to compareand assess migration policies and to make

precise suggestions for improvements. It is basedonmy experiencewith the creation of theMigrantIntegrationPolicyIndex(MIPEX)andthemanagementofthethreeeditionsofthiswidelyusedinstrument,as well as on work undertaken for the EuropeanCommission. It draws some lessons from this workthat may help assess the feasibility and define thescopeofaglobalindexonmigration.

Can countries and policies be compared?

There are many policy actors who question theusefulness of indicators and index exercises. Theyargue that these tools cannot capture countries’uniqueness or the particularities of their policies.However, by contrasting countries and policies, onecan identify and better understand these uniqueattributes. Comparing countries and policies thatare the same is of limited use. Comparing thosethataredifferentenhancesknowledgeandlearning.Nevertheless, questions remain as to whetherindicators and indices are the most useful tools toemploy.Afterall,theremaybeotherinstrumentsthatservethatpurposebetter.

Do indicators simplify complex realities to thepointthatcomparingcountriesandtheirmigrationpoliciesbecomesafutileexercise?Whatdoesagoodorbetterscoreactuallymeanintermsofreallife?Canqualitativemigration information be reliably translated intoquantitative data that is used to compare and rankcountries?Inotherwords,howscientificallysoundisthismethod?Theseareall legitimatequestionsandfindingconvincinganswersmayhelptoappreciatethegreatvalueandunmistakablelimitsonindicatorsandindices. Government and non-governmental policyactorsmakecomparisonsallthetime,oftentodefendtheir position. Indicators’ and indices’ value is that

Producing and using indicators and indices in the migration policy fieldJan Niessen1

1 JanNiessenisDirectoroftheMigrationPolicyGroup(MPG)inBrussels,Belgium.

comparisons are made systematically, scientificallyand inatransparentway.Howeverthesetoolshavelimitations–theydonottellthewholestorybutonlyhelptotellandillustratepartsofthestory.

Inspiring examples

Theintroductionofindicatorsintothemigrationfieldisratherrecent.BoththeOrganisationforEconomicCo-operation and Development and the Council ofEuropepublishedreportsonmigrationfromthelate1980s/early 1990s. These reports hardlymentionedthe term indicators nor did they use the statisticalinformationtoobtainthebenefitsforwhichtheyarenowused,thatistocaptureessentialinformation,settargets, andmonitor and benchmark activities. Thissituation changed gradually over the last 15 yearswhenagreatnumberof indicatorand indiceswerelaunchedattheglobalandEuropeanlevels.

Whydid it takeso long for indicatorsand indicestobeintroducedintomigrationpolicydebatesandwhyweretheyreluctantlyacceptedasusefulinstruments?The fact that these debates are dominated bylawyers,socialscientistsandhumanrightsadvocateshelps to explain this. These professionals andmany policymakers are not very familiarwith usingquantitativedatatodescribeandcomparesituations.However,economistshavehadalonghistoryofdoingthisprecisely.Forexample,ahigh-level summaryofa country’s economic state of affairs has become awell-known, widely accepted and frequently usedindicator, namely, “gross domestic product” andits catchy abbreviation GDP. It took time beforeeconomistsagreedonitsdefinitionandtheycontinuetorefineitsoastoensurethattheconcepttakesintoaccountcontinuouslychangingeconomicrealitiesandaccumulated knowledge. Individual policymakers,countriesandgroupsofcountriesgraduallyadoptedthe concept and used it tomake comparisons overtimeandwithothercountries.Today,economicpolicygoals are set in terms ofGDP,which has become aperformanceindicator.Scientists,ofteninconsultationwith and at the request of policymakers, are usingGDP for secondary analysis that leads to a betterunderstanding of economic dynamics and policy

18 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

impact.Critics,oftenreferringto“notbyGDPalone”,haveproducedanotherverysuccessfulexampleofanindicator-basedindex.Economistsagaindesignedthisindex,knownastheHumanDevelopmentIndex(HDI)oftheUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme.

Variousfactorsexplainthesuccessofthesetwotools.Theyincludethe:

•resolvetodevelopanduseindicatorsandindices;

•focusandlucidityofthesetools;

•acknowledgmentofscientificrobustness;

•demonstrationofrelevancyforpolicymakingandpolicyactors;and

•proven attractiveness of the presentation of theresultsforawiderpublic.

Persistence and timing are crucial throughout theprocess, from making the case and developing thetools to theproliferationof theiruse. Indevelopingglobal migration indicators, experts can learn fromotherindexexercisesonvariousnon-economictopics,aswellasbenefitfromthefactthatpolicyactorshavebecomemuchmorefamiliarwithsuchapolicytool.

European approaches

WiththegrowingcooperationamongEuropeanUnion(EU) Member States on monetary and economicmatters, indicators and country comparisonswere introduced into European policy debates. Astatisticaldatabasewassetupandajointassessmentframework was developed, allowing countries tocompare national situations. Indicators were usedto make prospective and retrospective impactassessments.Quantitativegoalsweresetandresultsweremeasured.Thispracticewasextendedtoareasdirectlylinkedwithmonetaryandeconomicpolicies,such as social affairs and education. However,althoughMemberStatesmayhavebeensympathetictomigrationindicators,theyblockedthedevelopmentand use of these indicators in EU policymaking forinstitutionalreasons.Indicatorswereassociatedwitha European policy mechanism, namely the Open-Method of Coordination, whichMember States didnotwanttoexpandtothemigrationfield.

Consequently, the European Commission gavestakeholders more time to see the benefits ofmigration indicators. On behalf of the Commission,theMigrationPolicyGroup(MPG)organizedaseminar

onindicatorsinthepreparationofthefirstHandbookonIntegration(2004),whichcontainedachapteronthistopic.In2009,theGermanGovernmentandtheSwedishEUPresidencyorganizedEuropeanseminarson integration indicators. In 2010, the EU Ministerresponsible for integration adopted a limited setof integration indicators, which are known as theZaragoza Indicators. Eurostat provided statisticalbackup. As a follow-up, the European CommissionaskedtheMPGtoundertakefurtherresearchandtoorganizeaseriesofthreeseminarsforgovernmentandnon-governmentalstakeholdersandacademicsfromallMemberStatesandinternationalorganizations.Afinal report on the research findings and outcomesof stakeholder consultationswaspublished in2013.Thisreportdemonstratedhowindicatorscanbeusedand contained recommendations on their furtherdevelopmentanduseforpolicymakingpurposes.

The following lessons can be learned from thisprocess:

•High-levelsupportwasveryhelpfulingettingthedevelopmentprocess started. In theEUcontext,a supranational organization was the drivingforce, namely, the EU Commission. It providedleadership,maderesourcesavailableandengagedexpertstoprovideresearchassistance.

•ExtensiveEuropeanconsultationsoveraperiodofseveralyearsresultedinaworkablecompromiseon the typesof indicators, their focus (a limitednumberofintegrationareas)andnumber.Itraisedtheinterestandmobilizedsupportofstakeholders.

•Government and non-governmental integrationactors and academics were brought togetherin expert seminars, making the process and itsoutcomesmorerelevanttotheirwork.Itpromotedunderstandingofthedifferenttypesofindicators:context–outcome indicators, input–outputindicators,andsubjective–objectiveindicators.

•Consistent clarification of the purposes ofindicatorsandtheirusemitigatedfearsofhiddenagendas. Indicators and country comparisonsenhance knowledge and can be used for policyexchangesatthenationalandinternationallevels.

•The ambition to cover many integration areasandmany countrieswasmatchedwith availableresourcestocollectandanalysedataandpresenttheresultsinauser-friendlyway.

•Support from public and/or private agenciesas well as financial and other resources were

19Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

indispensable in taking this work forward (e.g.development,updatinganduse). Ideally,expertswho would develop a global migration indexwould use existing infrastructure of nationaland international policy debates and researchnetworkswhich, in turn,wouldbe reinforcedbythistypeofwork.

