IRRI-KIIB expert seminar:
“The Global Governance of the international Migration: A Belgian Perspective”
Brussels, Egmont Palace, 12 June 2006

Panel II

Successes and Failures of the current global architecture, and prospects for New Solutions.

Dr. Rolf Kurt Jenny
Former Executive Director of the Global Commission on International Migration

I have been asked to speak to you about ‘Successes and Failures of the Current Global Architecture, and Prospects for New Solutions’, not an easy task I must say, but I will try to do my best.  But first a word about governance and how this term may be understood.  The 1995 report of the Commission on Global Governance defined governance as ‘the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action taken’.  I consider this to be an appropriate definition and one that can also be applied to how States, civil society actors and international institutions can or should address the issue of international migration, at the national level first, but also at the regional and global levels. 

How can we relate this concept to the global multilateral architecture in the field of international migration?

I cannot discuss the multilateral architecture without first taking a few steps back. International institutions exist because States establish such organisations when certain issues warrant would I could call a more collective form of governance, and when States decide that such issues would best be addressed and managed through a multilateral setting.  To a greater or lesser extent this may also involve the need for States to delegate a part of their national sovereignty to such bodies. There are major differences, however, in the way the various international bodies operate.  Intergovernmental organisations would normally be considered as bodies that provide services to States, be this in the form of operational activities, of offering fora for multilateral dialogue and negotiations, or for the development of policy ideas. The other form of multilateralism is where States would entrust international bodies with a ‘supranational’ mandate.  An example of the latter approach is the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees which was established as a body entrusted with the legal protection refugees.  What is important, however, is that States, through the respective governing bodies, retain ultimate authority over all the multilateral institutions they have established.

When we talk of possible failures in the global multilateral architecture, and as States are the effective owners of international institutions, we therefore cannot just look to the organisations, but must also consider how States govern these bodies.  A lack of coherence at the State level tends to cascade upwards and can affect the way international agencies operate.  Coherence begins at home, and if States cannot define clear and co-ordinated objectives for national migration policies, it is not surprising that overlaps, contradictions or under-performances also occur at the multilateral institutional level.  In short, States ultimately determine the policies and activities of the multilateral system, and failures by the governing bodies of international institutions –which are the States- can also become failures by the international institutions themselves.  I should add that a clear distinction must be made between governance by institutions -including the activities they implement at the request of or in co-operation with States-, and governance exercised directly by States at the national, regional or global levels. 

But let me here add a few comments on migration governance in the context of recent global and other initiatives.  In the course of the last 10 years, we have witnessed major developments, the first of which certainly is the Cairo 1994 International Conference on Population and International Development (ICPD) which adopted an action programme on international migration. This action programme represented an essential step forward for the international community to begin analysing this complex issue in more depth, more globally and also through the perspective of developing and developed countries.  A series of events and global initiatives have developed since Cairo. 

There were two follow-up reviews of the Cairo conference action programme in 1999 and 2004. The Berne Initiative produced an important agenda for migration management, assisted by IOM, in 2004.  The United Nations, in 2003, prepared an internal report on the relevance of migration in the UN context.  The Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) was created by States and the Secretary-General at the end of 2003 and produced its report and recommendations in October 2005. A follow-up Ad-hoc Group of States was established in Geneva in early 2006 to discuss the GCIM report and its recommendations, and now the UN General Assembly will for the first time hold a High Level Dialogue on International migration and Development next September in New York.  I think this is a clear illustration of how States and other actors have taken forward the migration debate at the national, regional and global levels.

Many other initiatives occurred in parallel, or in one way or the other resulted from the Cairo Conference. IOM has assumed an increasingly important role in migration policy development, including through the Migration Policy Dialogue in its governing council. The ILO has adopted a non-binding framework for decent work for all, including migrant workers, and many other organisations have become involved in issues that relate to the socio-economic, human rights, security and development aspects of migration.  In addition, numerous regional consultative processes among States have contributed to better migration governance in certain regions.

Why have States shown an increased interest in migration?

First, most if not all States have become aware that international migration is rising, that it has a major impact on societies, economic growth and development, that it will continue, and that it therefore needs to be addressed through better policies, enhanced co-operation at all levels and more capacity.  As a result, migration has risen to the top of many national and regional policy agendas.

Second, migration does not only take place within regions, but is cross-continental and global village.

Third, the international community has not risen to the many opportunities and challenges migration presents, and many governments and other actors have become aware that more needs to be done to maximise the positive aspects and minimize the negative consequences of migration. 

Fourth, as I have mentioned the Cairo conference, I venture to say that in 1994 many people did not really know very much about international migration and the way it impacts on other issues. Today, this is different and there certainly exists much greater awareness of the multidimensional aspects and complex implications of international migration.  There is more expertise in government circles, and there are good policies, practices, migration management structures and legislation in place in many countries.

