It is a distinct honor and privilege to be invited to speak to all of you today on an issue of utmost importance to all of us.  I wish to thank Ambassador Inigo Lambertini and the Permanent Mission of Italy as the chair of the HLWG I for organizing this briefing. 

Global Phenomenon

The drivers of forced migration are many, including unprecedented disasters and political malaise. IOM has long held the view that large-scale migration is, and will remain, a “mega-trend” of this century. As migrant and refugee flows reach unprecedented levels – affecting countries’ capacity to cope – migrants’ vulnerability and their humanitarian and protection needs also increase significantly.   The fate of these persons is of direct and great concern to us all – otherwise, we would not be here today. Migration is not a problem to be solved, but a human reality to be managed.

This afternoon, I would like to focus my remarks on 3 key areas:

1. Challenges and an overview of the situation
2. Some of the key policy considerations
3. Highlights of the operational response

I. Challenges and an overview of the situation

Migrants from various countries of origin including Central Asia, Middle East, and Northern and Eastern Africa have been increasingly trying to access EU countries through the Western Balkan migration route.  While migration flows across the Mediterranean are not new, what is new is that we are at a critical juncture.

II. “A Perfect Storm”

At present, there are uninterrupted conflicts from the Western bulge of Africa to the Bay of Bengal. Moreover, apart from the Syrian talks, there are no active negotiations that offer any prospect of a short to medium solution to any of these. Hovering over this unpromising scenario is growing anti-migrant sentiment and policies that are leading to border closings, tightening of visa regimes and other restrictions that have the effect of delaying real solutions and pushing more migrants into the hands of criminal smugglers and deaths along the migratory routes.

In 2015, more than one million (1,011,712) people arrived to Europe looking for safety; at least 3,771 men, women, and children have lost their lives attempting to cross the Mediterranean. In these first two months of 2016 alone – in the midst of winter –120,000 irregular and forced migrants arrived in Europe – a number which is 10x greater than in the same time period in 2015 (11,834).  These are from Syria primarily, but also from Afghanistan, Iraq and other troubled areas.  Over 400 lives have been lost so far this year (similar to 428 this time last year).

The mass flow along the Western Balkan route reached a plateau in the last quarter of 2015 with an average of 5,000 persons transiting per day, after which weather conditions in cold winter months led to reduced mobility and flow.  

As of 18 November, restrictions have been applied by the countries along the Western Balkans route, which restricted access to their territories to allow only the entry of nationals from war-torn countries, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. All persons that possess documents issued by Greek authorities identifying them as nationals of one of the three aforementioned countries are allowed to enter the country and express intention to seek asylum.  

As of 19th February however, such restrictions have been extended also to Afghans nationals, who are now stranded along with migrants of all other nationalities. IOM disapproves the restriction of movement per nationality on the one hand, European countries are all signatories of the 1951 Convention and are all under the obligation pursuant to International Law to provide protection to refugees and to respect the principle of non-refoulement, on the other hand, these restrictions have created an increased demand for services of smuggling networks.  

In addition to this restriction, an additional limitation was introduced on 20 January 2016 whereby only refugees stating either Germany or Austria as their final destination in the transit papers issued by the Serbian authorities are allowed to continue their journey to/through the EU.

The response of European states has been fragmented and contradictory. Decisions related to migration flows introduced by some of the countries such as the closure of the green borders for mass arrivals in Hungary followed by similar temporary border closures of several EU and non-EU countries and temporary introduction of border checks in Schengen area, as well as the decision to limit the right to entry to migrants belonging to specific nationalities have considerably affected the routes, structure and modalities of the mass flow.

The mass flow currently transiting the Western Balkans route is comprised of vulnerable migrants, including forced migrants, victims of trafficking, stateless and undocumented persons, and unaccompanied and separated migrant children (UAMC), the elderly as well as sick and injured migrants.

The analysis of the most recent flow shows that there is a continuous increase in the number of women, UAMCs and single headed households in the mass flow and these categories are more prone to possible abuse and exploitation. Among the risk categories vulnerable to abuse, UAMC are the most exposed.