Developing an index

InparallelwiththeeffortsleadingtotheadoptionoftheZaragozaIndicators,MIPEXwasdeveloped.Thesewere similar but distinct processes and quite a fewpeopleandorganizationsparticipatedinboth,whichcreatedsynergies.Thedevelopmentprocess,contentanduseofMIPEXisbrieflydescribedbelowundersixheadings,whichconcernmattersthatare importantfordevelopinganindexandwhichcanbeappliedtothedevelopmentofaglobalmigrationindex.

Leadership and status

Work on the first edition, of what later was to becalled MIPEX, started in 2004. Three editions havebeen published since then and the fourth editionwill be published inMay 2015. The British Council,the cultural arm of British diplomacy, facilitated itsdevelopmentforthefirstthreeeditions.Itheldjointleadershipwith theMPG (an independentBrussels-based think tank), which designed and coordinatedthe research and linked the initiative to an existinginformal European platform of non-governmentalactors.TheEuropeanCommissionco-sponsoredtwoeditions.

Fromthebeginning,MIPEXwaslinkedtoacredible,creativeandproductivemixofnon-governmentalandgovernment agencies and academics. No particularinterest,beitofgovernmentsorinterestgroups,wasserved other than the shared interest in producinga reliable tool that could inform integration policydebates.

Nature and scope of the index

MIPEXhasalwaysbeenpresentedasapolicy index.This tool does not measure societal integrationoutcomes but policy outcomes and demonstrateswhich policies create a favourable environment forimmigrantintegration.Theuseofoutcomeindicatorsleadsone toaskwhich factors influence integrationoutcomes. Theuseofpolicy indicators leadsone toaskwhat the impactofpolicies ison integration.To

answer these questions, further analysis is needed,which links outcomes with policies and/or policieswith outcomes. The next MIPEX edition will makean attempt to do this by statistically analysingwhoactuallybenefitsfrompolicies.

Thereisafinelinebetweenmigrationandintegration,and drawing the line can be somewhat artificial. Amigrationindexwould,forexample,focusonlabourneedsassessmentmethods,recruitmentprocedures,admission conditions and rights of migrants. Thesemethods, procedures, conditions and rights willhave an impact on integration. MIPEX focuses onseven integration areas. Starting with four, andgradually addingmore areas after feasibility studieswere undertaken, they currently include labourmarketmobility,long-termresidency,familyreunion,accesstoeducation,politicalparticipation,accesstonationality and anti-discrimination. At the requestandwiththehelpoftheIOM,healthwillbeaddedtotheforthcomingedition.Thefirstthreeareaswouldfit into a migration index and the other areas may(partially) fall under needs assessment, recruitmentandassociatedrights.

Concepts and methodology

MIPEXuses concepts that are taken fromEuropeanconventions and EU legislation. In other words,MIPEXanditscountrycomparisonsarebasedonaninternational consensus regarding terms, standardsand policies. International Labour Organization(ILO) and UN conventions can serve this purposefor a globalmigration index. Fordesigning an indexresearchframework,itdoesnotreallymatterwhetherornot theseconventionsareratified.Apolicy indexestablishes to what extent national policies arecloserorfurtherawayfromrecognizedinternationalstandards.

The research or normative framework allows forthe translation of qualitative policy measures intoquantitativedata.Expertsareaskedtoassesswhetherornotcertainpolicymeasuresareinplace.Theyhavethechoiceofthreeoptions: (1)measuresarenot inplaceordonotcomeclosetothewordingandcontentofinternationalstandards;(2)measuresareinplacebutare furtheraway fromthewordingandcontentof international standards; and (3) policies are thesame as the wording and content of internationalstandards.Quantitative-orientedsocial scientistsarefamiliarwith this technique,which is similar to thatofdesigningasurveyandtranslatingqualitativedataintoquantitativedata.

20 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

Discussions on methodology not only improveddata collection and analysis, but also turned somesceptical scholars into strong supporters. A few ofthemstartedtoproducetheirownindices. It issafeto say that the scientific validityof theexercisehasnot beennot fundamentally challenged, andMIPEXisinvolvedinandcontinuestobenefitfromongoingmethodologicaldiscussions.

Data collection and analysis

MIPEXtappedintotheMPG’snetworkofacademicsin the migration and anti-discrimination fields andgraduallysucceededtoengageover100academicsinaround40countries.Amongthemarelawprofessors,practisinglawyers,politicalscientistsandsociologists.Theyarenotaskedtogivetheiropinionbuttocheckwhether approximately 150 policy measures are inplace,usingofficialandpublicdocumentsasevidence.Their assessment is peer-reviewed. There are otherindiceswhicharebasedontheexperts’opinionandnotonthiskindoffact-checking.Otherscombinethetwo,whichmaybeconfusingifnotproperlyexplained.MIPEX keeps the analysis simple (accumulation ofpointsperpolicyarea)andtranslatesthequantitativedata back into qualitative considerations, thustellingastoryofacountry’smoreorlessfavourableintegrationclimate.Theresultsareusuallythesameasthoseofclassicalqualitativestudies.SocialscientistsuseMIPEXtoestablishcorrelationsbetweenvariouspolicyfields,policiesandoutcomes,andotherfactorsinfluencing integration. The results are also used totelltheintegrationstoryandtomakeconcretepolicyproposals. The carefully applied methods and theinvolvement of respected scientists have given theindexcredibility.

Countries covered and ranked

ThefirstMIPEXeditioncovered15EUMemberStates.ThesecondeditionincludedallEUMemberStates(asper2007),plusNorway,SwitzerlandandCanada.Thethird edition expanded the geographical coveragebyaddingnewEUMemberStates(atotalof27)andtheUnitedStates.Afterthat,Australia,NewZealand,Japan, the Republic of Korea, Croatia, Serbia, theformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia,BosniaandHerzegovina, Turkey and Armenia were “MIPEX-ed”andtheresultswerepublishedattheMIPEXwebsite.Academics(intheUnitedStates,Canada,NewZealand,JapanandtheRepublicofKorea),non-governmentalorganizations(intheBalkans),governments(Mexico)and an international organization (the Organization

forSecurityandCo-operationinEurope(OSCE))askedfororfacilitatedtheMIPEXassessment(inTurkey,theBalkansandArmenia).

Countriesarerankedperpolicyareaandbytotalscore.Thescoringsystemisverysimpleandstraightforwardsoastoavoidanumbersgame.Thescoresimmediatelyleadtoidentificationofwhatmeasuresareinplaceinwhichcountriesandassistpolicyactorstobenchmarkandmakeconcreteandrealisticpolicyproposals.

Consultations and presentation

Consultations with government, non-governmentalstakeholders have been key in all phases of theproduction of the tool. They guided the choice ofintegration fields and specific policymeasures. Thismadethetoolrelevanttotheirwork.Theymobilizedsupportfortheexerciseasisdemonstratedbythelonglist ofMIPEXambassadors. Theywere consultedonhowtopresenttheresults,resultinginaninteractiveanduser-friendlywebsite,whichallowspolicyactorsto use the data for prospective and retrospectivepolicyassessments.

MIPEXlaunchdebateswereorganized,attractingtheattentionofpolicyactorsandthemedia.

Users and use

MIPEXisbeingusedbyavarietyofpolicyactors:

•Ministersresponsibleformigrationandintegrationtoretainorimprovetheirscore;

• Internationalorganizations,suchastheCouncilofEurope,theOSCEandIOM,forthepreparationoftheircountryvisitsandreports;

•Agencies, such as Eurostat, to link policies withoutcomes;

•Non-governmental agencies to stimulate a well-informeddebate;

•Human rights advocates, for monitoring policyandmakingconcreteproposals;

•Academics,forfurtherresearch.

Some final remarks

Itisdesirabletodesignaglobalmigrationindex.Suchan instrument would be useful for policy actors tostimulate a focused andwell-informed debate on a

21Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

verytopicalissue.ItcouldbeawelcomecomplementtothereportsproducedbyIOMandUNagencies.

A partnership between international, governmentor non-governmental organizations could provideleadershipandmobilizepoliticalsupportandfundingfromtheprivateorfoundationsector.