Fifth, most governments today recognises that one cannot manage migration at the national level alone.  Migration is a trans-national phenomenon.  Governments need to see how neighbouring States address the issue, what happens within regions and how migration occurs across regions.

Many positive developments have therefore taken place in moving forward with the debate and with more concerted action on migration, and I would be remiss in not relating this also to the steady efforts made by specialised organisations that have supported governments by means of training, capacity building and support to inter-State dialogue.  There is today a converging interest of institutions and governments to move forward with this debate in order to develop more effective migration policy and action at all levels.

But let me briefly revert to issue of the current multilateral structure and certain initiatives that have recently been taken in this context.

A few weeks ago, there was a first meeting of what is called the Global Migration Group, an inter-agency group that now comprises ten international institutions.  In its final report, the Global Commission had proposed to the Secretary-General the creation of an inter-agency mechanism, which we named ‘Global Migration Facility’, in order to achieve more effective inter-agency cooperation and coordination, better pooling of institutional expertise and more inter-agency policy consistence.  We suggested, perhaps with too much ambition, a number of functions for this inter-agency mechanism, and also proposed that it should have a secretariat to give some robustness to the venture. The proposed functions were:

-Joint policy planning in areas that cross and concern the mandates of several institutions
-A more co-ordinated approach to comprehensive capacity building
-Concerted attention to the issue of migration and development
-An increased and co-ordinated effort in timely and accurate data collection and exchange
-Greater co-ordination in the areas of policy analysis, evaluation and research
-Produce an annual inter-agency report on the most salient issues addressed by the group.

The Commission was most pleased with the way the Secretary-General followed up on its inter-agency proposal, which has now resulted in the creation of the Global Migration Group.  We are also aware, however, that the concerned agencies did not retain many of the specific recommendations of the Commission, preferred to keep the new Group in a relatively loose format, did not agree on a joint secretariat and also decided not to include all the inter-agency functions the Commission had proposed. 

In addition to this short-term co-ordination proposal, the Commission also proposed two longer-term institutional reform options, one of which was to transform an existing institution into the global lead agency to deal with the multidimensional and complex socio-economic aspects of international migration. The Commission suggested that IOM would be ideally placed to assume such a role and argued that under this scenario it would also seem logical for IOM to become part of the United Nations system.  The other longer-term option analysed by the Commission was that of merging UNHCR and IOM, a scenario under which both forced and economic migration issues would be integrated in one global body.  There is no time for me today to develop these longer-terms ideas further, but I can say that the lead migration agency option involving IOM would have my personal preference.

Before I conclude, let me make a brief comment on the recent report of the Secretary General on the forthcoming High Level Dialogue.  Among the many other issues raised in the report there is one point the Secretary-General stresses in particular, namely that the time may have come to capitalise on the breadth of government and other migration expertise and to put the national and regional puzzles of such expertise together.  Along these lines, and as a follow-up to the September High Level Dialogue, the Secretary-General proposes the creation of an informal, non-binding and government-led ‘global consultative process’ open to all member States of the United Nations. 

A number of questions will certainly be raised in this context. Will States agree to have a High Level Dialogue follow-up? Is there any value added for such a global inter-State forum for dialogue and co-operation? Are there existing fora that could assume that role?  Could the regional consultative processes serve as building blocks for a global forum?  All this is open and we shall see whether States are prepared to take the idea further.

To conclude my remarks, and based on what I have said earlier, the governance of migration at both the institutional and State levels is a complex issue, probably as complex as the migration phenomenon itself. 

If there are policy and other failures at the institutional level, it is up to the States that govern these bodies to take corrective action when appropriate. And if there are institutional overlaps and concrete difficulties in the way relevant organisations co-ordinate and co-operate with each other, this is probably also so because the formal mandates of all these organisations were written by States at a time when the complexities of the issue were less visible and when different and un-coordinated government priorities prevailed in the creation of the various international bodies.  This lack of government coherence may still be the principal factor for occasional failures in the institutional context.  This said, I believe that all agencies are aware of this and seek to perform all their activities and services in the best possible and most effective manner. Agencies together with their government bodies will put their act together, and I do believe that the new Global Migration Group will make a major difference in creating more clarity on the role and mandate of each institution, not only in operational terms but also in conceptual and policy terms.   Agencies should ask themselves where their added value is in specific situations, where they can contribute best and where their expertise can most usefully contribute to address and resolve those migration issues and challenges that cut across the current institutional system.

Finally, I believe we all feel encouraged by the way the debate and action in the field of international migration is evolving, and that significant progress has been made over the last ten to fifteen years in this regard.  I also hope that the High Level Dialogue will produce positive and tangible outcomes and will reaffirm the paramount importance of migration and development today.  This debate will also continue in other fora and through other initiatives, be these national, regional or global.  The challenges and opportunities of migration need to be governed in the most effective manner and warrant sustained and ongoing attention by all.  

Thank you.