If one asks what the forecast for 2016 is, the answer is another question: “Have the root causes changed that led to record numbers of refugees and migrants to Europe?” And, the answer is clearly “no”.  Arrivals to Europe will continue, as long as the root causes that led to record numbers of refugees and migrants who fled last year hoping to find safety and security have not changed. 

III. Key Policy Considerations

In light of these challenges, let me highlight some key messages as well as inform on some of our operational responses:

• We believe that these movements are manageable for Europe; solidarity and coherency are imperative, however, to manage the disproportionally high migratory pressures currently being borne by only a few states.  This is a crisis of policy, rather than a crisis of people. Considering its size and the resources available, flows should be manageable for Europe. Last year, the EU received one million migrants and refugees, slightly fewer than the number of Syrian refugees who entered Lebanon alone.

• Close coordination and cooperation amongst the governments and all concerned actors in countries of origin, transit and destination is imperative.  Disjointed piecemeal approaches do not work.  IOM welcomes the outcomes of (a) the Valletta Summit on migration; (b) the Western Balkans leader’s 17-point plan of action; and (c) the EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan whose expeditious implementation is urgent. In addition to this, some 67 agencies including IOM, launched last month the Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan for Europe: Eastern Mediterranean and Western Balkans route.  No single approach will work on its own and we call all partners to keep in mind the complexity of these movements and the acute need for a multifaceted response.

• A “crisis-mode response” is not proving to be effective and is not sustainable in the long term.  A coherent, comprehensive, long-term, coordinated response is required to ensure that migrants and refugees have access to appropriate assistance and protection. At present, the approach is primarily short-term and focused on security considerations.  The emergency measures of today are a priority, but are only one part of the much larger response that is needed.

• There is a need to improve legal channels of migration in order to offer credible and effective alternatives to irregular migration, ranging from resettlement quotas and other forms of humanitarian admission, to work and study visas.   We need migration policies that will lead to what I describe as a “High Road” scenario which will: 1) address the drivers of migration to reduce forced and irregular migration; 2) facilitate safe, orderly, and regular mobility and 3) respect the human rights of all migrants, whether regular or irregular.  
   
• A security-oriented approach does not lead to a decrease in the number of arrivals but to a fragmentation and re-routing of the flows (e.g., so called Nordic Route). Increased border controls alone will fall short of stopping irregular migration.
   
  • Exclusive reliance on border controls, walls, fences and other “closed door” policies and restrictive measures such as tightened visa regimes and criminalizing irregular migrants will not lead to the expected results some would have you believe.  
     
  • Excessive border control measures run the risk of hindering a migrant’s legitimate access to asylum and are only putting individuals at larger risk by increasing the role and leverage of smugglers.
     
  • Let me be clear – I believe that states do have the sovereign right to protect their borders and ensure orderly cross-border migration. However, we must recognize that populist responses that seek to restrict migration are counter-productive and serve only to assist people-smugglers and international criminal networks.
     
  • Furthermore, restrictive measures must not come at the expense of saving lives or present unnecessary hardships or risks for already vulnerable populations legitimately seeking protection. 
     
• Nuanced differentiations should be made concerning mixed migration flows: It is too simplistic to put all who are not refugees and failed asylum seekers into a single, broad category of “economic migrants” especially if, in so doing – intentionally or otherwise – the idea is to simply send them all home. 
   
  • These mixed flows are composed of a wide range of vulnerable migrants; these also include, e.g., migrant workers, trafficked persons, climate migrants, pregnant women, the sick and elderly, many unaccompanied minors, and persons seeking to reunite with their families. 
     
  • The contemporary “drivers” or “root causes” of forced migration are complex and multi-causal. The blurring lines between voluntary and forced migration, between “refugees” and “economic migrants”; the expansion of irregular migration in recent times has exposed a range of protection and assistance “gaps” that existing frameworks do not cover.
     
• IOM opposes the restriction of movements based on nationality along the Western Balkan route (only Syrians, Iraqis and Afghanis are allowed to cross). This goes against the founding principles of European States and their commitments under international law. Such a policy also leads to an increase of smuggling activities as migrants remain stranded along the route. 