The conceptual framework of a global migrationindexcouldbebasedonUNandILOconventionsandexisting indices that are covering relatedfields. Thechoiceofindicatorscouldbemadethroughtargetedconsultations with key stakeholders. The researchcouldbecoordinatedbyasmallteamofinternationaland experienced scholars in cooperation withuniversitiesandthink-tanks.Small teamsofnationalexpertscouldcollectthenecessarydatacoveringthevariousareasoftheindex.

The presentation and use of the tool could bepromoted by intergovernmental organizations, suchasIOMandtheILO.Anindexhastheadvantageoverlonger reports in that it is short and sharp. It couldalsobecomplementarytotheselongerreports.Italsofocusestheattentiononkeyissues.

At the global level, there is an infrastructure ofagenciesthatworkonmigration,withIOMinaleadingrole.Theproductionofaglobalmigrationindexcouldand – not to waste resources and double efforts –should tap into existing knowledge, experience andtrust. Such an initiative could gather key players onmigration together, which would strengthen theirexistingcooperation.n

“It is desirable to design a global migration index.

Such an instrument would be useful for policy actors to

stimulate a focused and well-informed debate on a

very topical issue. It could be a welcome complement to

the reports produced by IOM and UN agencies.”

Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE22

International migration has been identified asone of the defining global issues of the twenty-first century. As Papademetriou (2005) suggests,

“virtuallynocountryisuntouchedby,orimmuneto,theeffectsofinternationalmigration–particularlyitsunauthorizedvariant.”Yetmigrationpolicycontinuestobemadeonlimiteddataandevidence(Mokhiber,2013),oftenbynecessity.

The Irregular Migration Research Programme(hereinafterreferredtoastheResearchProgramme)within the Australian Department of ImmigrationandBorderProtection(DIBP)representsasignificantattempttoaddressthisconundrumforpolicymakers.TheResearchProgrammeaimstoprovidehigh-quality,rigorousquantitative,qualitativeandmixedmethodsresearch to support a better understanding of thedynamics of irregular migration and their potentialpolicy implications. The Research Programme isdesigned to maximize the policy relevance andsustainability of research conducted within agovernmentcontext,particularlybyoperatingwithinaframeworkofpartnershipandcollaborationbetweenarangeofmigrationexpertsandpolicymakers.

Significance of irregular migration as an enduring and complex public policy issue

Themultiplecomplexforcesofglobalizationinteractwith migration dynamics to influence internationalmigration patterns and trends. Increasingurbanization, fluctuating economic circumstances,geopolitical insecurity and conflict, developmentissues, population growth and demographic changeall influence the movement of people, along with

Expanding the evidence base on irregular migration through research partnerships: Australia’s Irregular Migration Research Programme Marie McAuliffe and Alex Parrinder1

1 Marie McAuliffe is a Sir RolandWilson PhD scholar at theAustralianDemographicandSocialResearch Instituteat theAustralianNationalUniversity, on leave from theAustralianDepartment of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP),and former Director of the Irregular Migration ResearchProgramme (Research Programme). Alex Parrinder is anAssistant Director of the Research Programme, in theDIBP.Theviewsoftheauthorsdonotnecessarilyreflectthoseoftheiremployersorinstitutions.

factors such as increasing access to transportation,telecommunications, diaspora networks, andproximitytoviablemigrationpathwaysandagents.Theincrease in regularmigrationand thecorrespondingrise of irregular migration are argued by manycommentators to have an “irresistible momentum”thatislikelytocontinueinthefuture(Koser,2005).

Within this context, irregular maritime migration isa contested topic with significant national, regionaland global implications, particularly in Europe,and also in other parts of the world. This form ofmigrationpresentsongoingchallengesandcontinuesto raise compelling humanitarian, political, social,economic and security concerns. It canbedauntingfor policymakers to try to balance these concernswhiledevelopingeffectiveandsustainablestrategiestomanageirregularmigrationandborders.

The need for policy-relevant research on irregularmigration (and irregularmaritimemigration) cannotbe understated. Examination of the many factorsunderpinning irregular movement is important tothedevelopmentofabetterunderstandingofmulti-causalityanditsinterconnecteddimensions.Equally,there isrecognitionthatpolicy-irrelevantresearch isalso crucial, particularly forced migration researchthat looksbeyond thepolicy framesof reference toexplore lessvisibleaspectsofthisformofmigration(Bakewell,2008).

As an immigration nation surrounded by sea,Australia’s border-related operational capacities,both offshore and onshore, have evolved overdecadestobecomeamongthemoreadvancedintheworld. Regular migration is planned and regulatedin an orderly and predictable manner. Further, thedimensions,characteristicsandhistoryofinternationalmanaged migration in the Australian context arecomprehensively researched, and a strong evidencebase exists to inform policy. In contrast, irregularmigration tends to be disorderly, unpredictableand unregulated. Irregular migration ignites coreconcerns for governments, for which maintainingpublic confidence in the State’s capacity to protectsovereigntyandbordermanagementandprogrammeintegrityisparamount(IOM,2003).ForAustralia,with

23Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

itslackoflandborders,irregularmaritimemigrationhasbecomeahot-buttonissue.Australiaisnotaloneinthisregard; inreceivingcountriessuchasGreece,Italy,MaltaandSpain,thephenomenonishighontheimmigrationagendawhereitremainscontestedandcontentious.

Research gap on irregular migration in the Asia-Pacific context

Part of the problem with the polemic issue ofirregularmigration isa lackof informationanddataonaspectsofitsmanifestationanditsconsequences.ThisisparticularlysointheAsia-Pacificregionwhereinformationanddatahas tended tobe fragmented,anecdotal and sometimes based on assumptions(McAuliffeandMence,2014).Researchonthetopiccansometimesreflectpolarizedpositions.Inaddition,research is commonly undertaken within discretetheoreticaldisciplinesoranalyticalframeworks,suchaseconomics, sociology,demography,anthropology,national sovereignty and security, international(refugee)lawandhumanrights(BrettellandHollifield,2015),which all contribute valuable insights but donot always adequately capture multifaceted anddynamic nature of migration processes, includingfrom migrants’ perspectives, that multidisciplinaryresearchandanalysisisoftenabletoilluminate.

Thereisalsooftenanemphasisontheinterestsandconcerns of receiving countries, with less attentiongiven to origin, transit and refugee host countries.This can inhibit a more nuanced understanding ofthe characteristics of populations on themove andthereasonsforchangingmigrationpatterns.Further,given the largely invisible, often clandestine natureof irregularmigration,thedifficultyofsystematicallymeasuring and understanding movements isconsiderable. Data on irregular movements withintheregionaregenerallynotavailable(McAuliffeandMence, 2014). In other regions, such as the Hornof Africa, efforts to overcome such difficulties arebearing fruit and the scale of irregular movement,smuggling,traffickingandexploitationofmigrants isbeingreported.2

2 For more information on the Regional Mixed MigrationSecretariat(RMMS),seewww.regionalmms.org.

The Research Programme’s first Occasional Paper“Establishing an Evidence-Base for Future PolicyDevelopmentonIrregularMigrationtoAustralia”,byKhalid Koser andMarieMcAuliffe (2013), identifiedspecific research gaps in the Australian context.The paper included a “toolkit” that identified keythemesandresearchquestionstoguidetheResearchProgramme. The findings of research conducted onkeyareasidentifiedinthetoolkithaveofferedarangeofvaluablepolicy-relevantinsightsintothedynamicsof irregularmigration.ThetoolkitcontinuestoserveasakeyreferenceforResearchProgrammepriorities.

Structure and approach of the Research Programme

EstablishedinJanuary2012aspartofabroaderwhole-of-government strategy, the Research Programmeexpanded significantly, following the (then)government-commissioned independent Report oftheExpertPanelonAsylumSeekers.TheExpertPanel(2012) concluded that “the evidence on the driversand impacts of forcedmigration is incomplete, andmore intuitive than factual” and that there was no“solidbaseofmeasurementandanalysis”tosupportthepolicymakingprocess.Oneof thekeyobjectivesof the Research Programme has been to producequantitative,qualitativeandmixed-methodsresearchto support the development of an objective anevidencebaseaspossible.TheResearchProgrammehas continuedwith this clear objectivewhile policyshiftshaveoccurred,includingasaresultofachangeof government in 2013. There is recognitionwithingovernmentandamongseniorofficialsthatirregularmaritime migration is an enduring and complextransnational issue, and that research investment isofstrategicbenefit.

