Introduction

Excellences, distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen,

It is an honour to be invited to the EMN conference on Rethinking  Returns from the EU – Sustainable Returns and Cooperation with Countries of Origin.

In my brief remarks, I would like to make three points

1. “The perfect storm” (Global Migration Trends)
2. “Weathering the storm” (Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration) as a key element
3. “Restoring calm after the storm” (The Way Forward)

1. “The Perfect Storm” – Global Migration Trends

A. Unprecedented crisis

We are living in an era of unprecedented, simultaneous, complex and protracted crises and humanitarian emergencies.

In 2015, more than one million (1,005,146) people arrived in Europe looking for safety and security. While the flows have somewhat abated, there have been some 227, 000 arrivals since the beginning of 2016, while 2,900 migrants have died en route.

B. “Drivers” of forced and irregular migration

Given prevailing social and economic inequalities; demographic imbalances; instability and conflict; and migration and asylum systems under stress, it is a safe bet that mass migration movements will continue

C. Global Issue

The tragedy of migrant suffering and death is, of course, not limited to Europe.  This is a global phenomenon. In the Red Sea, and Gulf of Aden, in the Caribbean between Haiti and Florida, in the Sahara Desert, in Yemen – where IOM is evacuating tens of thousands of migrants; in many parts of Africa where migrants are the subjects of xenophobic attacks; in the "Northern Triangle of Central American countries – Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador – where insecurity and gangs force minors to migrate without their parents; in the Aegean Sea in the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea  there are people migrating in search of a better life for themselves and their families.

D. “High Road”

The management of these flows will continue to be a demanding challenge for the international community, especially in regard to migrants who are trafficked, exploited, or quite simply highly vulnerable (for example, unaccompanied migrant children).

The only approach that makes sense is a comprehensive one, covering all facets of the migratory experience. A “high road” response will keep us all – migrants included – safe from the flood waters of the “perfect storm” and ensure that migration benefits host societies, communities of origin and migrants themselves.

 In a high road migration scenario, our first priority must be to save lives and to protect the rights of migrants. If we compromise on this then we have collectively failed our responsibilities. Beyond that, however, we must have a wide range of policy options to ensure that movement is (to use the language of the SDGs) not only safe, but equally regular, orderly and responsible. Return and re-integration have an important place in this policy framework. Which brings me to my second point:

2. “Weathering the Storm” – IOM’s role in returns: Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration – An entire range of options to weather the Storm

 I sympathize with the reasons why economic migrants risk their lives to find employment and a better life. I also recognize the need for a mechanism to assist them to voluntarily return home if their expectations do not correspond to reality and return becomes  the only legal option available.

For those migrants who have been determined as having no need of international protection, or any other legal right to remain, a safe return home coupled with assistance on arrival is a necessity. A return and reintegration programme is a key element, among many others, that will help migrants and governments to “weather the storm.”

IOM’s decades-old programme of “Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration” – first applied in 1979 is of particular relevance here.  It is a growing area of work as an increasing number of States – both those hosting migrants as well as countries of origin – recognize the value of AVRR as an essential component of an effective and humane migration management framework. IOM now implements AVRR programmes in all continents. Many of these movements are from developed to developing countries, but they are increasingly between developing countries.

IOM’s experience with returns began four decades ago. For example: humanitarian visas; temporary work visas; student visas; resettlement; family reunification.

Many of IOM’s early AVRR programmes (launched over three decades ago), merely offered basic return transportation arrangements. They have since evolved into more comprehensive programmes covering a broad range of services in order to promote the sustainability of returns. At one end of the process, migrants have access to information and counselling to enable them to make an informed choice; at the other end of the process (assuming they have volunteered for return) they receive post return reintegration assistance to enable them to re-join their communities of origin and to be economically self-supporting. In between these two “bookends” IOM provides safe transport.

Such progression is also a reflection of the fact that return migration has been increasingly incorporated into the migration management strategies of many governments and has gained prominence in international policymaking discourse.

