Distinguished Participants,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is an honour to be invited to deliver the keynote address at
this distinguished forum. I wish to thank the organizers for giving
me this opportunity.

Metropolis conferences have become a must for international
migration researchers and practitioners. They have a reputation for
picking annual themes that have topical resonance, that capture the
issues of the moment.

This year is no exception.

Introduction

We are living through times of economic, social and political
turbulence.

As the search goes on for causes, explanations, and possible
solutions, some are inclined to attribute, all too hastily, at
least part of this societal malaise to mounting international
migration and the changing composition of the nation state.

"margin: 5px; padding: 5px; float: right; vertical-align: top; width: 50%; background-color: rgb(232, 232, 232);">

A recent Economist editorial noted that things looked promising
at the end of the cold war: "Liberalisation of travel, the
West’s economic boom of the 2000s and rapid growth of
emerging markets—all of these contributed to a new surge of
migration".

But it went on to point out that the onset of the economic
crisis reignited fears that immigration might be a drain on public
services and damage the job prospects of the native population.

Even in traditional migrant countries that have, in the past,
taken pride in being a "migrant society" or a "nation of migrants
there are some who are no longer sure that they want to welcome
those arriving at their borders today.

There is, manifestly, widespread anti-migrant sentiment in many
parts of the world. Anti-foreigner attitudes that seemed to be on
the way to extinction are now re-appearing in the form of harmful
stereotypes, discrimination and even xenophobia.

The overwhelmingly positive contributions to our societies and
economies by the overwhelming majority of migrants are thus,
unfortunately often overshadowed, and risk being forgotten
altogether.

In such circumstances international exchanges on migration
policy revert all too easily to feverish argumentation on:

• whether there should or there should not be migration in the
  first place;
• whether benefits can be demonstrated to outweigh costs or
  vice-versa; and,
• whether multiculturalism has delivered the goods or not.

These issues are not without interest or significance, of
course. They have kept both academic researchers and policy makers
busy in the past and will no doubt continue to do so in future.

What is abundantly clear, however, is that we are living in a
world sustained by economic, social and cultural
inter-dependencies. And at the heart of all of them are various
processes of communication and exchange. Including human
mobility.

Looking at migration from this angle has the advantage of
reminding us that we have probably reached the point where it is no
longer reasonable or useful to look at migration simply as a
product of the interplay between push and pull factors.

We must fully come to terms with the fact that it is part and
parcel of the inter-connected world we have created. It now has a
life of its own. It is inevitable, unavoidable and for the most
part desirable. We cannot afford to lose sight of this reality in
times of economic uncertainty.

I wish to congratulate the organizers of Metropolis 2011 for
having put together a great program.

It is a superb reminder of the extent to which migration has
changed and is continuing to change the manner in which migrants
themselves - and the multiple communities they belong to - live,
work and interact with one another; in countries of origin and in
countries of destination; in urban settings or in small islands;
and taking account of both economic and social impacts.

I am particularly pleased to note that one plenary session is
dedicated to migration among "countries of the South".

Since most research resources are located in industrialized
countries, it is not surprising that the focus of research
attention has tended to fall disproportionately on migration issues
of interest to countries of destination in the North. But there are
good reasons to change this:

• There are clear indications that the global economy will be
  driven more and more by developing countries, with the largest
  growth expected in emerging economies. India and China are already
  poised to assume a much larger role in the global economy.
• Trade between Asia and the GCC countries is expected to
  increase from USD 59 billion in 2007 to between 300 and 500 billion
  in 2020.
• As yet, we do not quite know how this will affect global
  migratory movements, but some of the possibilities could be
  unsettling:
  • rapidly growing South-South flows of labour migrants creating
    the need for special purpose bilateral and multilateral systems for
    the exchange of skills;
  • ever stronger competition for the “best and
    brightest” talent around the world and potential shortages in
    industrialized countries that have until now had the pick of the
    crop;
  • and, quite possibly, potentially large return flows of members
    of migrants diasporas in developed countries.

Can we, at this particular point in time, imagine a migration
landscape so totally altered that industrialized countries struggle
to attract labour migrants (including the highly skilled) while the
BRICs become the major poles of destination?

Or is this stretching conjecture to the point of disbelief?

The point I wish to make is that while I cannot say whether this
or any alternative scenario will be played out or not, it is quite
possible that we will in future face migratory circumstances
significantly different from the ones obtaining today.