In2013,asurveyof1,008irregularmaritimearrivals(IMAs) – to whom protection visas were grantedin 2011 and 2012 – was commissioned under theResearchProgramme.TheIMAsurveydrewfromthepersonal experiences of people who had travelledtoAustraliaby sea toprovideanempiricalevidencebase on decision-making processes throughout thejourney.Itwasthefirstlarge-scalequantitativesurveyundertaken on these issues and provided valuableinsights on the important role of IMAs’ family,communityanddiasporanetworksindecision-making,perceptionsofAustraliaasadestinationcountryandthemultiplefactorsunderpinningIMAflows.

24 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

Since its establishment, the Research Programmehas been carefully planned to produce researchand analysis to inform policy and operationaldeliberationsbutnotrecommendoradvocatepolicy.TheseparationfrompolicyprocesseshasenabledtheResearchProgrammetooperateasadistinctunit.

The Research Programme has been designed toprovide research and analysis at two mutuallyreinforcinglevels:

•applied research and analysis that is responsivetoimmediate priorities andcan inform policy and operational deliberations on specific irregularmigrationissuesandthemes;and

• longer-termresearchtostrengthentheknowledgebaseonwhypeopletravelirregularlytoAustralia,with reference to the social, political, cultural,economic, geographic, demographic and otherfactors relevant to their migration patterns,including within regional and global contextsandinrelationtofuturemigrationpathwaysandtrends.

The Research Programme has commissioned large-scale quantitative survey research on potentialmigrants in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladeshto examine different levels of intention to migrate(regularly or irregularly). The project includes aninternational comparative analysis of the surveyresponses. It is intended to provide insights intoprocesses of migration decision-making by prioritycitizenshipgroups,includinginaregionalcontext.Thefindings from this project will have implications forbothmanagingirregularmigrationandcommunicatingtopotentialmigrants.

TheResearchProgramme’sabilitytoproduceappliedresearchandanalysis,includinginrelationtospecificcitizenship and ethnic groups, depends heavily onstrengtheningtheunderlying,longer-termknowledgebaseon issuessuchasmigrantdecision-makingandcomparative analysis of approaches internationally.ThishasinvolvedafocusoncontextualizingAustralia’sexperience within regional and internationalcomparativeresearchframeworkstoprovideabetterunderstandingof irregularmigration toAustralia.Atthesametime,thelimitationsofsuchresearchhavebeenclearly recognizedandconsidered inplanning,conducting,andcommunicatingtheresultsofresearchandanalysis.Thisincludeslimitationsintermsoftheutilityofanysingleresearchactivityforpolicymakers

– the process of building a robust evidence base isiterative, and the different pieces of research worktogethertoformapictureofthecomplexityinherentinunderstandingirregularmigration.Italsoincludeslimitations from methodological perspectives, andin the context of research ethics, sensitivities andfeasibility. Gaining ethical clearance and institutingappropriate measures to ensure that the researchactivitydoesnotcreateunacceptableriskhavebeenimportantaspectsoftheResearchProgramme.

Research sustainability – building multilayered knowledge and expertise

The Research Programme has been structured tomaximizeitssustainability,notwithstandingtheoftenchallengingfiscalenvironmentsthatmanygovernmentagencies face. To build a sustainable programme, itwasacknowledgedthatfosteringskillsandexpertisebothwithinandoutsidegovernmentwasimportant.Building on a departmental research and analyticalfunction on irregular migration was a key elementin the development of an integrated, multilayeredprogramme of work designed to contribute toexpanding the existing academic evidence base onirregularmigration toAustralia.Other key elementsincluded:

•commissioning research, including researchundertaken in partnership with internationalorganisations(suchasIOM),academicinstitutions,private sector specialist researchers and othergovernmentagencies;

•a multi-year Collaborative Research Programme(CRP) with the Australian National University(ANU) in April 2013, which has provided overAUD 1.5 million funding for empirical researchon international irregularmigration to academicresearchers in Australia, Indonesia, the IslamicRepublic of Iran, theNetherlands, Sri Lanka andSwitzerland;

•an Irregular Migration Research Small GrantsProgramme,underwhichearlycareerandotherresearcherswereabletoapplyforgrantfunding;

•apeer-reviewedOccasionalPaperseries;and

•expansion of the existing in-house irregularmigrationanalyticalfunction.

To date, 17 academic principal researchers havebeen funded under the programme, along withprivate sector specialist researchers, international

25Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

organizations and think tanks. Seventeen researchprojectshavebeendeliveredandninearecurrentlyunderway.

TheDIBP–inpartnershipwithCubitMediaResearch–isworkingonalarge-scale collation and comparative analysis of media representations of migration and migrants (including irregular migration) in selectedcountries. The project examines coverage andmessages on migration generally, and to Australia,with the aim of providing information on relevantpublic perspectives and discourse, including toidentify key themes and favourability of messageson migration. Being conducted collaboratively withCubit, a private sector research company, allowsthe Research Programme to benefit from Cubit’sunique data collection and analysis methodology,which involves analysis of individual messages bymultilingualanalystsandstratificationofresultsusingaproprietaryhumancognitivemodellingsystem.

Bridging the gap between government and non-government expertise and knowledge

A critical aspect of theResearchProgramme is thatitdrawsuponbothgovernmentandnon-governmentmigrationandotherexpertisetomaximizetheutilityand quality of its work. As highlighted by Koser(2014), “[g]enuine collaboration and partnershipshave the ability to recognise the different butcomplementary expertise that resides inside andoutside of government. In the right circumstances,powerfulandproductivepartnershipscanbeformedthatareable todrawoncritical thinking toaddresscomplex migration issues in a policy-relevant andstrategicmanner.”

A number of mechanisms are in place to facilitateongoing engagement with leading migrationexperts and practitioners, including Australianand international academics, representatives ofinternational and non-governmental organizations,andseniorgovernmentofficials.

•Governancestructureshavebeenestablishedviathe IrregularMigrationResearchAdvisoryGroupandtheIrregularMigrationResearchInternationalReference Panel. Through these advisorybodies, Australian and international migrationacademics and experts from international andnon-governmentalorganizations,thinktanks,andacademic institutions in Australia, New Zealand,

Europe, the United States and Asia, as well asAustralian government officials, provide adviceonthemesandtopicsofresearch,provideapeer-review mechanism, and bring an internationalperspectivetotheResearchProgramme.

•A High Level Strategic Discussions Series onFutureMigration Challenges is co-hosted by theDIBPandANUaspartoftheCRP.TheDiscussionsprovide the opportunity for policymakers andinternationalmigrationacademicsandexpertstoexplore possible approaches to priority nationaland globalmigration challenges, and to identifyareasforfurtherpolicy-relevantresearch.

•Researcher workshops are co-hosted by theDIBP and ANU to bring together policymakers,researchers funded under the programme,and members of the Advisory Group and theInternational Reference Panel. The workshopsallow participants to discuss findings andmethodologies, share insights and discussfieldwork and other challenges, hear frompolicymakers about complex policy issues,identifyremainingresearchgaps,andprovideanopportunity to discuss policy utility and appliedresearchgoals.

Lessons learned through the Research Programme

To expand the existing evidencebase, theResearchProgramme has often questioned existingassumptions about irregular migration, includingby focusing on demography and its relationship tokeydrivers anddeterminantsof irregularmigration.Thishas involvedseekingtheviewsofpotentialandactualmigrants to illuminate the complex issues ofwhy and how they choose tomigrate, and includesconsiderationofprotectionissuesaswellastherangeofotherfactorsthatfeedintodecision-makingaboutdestinationsandothermigrationoptions.Ithasalsoinvolved adapting new understandings of irregularmigration throughmultidisciplinary approaches thatarenotboundbycommondichotomousdepictionsof“genuinerefugees”and“economicmigrants”.

