Global Forum concludes in Athens: What lessons?

The third Global Forum on Migration and Development came to an end with the conclusion of the inter-governmental session on 5th November in Athens, Greece. So what lessons can activists draw from the tenor of the debate?

The Forum had attracted around 500 representatives of 130 national governments and a further 200 participants from civil society organisations from across the globe. It structure involved separate sessions for both of these groups, with civil society meeting on the first two of the week in the resort suburb of Voulliagmeni, and the government representatives in central Athens on the following two.

The Global Forum received its mandate from a high level consultation between member states of the United Nations which took place in 2006. Considering a report prepared by the Global Commission on Migration and Development at the request of the then secretary-general, Kofi Annan, the high level consultation had endorsed the proposal that a Forum be established to consider the issues raised on a non-binding basis.

Following discussion sessions in Brussels in 2007, and Manila in 2008, the Forum had sketched out the general shape of the migration and development policy agenda and had achieved some sense of who could be usefully involved in developing it further.

Advised by leading experts from the worlds of economics and development, a consensus was established around the possibility of migration and development policies being organised on a complementary basis. This would maximise the potential of human movement across frontiers for the gains in human capital and the promotion of welfare. But the mix of politics this might involve, and the impact on issues as states’ sovereignty over their borders and on migrants’ rights, remained unresolved.

The organisers of the Athens GFMD attempted to move discussions beyond set-piece assertions of fundamental principles to a more concrete consideration of the sort of issues which would be involved in the better planning and organisation of migration. Four roundtable themes where identified which it was hoped would allow engagement with critical issues. These were: mainstreaming migration in development planning; migrant integration, reintegration and circulation for development; policy and institutional coherence; and, building alliances and engaging key actors.

Though not explicitly stated, the dual structure of the Forum, with civil society networks preceding national governments, also reflected the widely held view that the official representatives of states would not lead discussion in this area. Most operate with policy agendas rooted in very narrow approaches to policing and security matters. Original thinking would have to come from groups and networks not closely tied to governmental interests which could draw on a wider evidence base for their approach. The danger with the dual approach is that viewpoints become polarised and institutionalised in the separate structures of the two parts of the Forum. The challenge at Athens was to see if a more meaningful dialogue could develop between groups. Amongst the various participants in the discussion two approaches were adopted to try and get beyond the polarisation of perspectives. One of these was pursued by groups supporting the initiatives of the Global Peoples’ Alliance on Migration and Development (PGA), and network of migrants’ rights groups coordinated by the Migrants Rights International. The PGA has organised at the GFMD since Brussels in 2007. It holds a parallel event to the official sessions of the Forum, consisting of days of plenary discussion, workshops and lobbying which primarily involve migrant groups, but which are open to all members of the public, as well as people attending the civil society and intergovernmental events. Its aim is to strengthen the coherence of the migrants’ voice and to bring a human rights perspective to the migration and development agenda. The second approach concerned advocacy around the findings of leading research institutes. The organisers of the Athens GFMD facilitated this work by structuring discussion around a series of position papers which draw on state of art research.

At times some of the discussion during the civil society roundtables suggested tension between migrant networks and the, usually, university-based research community. The migrant groups preferred to draw on intuition drawn from direct experience and to push forward an agenda which had empowerment as an explicit goal. The researchers were more inclined to view large areas of the migration-development nexus as open questions which couldn’t be answered without a great deal more resources being made available for research.

These differences aside, there was a sense that progress was made in Athens that hadn’t been present at the conclusion of the Brussels and Manila GFMDs. Some of this could be due to the fact that the governmental side of the discussion no longer appears as quite the monolithic power bloc in favour of national state interests as it once did. As we move into the second decade of the 21st century we are seeing the emergence of migratory systems, such as those between the states of south Asia, Pacific Asia, and Mexico-US, where some key players are conscious of their position not just as sending countries, but as destinations for hundreds of thousands of migrants as well.

The fourth GFMD will be held in Puerto Vallerta, Mexico, at the end of October 2010. An indication of what might be achieved during those discussions was given when the Mexican ambassador to the GFMD, Snr Gomez Robledo came across to the venue of the PGA parallel event to address representatives of the migrant rights organisations. He said the Mexican government saw the GFMD as an opportunity to address and overcome the contradiction in its immigration policies in recent decades, which had, on one hand, advocated on behalf of the human rights of its citizens who had migrated to north America, and its often heavy-handed approach to citizens of other states, mainly from central America, who had migrated to its territory. This represents the challenge that will lie before people attending the GFMD in Puerta Vallerta in October next year. Can the migrants’ rights agenda be articulated in a way that is relevant to Mexico, and other national governments? Can we anticipate that some countries at least will be less inclined to accept the leadership of the developed nations in the global north in setting down the rules for the movement? If it is the case that a bloc of influential countries will emerge in the coming years which is prepared to look at these issues in new ways, then we might see how to build new forms of institutional support. In turn this could help to develop credible, progressive approaches to the management of migration in the future.

MRN director Don Flynn was a member of the International Advisory Committee which advised the Alexander S. Onassis Public Interest Foundation on the organisation of the Civil Society Days (CSD) at the Athens GFMD. He attended both the CSD and also the sessions of the Peoples’ Global Alliance parallel event as a representative of MRN.