The conference agenda – through its very title - is very
much an invitation to consider how the international community
might acquire the preparedness to handle the changes to come.

I would like in response to discuss three broad policy
assignments that are highly likely to require attention, whatever
scenarios are played out in coming years:

1. The global supply and demand of skills

Over the last decade or so, international dialogue on migration
has been dominated by one topic: migration and development.

There are good reasons for encouraging these exchanges:

• the link between migration and development offers the most
  promising platform for cooperation between developing and developed
  countries;
• It is at the centre of the annual Global Forum;
• It will also provide the basis for discussion at the next High
  Level Dialogue in 2013.

At the same time we, should never lose sight that the flows of
capital at the centre of the migration and development equation are
generated not by ODA or FDI but by migrant workers. And, as yet,
the international community is far from agreeing on how best to
ensure that all these workers can move around in a humane, safe and
orderly manner.

There has been, it is true, a fair amount of progress in
relation to highly skilled migrants:

• They are valued as innovators and multipliers of
  knowledge;
• They bring a diversity of skills and viewpoints to workplaces
  that design and produce goods for the global market;
• They are esteemed for their entrepreneurial flair and ability;
  and their willingness to take risks;

They are in brief, those who belong to what Richard Florida has
called the “creative class” – the drivers of
change in contemporary society.

Given such strong demand for their services, it is not
surprising that industrialized countries compete strongly to
attract them.

A number of middle-income countries such as India, China and
Malaysia have also begun to advertise their need for highly
qualified migrant workers, including their own citizens who have
left for study or professional experience abroad. The idea of
attracting back "home-grown, but overseas-nurtured" talent is even
incorporated as a major policy objective in the 11th Chinese 5-Year
Plan.

Experimentation is continuing, but there are some large
questions that remain unanswered:

• Should migration programmes for the highly skilled place
  emphasis on temporary residence or on permanent entry? In other
  words should highly skilled migrants be seen as a revolving pool of
  talent or as a stable, long-term investment?
• Should the focus be on the management of supply or demand?
  • The first method allows potential migrants to apply on the
    basis of certain personal and professional characteristics that
    favour employability. It is then up to them to market their skills
    on the job market.
  • The other method requires a more or less specific
    identification of demand (expressed most commonly through employer
    sponsorships) following which targeted recruitment is
    effected.
• Policy coherence is a difficult challenge in the field of
  migration management. How can policies governing the entry and stay
  of highly skilled migrants be meaningfully connected to other,
  often broader, relevant sectors of public administration such as
  labour market management, human resource development or
  education?

Important as they are, however, these questions pale into
insignificance when placed side by side with the challenge of
ensuring fair recruitment practices and working conditions for low
and middle-skilled workers.

• These are the people who build skyscrapers, who clean homes,
  hospitals and hostels, who serve at tables in restaurants and who
  provide childcare services all over the world.
• While they are just as essential to the global economy, and
  transfer far more money, in aggregate terms, than their
  highly-skilled counterparts, they enjoy (or rather suffer from) a
  much lower level of political recognition.
• They often work in what Martin Ruhs has called “a zone of
  semi-legality” and are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse,
  all the more so when they arrive as irregular migrants.

Asian countries of origin have reacted by creating the Colombo
Process to develop a coordinated approach to the protection of
their workers abroad, and they have sought dialogue with Gulf
Countries of destination to establish lines of cooperation. The
recently adopted ILO Convention of Domestic Workers provides
additional reason for hope.

There is, however, a long way to make sure that all the good
work on migration and development is firmly grounded on efficient,
safe and secure labour migration practices.

2. Social diversity

The second policy assignment I wish to discuss is what I would
call the management of social diversity. In the past there has been
much debate about the advantage and disadvantages of available
policy models: assimilation, integration and multiculturalism.

Each model has been, at various times in the past, praised for
its usefulness or decried for its weaknesses. But all of them are a
bit the worse for wear and fresh thinking is urgently needed,
beginning not with the search for solutions but with a better
understanding of the issues at stake.

• Multi-ethnic societies are increasingly the norm rather than
  the exception;
• The very notion of individual identity itself is evolving in
  unexpected and complex ways. While most people would admit to
  having a dominant national identity, they are also likely to
  acknowledge multiple other affiliations on grounds as varied as
  gender, religion, cultural practice, professional interest and even
  local or regional commonalities;
• Many of these ties can be of a transnational nature, all the
  more so because modern networks of communication allow personal
  contacts to be maintained in real time whether it is across a city
  or across the world.
  • More than 247 billion emails are transmitted every day.
  • Almost 2 billion persons now have access to the internet (in
    contrast to only 390 million people 12 years ago).
  • Facebook now has more than 500 million subscribers; and
  • Twitter has some 200 million users; and both are growing
    exponentially.