Rigorous quantitative and qualitative research andcomparativeanalysisoffindingsinrelationtodifferentgroupsanddifferentgeographiccontextshavebeenkeyfeaturesof theResearchProgramme’sapproachto developing a more sophisticated understandingof actual and potential irregular migration flows toAustralia,withintheoverallglobalmigrationcontext.

26 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

An independent reviewof theResearch Programmeconducted in 2014 found that the structures andrelationships underscoring the Research Programmerepresent, in many respects, a best-practice modelof “bridging the gap” to support a focus on policyutility.TheHighLevelStrategicDiscussionsSerieshasprovideda forum forpolicymakers to test ideasandapproachesandanopportunityformigrationexpertsandacademics toprovide input intopolicy thinking,gaininsightsintothechallengesandconstraintsfacedbypolicymakers,anddiscussthedifficultiesinvolvedindevelopingpolicysolutionstocomplex,multifacetedissues.

Fromaprogrammemanagementperspective, ithasbeen important to recognize the considerable valueof research partnerships and to understand andrespect the respective roles, responsibilities andstrengths of the individual collaborators involved.The most effective partnerships have been thosethat, while acknowledging institutional interests,place greater emphasis on professional interests(e.g. project, programme and/or profession-basedinterest)andplacelittleweightonpersonalinterest.Truecollaborationisabletooperateonaprofessional-interestbasisinanenvironmentoftrustandhonesty,which has the effect of neutralizing more difficulttransactional issues. In seeking to collaborate onresearch projects, this alignment has not alwaysoccurred with all partners and difficulties haveinevitably arisen. However, in nearly all instances,problems have been able to be overcome throughflexibility, lateralthinkingandakeen(collective)eyetoquality.

Atitscore,theResearchProgrammeisfuture-focusedandaimstosupportabetterunderstandingofpotentialimplications for Australia. A deep understanding ofthe international and transnational environmentsdepends on recognizing that irregular migrationflows to Australia and the region are interlinkedwith larger migration forces, and that Australia’sposition as a destination country operates in thecontext of a dynamic and complex globalmigrationenvironment.TheResearchProgrammecontinuestoplayanimportantroleinprovidingevidencetoinformpolicy and operational deliberations as well as addto thebroaderevidencebaseon irregularmaritimemigration.n

Further information

For further information, please see the IrregularMigration Research Programme website at www.immi.gov.au/pub-res/Pages/research/irregular-migration-research.aspx.

ReferencesAustralia,ExpertPanelonAsylumSeekers

2012 Report of the Expert Panel on AsylumSeekers. Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers,Canberra.

Bakewell,O.2008 Research beyond the categories: The

importance of policy irrelevant researchinto forced migration. Journal of Refugee Studies,21(4):432–453.

Brettell,C.andJ.Hollifield(eds.)2015 Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines.

Routledge,NewYork.

InternationalOrganizationforMigration(IOM)2003 Migration in a Globalized World. 86th

Session of the IOM Council, MC/INF/268,10 November. Available from www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/about_iom/en/council/86/MCINF_268.pdf.

Koser,K.2005 Irregular migration, state security and

human security.Apaperprepared for thePolicy Analysis and Research ProgrammeoftheGlobalCommissiononInternationalMigration. Available from www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/shared/mainsite/policy_and_research/gcim/tp/TP5.pdf.

2014 Strengthening public confidence inmigration policy and practice: The role ofevidence. A paper commissioned by the2014–15 Chair of the IntergovernmentalConsultations on Migration, Asylum andRefugees(IGC).

27Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

Koser,K.andM.McAuliffe2013 Establishing an Evidence-Base for Future

PolicyDevelopmentonIrregularMigrationto Australia. Irregular Migration ResearchProgramme Occasional Paper Series,1/2013. Available from www.immi.gov.au/media/research/irregular-migration-research/_doc/evidence-base-for-future-policy.pdf.

McAuliffe,M.andV.Mence2014 Global Irregular Maritime Migration:

Current and Future Challenges. IrregularMigrationResearchProgrammeOccasionalPaper Series, 7/2014. Available fromwww.immi.gov.au/pub-res/Documents/research/global- irregular-marit ime-migration.pdf.

Mokhiber,C.2013 Day of General Discussion of the

Committee on Migrant Workers: Openingremarks by Craig Mokhiber, Chief,Development and Economic and SocialIssues Branch. Available fromwww.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13258&LangID=E.

Papademetriou,D.2005 Theglobalstrugglewithillegalimmigration:

Noend insight.MigrationPolicy Institute,Washington,D.C.

“The Research Programme continues to play an important

role in providing evidence to inform policy and operational

deliberations as well as add to the broader evidence base on irregular maritime migration.”

Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE28

Introduction

Assisted voluntary return (AVR) programmesaimed at providing safe and humane returnformigrantswithoutalegalrighttoresideina

countryformacentralpartofmigrationmanagementpoliciesindestinationStates.FromtheInternationalOrganizationforMigration(IOM)alone,over46,000peopleparticipatedinAVRprogrammesfromover70host countries in 2013 (IOM,2014).All countries intheEuropeanUnionofferAVRwiththeexceptionofPoland, and most countries offer multiple differentAVRprogrammes.

ThisarticleprovidesanoverviewofthekeyfindingsfromtheComparative Research on Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Project, commissionedby the Australian Department of Immigration andBorder Protection Irregular Migration ResearchProgramme and implemented in partnership withIOMandMaastrichtUniversity.Theoverallaimofthisprojecthasbeentoinformpoliciesandprogrammesfor assisting the voluntary return and reintegrationof migrants, including irregular migrants andunsuccessful asylum-seekers. Thisproject setout toachievethisaimviathreeobjectives:first,ananalysisofthereturndecisionofmigrants,includingirregularmigrants; second, development of a frameworkfor defining and measuring the sustainability ofapproaches to voluntary return; and third, anassessment of what factors determine sustainablereturnandreintegration.

The methodology for this study consisted of amixed methods approach. First, a comprehensiveliterature review of both the academic and policysources was completed, which identified key gaps

Key findings of comparative research on assisted voluntary return and reintegration of migrantsKhalid Koser and Katie Kuschminder1

1 Prof Khalid Koser is Extraordinary Professor in Conflict,PeaceandSecurity,atMaastrichtUniversity/UnitedNationsUniversity – Maastricht Economic and Social ResearchInstitute on Innovation and Technology (UNU–MERIT). DrKatieKuschminderisPost-DoctoralResearcherandMigrationStudies Project Manager, at Maastricht University/UNU–MERIT.

in knowledge and evidence and formed the basisfor survey design and data analysis in this study.Second, an analysis of destination countries returnsdata was conducted, which provided insights intothedifferentimplementationandnumberofassistedvoluntaryreturneesineachcountry.Third,273semi-structuredinterviewswereconductedwithmigrantsand returnees across 15 countries of destination(Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom,Switzerland), transit (Greece, Indonesia, Turkey)and origin (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Iraq,Pakistan,SriLanka,Sudan,VietNam).Thesecountrieswereselectedforvariousreasons,includingrelevancetotheGovernmentofAustralia,scaleofasylumandreturn flows, and variety of assistance policies andprogrammes. In origin countries, interviews wereconducted mainly with people who had returnedat least 12 months prior. In transit and destinationcountries, respondents were identified by supportagencies, and on the whole had already expressedaninterestinreturn.Overall,significantlymorementhan womenwere interviewed and themajority ofreturneesweresingleindividuals,notfamilies.

Influencing the decision to return

In this study, the individual return decision isconceived as being influenced by: “structural”conditions (conditions in the origin, transit anddestinationcountries);individualconditionsincludingindividual attributes and social relations; and policyinterventions.Overall, respondents ranked themaincategoriesoffactorsinfluencingtheirreturndecisionas follows: by far most important were conditionsin the country of destination, followed in order byindividual factors,social factors,policy interventionsand conditions in the origin country. Within thesebroad categories, the following specific variableswerefoundtobemostsignificantfortherespondentsin making their decisions: the difficulty of findingemployment/no right to work; being tired of livingas an undocumented migrant; a desire to reunifywithfamilyathome;theopportunitytobenefitfromvoluntary return programmes; and job prospects athome.

29Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

Four key findings can be drawn from these results.First, conditions in returnees’ origin countrieswere generally not an important influence on therespondents’ decisions on whether to return. Thiscontrastspreviousresearch(Blacketal.,2004)andwasa slightly unexpected finding. One potential reasonfor this is the fact that nearly half of respondentsmigrated for broadly economic reasons, and wouldlikelydifferamongasylum-seekersandrefugees.

Second, policy interventions are not considered amajorinfluenceonthedecisiononwhethertoreturn.In situationswherepolicy interventionsdidhaveaninfluence,enablingpolicyinterventionscaninfluencethedecisiontoreturnasmuchasrestrictivepolicies.For some respondents, the opportunity to benefitfromvoluntaryreturnprogrammesandthechancetowinduptheiraffairsbeforedeparturefacilitatedtheirreturndecision.Thereis,however,afinelinebetweenfacilitating return and encouraging it. Any policyinterventioninthisareashouldbedesignedtoallowpotential returnees to make their own decisions,ratherthanencouragingthemtowardseitheroption.

Third,theresultsdemonstratethatotherkeyfactorsinfluencingthedecisiontoreturnarelargelybeyondthescopeofdirectpolicyinterventions.Forexample,thedesire to reunitewith familymembersathomeand a change of family circumstances there werealso important factors in thereturndecision.Familymembers were also often involved in the decision-makingprocess.

Finally,itisimportanttonotethatmorecouldbedoneto disseminate information on return programmes,especially in transit countries. In contrast todestination countries, where most respondentsknew about return programmes and from multiplesources, in transit countries almost half had noteven heard of return programmes, particularly inTurkey. This is largely due to the fact that the AVRprogramme in Turkey is fully supported by externaldonorfundsandhasastrictmandateforeligibility.Itisimportantnottoraisetheexpectationsofmigrants,manyofwhommaynotbeeligibleforlimitedreturnassistance programmes. There is a large need forreturn assistance in Turkey, and policymakers mayconsidersupportingAVRintransitcountriesasatoolformigrationmanagement.Thisapproachhasbeenoperationalized for many years between IndonesiaandAustralia.

Measuring sustainability

The literature review brought forth that there iscurrently no agreed-upon definition of sustainablereturn. Developing a framework to define andmeasure sustainable return was a key objective ofthis study and a number of considerations guidedthedefinitionadoptedinthisstudy.First,wefocusedon individual returnees as this was a feasible unitof analysis; however, we recognize the role thefamily and community may play in the return andreintegration of individuals. Second, this study didnotmakeanassessmentofthelocalpopulation,andtherefore cannot (objectively) compare returnees’status relativeto thatof the localpopulation in thisdefinition.Theproposeddefinitionandapproachdoes,however,highlighttheimportanceofself-perceptionandincludesbothsubjectiveandobjectiveindicators.Due to theambiguitiesassociatedwith remigration,thisdefinitionpurposivelyexcludes remigrationasapartofsustainablereturn.Inthisstudy,“sustainablereturn”isthereforedefinedaswhen:

theindividualshavereintegratedintotheeconomic,socialandculturalprocessesofthecountryoforiginand feel that theyare inanenvironmentofsafetyandsecurityuponreturn.

This definition assumes that reintegration is anecessary precondition for meaningful sustainablereturn. It adopts a comprehensive perspective onreintegration across the dimensions of economic,sociocultural and political-security processes. Thisdefinition also highlights that the returnees mustperceivetheyareinconditionsofsafetyandsecurityupon return, which should remove the impetus forremigrationatleastintheforeseeablefuture.

In order to measure sustainable return, as perthe definition above, a multidimensional returnand reintegration index was developed. Our indexdistinguishes economic, sociocultural, and political-securitydimensions,andsetsreintegrationthresholdsacross each to gauge individual reintegrationrates. On the whole, 37 per cent of returnees arereintegratedbasedonthis index.Returneesshowedthe highest levels of reintegration in the safety andsecurity dimension at 71 per cent, followed by thesocioculturaldimensionat64percent,andthelowestlevelsofreintegrationintheeconomicdimensionat54percent.Participantsindifferentorigincountrieshad varying levels of reintegration, with returneesto Iraqbeing the least likely to be reintegrated and

30 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

returnees toVietNamandPakistanbeing themostlikelytobereintegrated.

Promoting sustainable return and reintegration

Utilizingthereturnandreintegrationindexdevelopedabove,correlationsweredrawntoassesswhatfactorsinfluencereintegrationbasedonthebroadcategoriesof individual factors, situation prior to migration,experiencesabroadandsituationuponreturn.

Several factors were assessed to have a significantrelationship with reintegration. These included:havinga senseofbelonging in thecommunitypriortomigration;thereasonformigration;thecountryofdestination;residenceinanasylumreceptioncentre;andreturningornotreturningtothesamecommunityon return.Between them, thesevariableselicit twoimportantfindings:first,returneeswhomigratedforeconomicreasonsweremorelikelytobereintegratedwhen compared with returnees who migrated forother reasons including political-security factors;second, returneeswhohada senseof belonging tothecommunityprior tomigrationandreturn to thesame community after migration were more likelyto be reintegrated. This suggests that although thereasonsformigrationarecomplexandofteninvolvemultiplefactors,therecanbeadifferenceonreturnbetweenthosemigratingforeconomicpurposesandthosemigratingforsecurityandpolitical reasons. Inaddition, ithighlightstheimportanceofnetworksinthereturnandreintegrationprocess,asnetworksaremost likely a core part of the community of returnthatcontributetoreintegrationprocesses.

Although the relationship is not necessarilystatistically significant, there are several other keypiecesofinformationthatareimportanttohighlight.First, women were less likely to be reintegratedupon return, recognizing, however, that therewere very fewwomen included in the sample. Thiscould be attributed to gender-specific challengesin the reintegration process and suggests the needfor further research on the specific challenges offemale reintegration. Second, returnees who werecomfortable prior to migration were more likely tobereintegratedonreturncomparedwiththosewhowere struggling prior tomigration. This is logical inthatthosewithmoreresourcespriortomigrationare,in general,more likely to have resourceson return.Third, there does not appear to be a difference in

reintegration between those whose decision tomigrate was made collectively and those whosedecision was made individually. This is a potentialareaforfurtherresearchasitcouldbehypothesizedthatwhenmigrationisafamilydecision,reintegrationismoredifficultonreturnduetothelackofmigrationsuccess; or alternatively that the family is moresupportiveonreturnastheywerepartofthemigrationdecision.Bothpossibilitiescouldbeexploredfurtherto better understand this relationship. Fourth, it isnoteworthy that although not significant in termsof reintegration, themajority of participants in thesamplemigrated via a smuggler. This illustrates theprominenceofsmugglers inthestudycountriesandhighlights theneed for further researchon the roleofsmugglersinmigrantdecision-makingprocessesaswellasreturnandreintegration.

Conclusion

While there are reservations about the scale andscopeoftheresearch,andtherepresentativenessoftherespondents interviewed, thestudyhasbroughtforth several key findings, developed new relevanttoolsforassessingreturnandreintegration,andcanbe used as the basis for further and perhapsmoreextensiveresearch.Furtherresearchisneededwithamuchlargersampleofparticipantsinmorecountriestobeabletodrawmoreconcreteconclusions.