• We must replace the current toxic discourse with an evidence-based discourse on migration. At present, public discourse on migration in Europe is toxic, especially after the attacks in Paris and the recent incident in Cologne.  Historically, migration has been overwhelmingly positive. Many countries were built on the backs and with the brains of migrants.
   
  • As public officials and as thought leaders, we need to use our power of public pronouncement to accurately articulate the positive contribution of migrants to our communities. 
     
  • We need to step up efforts to counter the racist and xenophobic rhetoric that vilifies migrants and refugees, while at the same time promoting a balanced, fact-based discourse on migration. The support of governments, media and social media, religious leaders and civil society in general on this is crucial.
     
  • In this regard, many countries are facing major challenges in migrant integration. What we all need to understand is that integration will only be possible by promoting tolerant societies that value diversity and recognize what migrants bring.
     
  • This is not to dismiss community concerns and apprehensions out of hand. We must be prepared to listen to those who are genuinely worried about social change and social diversity. We need to find thoughtful ways of explaining that
    diversity is a source of strength for the future, not of weakness.
     
  • Media support is critical in this endeavor.  Integration is clearly the main key to successful migration. It is a very legitimate topic of interest when large numbers of newcomers come into contact with the host community. The focus has been too much on a clash of identities or cultures. These concerns can be overcome if the focus is shifted to the development of shared values and common interests.

IV. Operational Response

Finally, let me provide you with some operational updates:

• In October 2015 IOM updated its first response plan (released in July 2015) for the Mediterranean and beyond as a long term strategy to address mixed flows.  To address complex migration flows in the Mediterranean, IOM proposes a four-pronged Plan spanning countries of origin, transit and destination, which includes interventions to:

1. Protect migrants’ rights – to reduce loss of life and human suffering during and as a result of migrant, and protect the human rights of all migrants.
2. Address drivers of irregular and forced migration – to reduce negative factors contributing to irregular and forced migration and enable a true choice between migrating safely and finding local alternatives.
3. Promote safe, orderly, and dignified human mobility – to create the conditions for migration to take place in safe, orderly, and dignified ways.
4. Strengthen partnerships for inclusive growth and sustainable development – to create the structural conditions and make systemic changes to enable positive outcomes of migration for all involved.

• The operations of IOM, UNHCR and other UN agencies, NGOs and the Government have scaled-up considerably since mid-2015, when daily arrival rates increased dramatically from some 200 in March to some 5,000 in November 2015. Partners are working together to improve services and interventions and attain minimum protection and humanitarian standards in reception and assistance sites. Activities are designed to reflect an age, gender and diversity approach, with feedback sought from refugees and migrants in order to adapt services to their needs. Coordination mechanisms are in place at the national and local level involving all partners including the Government, civil society, IOM, UN agencies, and NGOs.  I previously mentioned the Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan for Europe: Eastern Mediterranean and Western Balkans route. This plan, developed in coordination with UNHCR, is a framework for an inter-agency response to be undertaken at the country level in Turkey, Greece, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia for a 1 year period. The RMRP is complementary to the IOM Response Plan for the Mediterranean and beyond and plans of other agencies/organizations.  This inter-agency plan of $500m (IOM’s portion is $135m) represents the best opportunity we have at providing better protection for migrants and refugees over the next year, and to alleviate the suffering of hundreds of thousands.

Migration will inevitably be a fundamental feature of our time. We need therefore to work together to ensure that migration benefits everyone: countries of origin, transit and destination and, of course, the migrants themselves. Large-scale migration is less an issue to be resolved than a human reality to be managed. To manage these flows, several adjustments are required. We need to overcome this “refugee amnesia” and the systemic paralysis and the crisis of EU unity. There can be a “silver lining” to these dark clouds: that EU Member States will finally agree on a common, comprehensive, long-term migration and asylum policy; that EU-Turkish relations will emerge strengthened; and that all or most of the 28 EU MS will become formal refugee resettlement countries with respectable annual refugee resettlement quotas.

I look forward to discussing this further with all of you.