AVRR is now an integral part of the migration and asylum policies of many countries or multilateral communities, such as the European Union, and is regarded as a preferred option. AVRR is also becoming part of key measures to be implemented as part of cooperative responses to address irregular transit migration among affected countries, providing needed assistance to the affected countries as well as stranded migrants who are in distress and often destitute. Today, IOM conducts over 80 Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration programmes in partnership with EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland.

In 2015, IOM recorded its highest number of AVRRs, with 69,540 migrants assisted. The number is expected to be even higher in 2016.

3. “Restoring Calm After the Storm” – The Way Forward

There is now a strong consensus that because of the numerous partners involved, return migration cannot be effectively dealt with unilaterally; it requires cooperative approaches and responsibility-sharing. For this reason it is even more important for governments to harmonize their migration and development policies.

Policymakers can create additional incentives for countries of origin, transit and destination to safely and humanely manage return migration and to harness return migration’s potential to foster development.

Drawing from IOM’s experience, I would like to highlight three key policy orientations that can help the international community to improve its performance on voluntary return and reintegration:

A. Dialogue and cooperation

Countries of origin, transit and destination are affected in different ways by return issues and accordingly have different perspectives and priorities. For example, for most destination and transit countries, return programmes are seen as a warranty against the abuse of orderly migration programmes and asylum systems.  For many countries of origin and transit, the main concern is to have the capacity to absorb large influxes of return migrants and to ensure that these returns do not give rise to social or economic tensions. Engaging all relevant stakeholders in policy exchanges and discussion at the national, regional and international levels, as appropriate, is essential if a broadened and more comprehensive understanding of return and effective return policies is to be achieved.

The most successful approaches to return are likely to be the most inclusive ones, which take into consideration the needs and concerns of countries of origin, transit and destination, as well as of the migrants themselves. Promoting dialogue can help countries of origin, destination and transit to better understand what is at stake and to pave the way for the design and implement effective return migration policies.

B. Partnerships

Beyond dialogue and consultation action partnerships are required. Governments are not the only actors in this field. Other stakeholders such as civil society, the private sector, international organizations and other institutions have important roles to play in return policy and practice.

Given the complexity of the AVRR operational process, it stands to reason that chances of success are improved when partners with a diversity of backgrounds and skills join forces.

Some stakeholders have particular strengths or experience in specific domains. For instance, in areas such as return counselling and information dissemination, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations can be highly effective due to the relationship of confidence they often have with potential returnees. More generally, non-governmental organizations help to ensure that the voice of migrants is heard in the development and implementation of return migration management policies.

IOM’s approach to AVRR is very much based on cooperation with like-minded partners.

C. Sustainability

Finally, there is a need for serious reflection on the potential of return migration to enhance the development of the home country.

Returns are more sustainable if the decision to return is supported by appropriate reintegration assistance.  Where the structural factors that compelled people to emigrate in the first place are not addressed, returnees may be tempted to seek the services of smugglers once more.

The issue of the sustainability of return over time is thus a very important one. The considerations should not be limited to what is of interest or benefit to the returning migrant. The needs and concerns of the communities of return must also be borne in mind. Special care must be taken to avoid giving rise to the impression that those returning are being “rewarded” for their decision to leave while those who have chosen to stay are left to struggle as best as they can.

The forging of links between effective reintegration schemes and local development initiatives in communities of return is therefore to be encouraged. IOM needs to provide EU Member States more feedback on the end result of returns. We know that they are largely successful in terms of helping the returnees to start life again.

Conclusion

The worst conclusion you could draw from this EMN meeting is somewhere that returns are the answer to Europe’s migration challenges. Return and reintegration programmes are not a panacea for the resolution of problems of irregular migration. It is one too among many. In addition, the number are too large to be managed alone by return. Also, the dilemma of the very large number of unaccompanied migrants and the growing number of highly vulnerable migrants for whom return is not a viable option from a humanitarian perspective.

Return and reintegration programs do have their place, however, in a comprehensive approach to migration governance, including – for instance – avenues for labour migration, an asylum system, and integration policies.

IOM’s AVRR programmes emphasize the importance of voluntariness and include reintegration support to improve the sustainability of return and to contribute to the well-being of both the migrants and their communities of origin.