Bearinginmindthesereservations,threefindingsinthisstudyhavesurprisedusmost.Thesemaysimplybeanomalies arising from the circumstancesof thisresearch, but they may deserve special enquiry infurther research on return and reintegration. First,and contrary to a widely held policy assumption,there is no clear evidence that returnees take upAVRorotherreturnassistance inordertoavoidtheindignity of deportation, with a possible exceptionbeing a small number of returnees to Afghanistan.Instead,ourresearchsuggestedthataconcerntobeviewedaslaw-abidingwasofgreaterconcerntomanyrespondents. Second, while a lack of reintegrationand sustainable return clearly was one reason forpromptingsomereturneestoconsiderremigration,itequallyclearlywasnottheonlyfactor.Understandingthe causes of remigration and how policy canintervene isapressingresearchquestion.Third,ourstudy found that agents were largely irrelevant inreturndecision-makingprocesses.Ontheonehand,mostrespondentspaidagentstomigrate,butonthe

31Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

otherhandthisdidnotseemtoimpacttheirdecisiontoreturnorexperiencesafterreturn.

Intermsofpolicyimplications,akeygapinthisstudyisdeterminingtheroleofAVRreintegrationpackagesin the overall reintegration process. All participantsin this study had received reintegration assistance;therefore,wewerenot able to compare themwithotherassistedvoluntaryreturneesthatdidnotreceivereintegrationassistance.Inaddition,thisstudydidnotassess differences in reintegration packages such asamountreceived, levelofassistanceprovided inthedestinationandorigincountries,differencesbetweencashandin-kindassistance,andsoforth.Therefore,key questions still exist such as: Does the type ofreintegrationassistancematterinreintegration?Thishasdirect implications forprogrammemanagementand AVR policy design and should be explored infurtherresearch.

A second policy implication relates to the conceptofmixedmigrationflows. This has becomea highlypoliticized term, and opponents to this term fearthat it takes away from genuine refugee claims.The results from this study are quite suggestive inshowing thatmotivationsand reasons formigrationaffect reintegration. Individuals who migrate forsecurity reasons as opposed to economic reasonsandalsorejectedasylum-seekersarelesslikelytobereintegrated.Thisisacentralpointthatneedsfurtherexploration as to the differences in reintegrationfor economic versus security migrants andunderstandablyhasimplicationsforreturnpoliciesofdifferentmigrantgroups.

One final consideration arises from this study forfurtherresearchandthisconcernsaccesstoevidenceanddata.Inpart,ourliteraturereviewwasbasedonevaluationreportsprovidedbyIOM,whicharenot(oratleastnoteasily)accessible.Theoverviewofvariousdestination countries, to some extent, dependedondatamadeavailableby governments involved inthisresearch.Wewerestruckbyalackofsystematictrackingofreturneesinseveralorigincountries.Thereare implicationshere for themanagement,analysis,andpublicationofdataandevidencebygovernmentauthoritiesandinternationalorganizations.n

References

Black,R.etal.2004 Understanding Voluntary Return. Home

Office Online Report 50/04, Home Office,London.

Paasche,E.2014 Why assisted return programmes must

be evaluated: Insights from the project‘Possibilities and Realities of ReturnMigration’. Peace Research Institute Oslo(PRIO)PolicyBriefNo.5,PRIO,Oslo.

InternationalOrganizationforMigration(IOM)2014 Global Returns Overview 2014. IOM,

Geneva.

“Individuals who migrate for security reasons as opposed

to economic reasons and also rejected asylum-seekers are

less likely to be reintegrated.”

32 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

Publications

IOM-MPI Issue in Brief No. 12 – Women’s Labour Migration from Asia and the Pacific: Opportunities and Challenges2015/12pagesEnglishAvailableforPDFdownload

Inaneraofunprecedentedhumanmobility,migrationfromandwithintheAsia-Pacificregionhasassumedgendereddimensions,withimplicationsformigrationflows, trends and patterns. While gender roles,inequalities and relations affect who migrates, italso has significant implications forwomenmigrantworkersthemselves.

In ‘Women’s Labour Migration from Asia and thePacific:OpportunitiesandChallenges’,authorBanditaSijapati explores the pros and cons of women’smigration.Thebrieflooksintohowopportunitiescanbeprovidedtoimprovethelivesofwomenmigrantsandthatoftheirfamilies.Thisissuealsodescribeshowwomen migrants are exposed to different types ofrisks,vulnerabilitiesanddiscrimination.

ThisissueinbriefisthetwelfthintheseriesofpolicypapersbytheMigrationPolicyInstitute(MPI)andtheInternational Organization for Migration’s RegionalOffice for Asia and the Pacific that offer succinctinsightsonmigrationissuesaffectingtheAsia-Pacificregiontoday.Toreadearlierbriefsintheseries,visit:IOMOnlineBookstoreorMigrationPolicyInstitute.

In African waters. The trafficking of Cambodian fishers in South Africa, 20142015/196pagesEnglishAvailableforPDFdownload

This NEXUS Institute-authored study explores anddiscusses the experiences of Cambodian men whomigrated forwork in the fishing industry through alegally registered recruitment agency in Cambodiaand then ended up trafficked and exploited onfishing vessels off the coastline of South Africa.While estimateson thenumberofCambodianmentrafficked as fishers by this recruitment agencydiffer,what is clear is thathundredsofCambodianswereexploited in thisway. This studydiscusses thetrafficking of Cambodian men for fishing out ofSouth Africa and/or in South African waters – howthe men were recruited and transported, as wellas their trafficking experiences at sea. The studyalsodiscusseshow these traffickedfisherswere (or,more commonly, were not) identified as traffickingvictims inSouthAfricaandwhatassistancetheydid(ordidnot)receivewhentheyescapedandreturnedhome to Cambodia and sought to (re)integrate intotheir families and communities. The study, basedontheexperiencesof31Cambodianmentraffickedfor fishing to SouthAfricabetween2010and2013,is drawn from in-depth interviews with traffickedfishers and case files, aswell as interviewswith 42key informants in Cambodia and South Africa. ThispaperispartoftheNEXUSInstituteandIOMHumanTraffickingResearchSeries, fundedwiththesupportof theUSDepartment of State, under the terms ofGrantNoS-GTIP-09-GR-0070.

33Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

Migration, Environment and Climate Change: Policy Brief Series Issue 2 | Vol. 1 | March 20152015/9pagesEnglishISSN2410-4930AvailableforPDFdownload

The Migration, Environment and Climate Change:Policy Brief Series aims to contribute to the globalknowledge base on the relationship betweenmigration and environmental change, includingclimate change, and the formulation of relatedpolicy options. The series is produced as part ofthe Migration, Environment and Climate Change:Evidence for Policy (MECLEP) project fundedby theEuropean Union, implemented by IOM through aconsortiumwithsixresearchpartners.

Remittancessenttolow-incomecountrieshavebeennoticeablyincreasing,andforthehouseholdsofthesecountries, remittancesoftenrepresentan importantsource of income. During and after disasters,remittances may become even more important todealwithemergencyandrecoveryneeds.

DrawingonaresearchprojectbasedinSamoaandNewZealand, this Brief provides potential policy optionsto integrate remittanceswithin current disaster riskmanagementpractices.ThisBriefidentifiestheneedtotakeintoaccountremittanceflowswhendesigningandimplementingpost-disasterinterventionsaswellas some policy measures adopted during disastersthatoccurred in Samoaand inother countries, andwhich could be replicated in other comparablesettings.ThisBriefcallsforabetterunderstandingoftheroleandimpactsofremittancesforbothreceiversandsenders,andalsocalls forgreater collaborationbetweengovernments,aidagenciesand theprivatesector.

Labour Mobility as a Factor of Development in South-East Europe: Regional Overview2015/112pages/EnglishISBN978-92-9068-704-7AvailableforPDFdownload

Cross-border labour mobility can contribute to theimprovedmatchingofskillsandjobs,transferofknowledgeand technology, increased economic productivity andemployment creation. While the current economicsituationandlimitedemploymentopportunitiesinSouth-EastEuropeposeconsiderablechallengesforthecreationofacommonlabourmarket,puttinginplacesomeofthepreconditionsforenablingmobilitywillmaketheregion’ssmall economies more attractive to larger domestic andforeign investors,whileat thesametimepreparingthemforfutureEUmembership.