Under these circumstances, it is no longer desirable or even
possible to view the encounter between migrants and their host
communities in the light of past policy models.

Consider just a sample of the issues that require
re-examination:

• Once relatively homogenous and cohesive societies are giving
  way to multiethnic, multicultural societies, whether by design or
  default. How can core values be identified and adhered to in the
  midst of that diversity?
• What are the social and political impacts of trans-nationalism
  and the growing trend towards multiple citizenships?
• Are there limits to the amount of social change that a
  community can absorb over a period of time?
• Is it possible for highly diverse urban communities to live in
  harmony with mainly mono-ethnic rural communities?
• How can we ensure the cohesion and stability of societies while
  protecting the rights of minorities?
• Can people be taught to live successfully with multiple
  identities?
• How do we educate children to grow up in the context of dynamic
  social change?

Policymakers will need all the help researchers can provide to
develop new policy paradigms for the future.

3. Migration related consequences of natural or man-made
disasters

The third policy challenge I want to highlight is one that the
international community has been struggling to come to terms with
in many parts of the world in recent years.

For want of a simple label, I will call it managing the mobility
related consequences of natural or man-made disasters.

When an earthquake hit Haiti early in 2010, an estimated 3
million people were affected. More than 300,000 people died, an
equal number were injured and at least 1 million were left
homeless. The risk of a massive exodus was enormous, but was headed
off through prompt international intervention. The number of
homeless has gone down considerably but at last count there were
still hundreds of thousands still waiting for new
accommodation.

A few months later, the worst floods in Pakistan’s history
devastated more than half of the country - 78 out of a total of 141
districts. An estimated 18 million people were affected and 1.7
million had their homes either destroyed or severely damaged.

Large displacement-inducing events were also recorded in
Colombia and Sri Lanka.

More recently, current affairs reports have been dominated by
rapidly evolving developments in North and West Africa. In both
cases the international community has had to intervene rapidly to
provide protection and assistance to large numbers of migrant
workers. In the best of circumstances they had fled or were fleeing
conflict and were seeking repatriation, in the worst circumstances
they were trapped in the middle of hostilities and were crying out
to be led to safety.

This has required close coordination among humanitarian agencies
and rapid deployment of a complex chain of services including
registration, provision of non-food items, medical services,
consular services, chartering of air and sea transport and
assistance upon arrival.

I point to these emergencies because although the displacement
consequences of each of them were contained, seen from close
quarters each effort was an exercise in humanitarian brinkmanship,
with resources scraped together virtually on a daily basis to
attend to the most urgent needs.

There is every reason to believe that in years to come there
will be similar and perhaps even greater challenges to respond to.
And while sudden disasters tend to catch the headlines, over the
longer term slow onset environmental changes are the ones most
likely to require attention – when small island states are
swamped by rising sea levels, or low-lying areas in delta basins
are clogged with salt, or again when continental deserts encroach
on pastures.

The crisis of the past and the future threats tell us that
humanitarian response is not the only action that we can take. The
greater need is in the areas of preparedness and disaster risk
reduction. In the light of recent experiences there is a clear need
for an emergency funding mechanism to enable the international
community to acquire the readiness to respond rather than having to
through time consuming appeal procedures. Efforts to improve
coordination among international partners should continue. And
there is a particularly strong base for national capacity
development to enable governments to cope more effectively with the
mobility-related consequences of disasters

Conclusion

The international migration community - consisting in the first
place of the migrants themselves, but including all also all those
who have their welfare at heart – is living through a period
of transition. The impacts of the global financial crisis are still
being felt. At such times it is common for doubts to be expressed
about the value of migrants and migration.

Let us take the broader and more realistic view: migration is
part and parcel of the world we have constructed. We cannot avoid
it. We must instead acknowledge its reality and come to terms with
it.

I have highlighted three large policy assignments relating
to:

• Effective matching of supply and demand on the global labour
  market
• Social diversity
• The mobility-related consequences of natural and man-made
  disasters.

I have raised them not to claim that I have all the answers, but
rather to demonstrate the seriousness of purpose and the breadth of
thinking that will be required to make migration work to the
benefit of all.