TheRegionalOverviewreport“LabourMobilityasaFactorofDevelopmentinSouth-EastEurope”isaresultofajointcooperationeffortbetweentheInternationalOrganizationforMigration(IOM)andtheRegionalCooperationCouncil(RCC). Prepared in support of the implementationof theSouth-East Europe 2020 Strategy, the report featuresa socioeconomic overview of current labour mobilitytrendsintheregionwrittenbyanexpertteamundertheRCC’s coordination. The report’s Part II, prepared underguidance of IOM with the financial support of the IOMDevelopment Fund, reviews legislative arrangementsgoverning labourmobility in South-East Europe, in termsof their comparability and compliancewith internationalandEU legal instruments. The reporthasbenefited fromcomments and views of ministries in charge of labourand employment, members of the RCC Working Groupon Social Agenda 2020; ministries of interior, migrationandothervariousstakeholderswhotookpart innationalconsultationsconductedinAutumnof2014.

TheRCCandIOMhopethattheRegionalOverviewwillbeused by the governments in the region as they continueenhancing coordination on labour mobility regulationas a pathway towards economic growth, prosperity andsustainabledevelopment.Itisexpectedthatthereportwillbroadentheunderstandingofcurrentfeaturesandsystemsof labourmobility in the region, hence promoting policyactions that can lead to increasedworkers’mobilitywiththeultimategoalofenhancingwell-beingandprosperityforall.

34 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

Traffickers and trafficking. Challenges in researching human traffickers and trafficking operations, 20142014/76pagesEnglishAvailableforPDFdownload

While much research and literature exists abouttraffickingvictims,farlessisknownaboutthepersonsresponsiblefortheirexploitation.Aclearerpictureofhow traffickers operate is vital in efforts to preventand combat the crime of human trafficking andcan be used in the development of criminal justiceand socialwelfare responses tohuman trafficking –informing policies, strategies and interventions. Todate,much of what is known about trafficking andtraffickers is drawn from information provided bytraffickingvictims.Becausetraffickedpersonsarekeywitnesses to events in the traffickingprocess, thereare substantial strengths to victim-derived data. Atthesametime,therearesomesignificantlimitationstothistypeofinformation.Thispaperdiscussessomeofthefaultlinesinvolvedinunderstandingtraffickersandtraffickingoperationsthroughthelensoftraffickedpersons and their individual trafficking experiences.These limitations make clear that an improvedunderstandingoftraffickersandtraffickingoperationsrequires looking beyond victim-derived datasets toother information sources, including research withtraffickers themselves. This paper concludes with adiscussion on recent research efforts on traffickersand trafficking,which signal potentialways forwardofimprovingresearchonthissignificanthumanrightsissueandcrime.These include inparticulardrawingon criminal justice data sets as well as engagingdirectlywithpersons involved in trafficking,eachofwhichaffords important insight intovariousaspectsof the “other side” of human trafficking. Thesestudiesalsomakeclearthatsuchresearchisnotonlypossiblebutalsoessentialtoathoroughandholisticunderstandingoftrafficking.

Glossary on Migration (Georgian)2015/106pagesEnglishISSN1813-2278AvailableforPDFdownload

ForthepurposeoffamiliarizingGeorgianofficialsandthe general public with the terminology commonlyused worldwide in the sphere of migration, theSecretariat of the State Commission on MigrationIssues of Georgia translated IOM’s Glossary onMigrationintoGeorgian.

Since its publication in 2004, IOM’s Glossary onMigration has been recognized as an indispensableresource for practitioners, government migrationofficials,membersofacademiaandothers.

This publication has now been translated into 18languagesandiswidelyusedallovertheworld.

35Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

MPP Readers’ Survey

Migration Policy Practice (MPP) waslaunchedthreeyearsagoandtheeditorswouldnowliketoinvitereaderstospareacoupleofminutestoparticipateinashortreaders’satisfactionsurvey.

Thepurposeofthissurvey,whichcanbetakenanonymously,istohelpusidentifyourreaders’profiles,theinstitutionstheyrepresentandtheirprimaryinterestsinourjournal.Thesurvey’sresponseswillcontribute,inparticular,toadjustingandimproving,asappropriate,MPP’scontentandstyle,andthusthereader’sexperience.

Shouldyouwishtoparticipateinthissurvey,pleaseclick here.

Thankyou.

International Migration, Vol. 53(2) 2015ONLINEONLY2015/408pagesEnglishElectronicversiononlyavailablefromWiley-Science

InternationalMigration isa refereedbimonthly reviewof the InternationalOrganizationforMigration(IOM)oncurrentmigrationissuesasanalysedbydemographers,economists,andsociologistsallovertheworld.ThejournaliseditedatGeorgetownUniversity’s InstitutefortheStudyofInternationalMigration(ISIM)andpublishedanddistributedbyWiley.TheeditorsatISIMareresponsibleforthedirectionandcontentofthejournal.

36 Vol. V, Number 1, February 2015–March 2015MIGRATION POLICY PRACTICE

Call for authors/Submission guidelines

SinceitslaunchinOctober2011,Migration Policy Practice haspublishedover110articlesbyseniorpolicymakersanddistinguishedmigrationpolicyexpertsfromallovertheworld.

Past authors have included, inter alia:

Eric Adja, Director General of the International Migrants Remittances Observatory (IMRO) andSpecial Adviser to the President of Benin; John K. Bingham, Global Coordinator of civil societyactivities intheUnitedNationsHigh-levelDialogueonInternationalMigrationandDevelopmentandtheGlobalForumonMigrationandDevelopment;Ambassador Eva Åkerman Börje,ChairoftheGFMD2013-2014;Mark Cully,ChiefEconomistattheAustralianDepartmentofImmigrationandBorderProtection;António Guterres,UnitedNationsHighCommissionerforRefugees;Khalid Koser,ChairoftheWorldEconomicForumGlobalAgendaCouncilonMigration;Khalid Malik,DirectoroftheHumanDevelopmentReportOffice,UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP);Cecilia Mamlström,EUCommissioner forHomeAffairs;Ali Mansoor,Chairof theGFMD2012;Andrew Middleton,DirectorofCulture,RecreationandMigrantStatistics,AustralianBureauofStatistics;Najat Maalla M’Jid,UnitedNationsSpecialRapporteuronthesaleofchildren,childprostitutionandchildpornography;Robert A. Mocny,DirectorofUS-VISIT,USDepartmentofHomelandSecurity;Imelda M. Nicolas,SecretaryoftheCommissiononFilipinosOverseas(CFO),OfficeofthePresidentof the Philippines; Ignacio Packer, Secretary General of the Terre des Hommes InternationalFederation; Kelly Ryan (CoordinatoroftheIntergovernmentalConsultationsonMigration,AsylumandRefugees–IGC,Geneva);Martin Schulz,PresidentoftheEuropeanParliament;David Smith,DirectorofSurveysandReporting,AustralianDepartmentofImmigrationandBorderProtection;Sir Peter D. Sutherland,SpecialRepresentativeoftheUNSecretary-GeneralforMigration; Ambassador William Lacy Swing,DirectorGeneraloftheInternationalOrganizationforMigration(IOM);Myria Vassiliadou, EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator, European Commission; Catherine Wiesner, DeputyAssistantSecretaryofState,BureauofPopulation,RefugeesandMigration,USDepartmentofState.

Migration Policy Practice welcomes submissions from policymakers worldwide. As a general rule, articles should:

•Notexceedfivepagesandbewritteninanon-academicandreader-friendlystyle.

•Coveranyareaofmigrationpolicybutdiscuss,asfaraspossible,particularsolutions,policyoptionsorbestpracticerelatingtothethemescovered.

•Provide, as often as applicable, lessons that can be replicated or adapted by relevant publicadministrations,orcivilsociety,inothercountries.

Articlesgivingaccountofevaluationsofspecificmigrationpoliciesandinterventions,includingbothevaluationfindingsandinnovativeevaluationmethodologies,areparticularlywelcome.

To discuss any aspect of the journal, or to submit an article, please contact:

• Solon Ardittis(sardittis@eurasylum.org);and

• Dr Frank Laczko(flaczko@iom.int)