International Migration Outlook 2016 © OECD 2016

International Migration Outlook 2016 © OECD 2016 Chapter 4 International migration following environmental and geopolitical shocks: How can OECD countries respond? Environmental and geopolitical shocks – i.e. sudden, often unpredictable, changes with sweeping social and economic consequences – are often associated with large- scale migration flows both within and across borders. All these events have, to different degrees, put legal migration and protection systems under strain. The chapter analyses how OECD countries have responded to major shock-related migration in recent times and identifies key lessons learnt. It also explores the various options for more structural responses – notably the use of alternative legal migration pathway for refugees – with the objective of improving the responsiveness and efficiency of migration and protection systems to both environmental and geopolitical shocks. The chapter also analyses the actual and potential use of alternative migration pathways in response to the Syrian crisis. The analysis highlights three important lessons: i) effective international co- operation cannot be taken for granted; ii) protracted crises generate growing tensions between the need to find durable solutions and the general preference for short-term protection measures; iii) selection, which is a common feature of most migration systems, needs to be rethought in the context of the international protection framework. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. 147 4. INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOPOLITICAL SHOCKS: HOW CAN OECD COUNTRIES... Introduction Environmental and geopolitical shocks – i.e. sudden, often unpredictable, changes with sweeping social and economic consequences – are often associated with large-scale migration flows both within and across borders. In the past 10 years, major natural disasters such as tsunamis, earthquakes, flash floods, volcanic eruptions and hurricanes have affected a considerable number of countries, forcing populations to seek temporary or permanent shelter elsewhere. The Yugoslavian Wars of the early 1990s, the aftermath of the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings and, in particular, the conflict in Syria have driven, and still drive, many people to flee their country in search of protection elsewhere, both near and far. In 2015, more than 1.5 million people sought asylum in the OECD area, and Turkey alone is now hosting almost 3 million Syrians. All these events have, to different degrees, put legal migration and protection systems under strain. Responses have been different from one country and one crisis to another, raising a number of questions. What lessons have OECD countries learnt from recent shock-related migration? How many people have been affected and how have policies been adjusted to cope? How can the risks associated with shock-related migration be factored into national migration policies and can international co-operation be strengthened to that end? How can OECD countries augment their tool boxes to respond more efficiently to shock-related migration? This paper focuses on two types of shocks – environmental and geopolitical – although others, such as epidemics or outbreaks of diseases, like the Ebola virus, may also be associated with substantial movements of people or require robust migration policy responses. Economic shocks affecting destination countries may also compel them to adjust their migration policies (OECD, 2009; Chaloff et al., 2012), although this analysis does not cover that issue. The first section briefly overviews the salient features of mass displacement prompted by environmental or geopolitical shocks and outlines the international legal and co- operation framework for managing flows of people on such a large scale. The next section goes on to analyse how OECD countries have responded to major shock-related migration in recent times and identifies key lessons learnt. The third section explores the various options for more structural responses – notably the use of alternative legal migration routes for refugees – with the objective of improving the responsiveness and efficiency of migration and protection systems to both environmental and geopolitical shocks. The last section gathers together the chapter’s different strands of thought and draws conclusions. Main findings Lessons learnt from past policy responses to migration-related shocks ● There is a limited range of international instruments for dealing with shock-related migration. Apart from the UNHCR’s 1951 Refugee Convention, few instruments are 148 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION OUTLOOK 2016 © OECD 2016 4. INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOPOLITICAL SHOCKS: HOW CAN OECD COUNTRIES... designed specifically to address migration flows in the aftermath of geopolitical shocks. As for tools for migration stemming from environmental shocks, most are still in the making (e.g. COP21 and the Nansen Initiative). ● Most OECD countries use short-term visas or tolerated statuses with temporary suspension of deportation to support people stranded in their territory. Few countries have facilitated regular legal channels in response to shock-related migration. ● The use of temporary and subsidiary protection, rather than 1951 Refugee Convention status, has become more and more widespread since the 1990s, particularly in Europe. ● Few OECD countries – other than the United States, Australia and Canada – have large resettlement programmes. Although such programmes have generally been slow to respond and under-funded, they remain one of the most effective protection channels for people fleeing war zones or civil conflicts, especially the most vulnerable. State-led programmes for resettling recognised refugees are still very small-scale, as less than 1% of refugees registered with the UNHCR are resettled every year. Increasing resources for resettlement programmes should remain a priority for the international community. ● More attention should also be paid to understanding and addressing the root causes of shocks (i.e. crisis prevention), especially those of a geopolitical nature. Countries of first asylum must improve the economic and social plight of refugees but containment cannot be the only, or even the main, response to severe humanitarian crises. Alternative pathways for beneficiaries of international protection ● Alternative pathways are channels of migration not necessarily designed for refugees but which can be used to complement resettlement programmes. They include labour, international study and family migration channels, together with humanitarian visas and private sponsorship schemes. Large unmet resettlement needs have prompted much recent interest in alternative pathways, although proper evaluation is still pending. ● Using general labour migration channels for refugees necessitates policy and incentives for employers to enable refugees to compete with other migrant workers. Incentives should, of course, be in line with general labour standards for native workers to avoid undermining public support and ongoing efforts to integrate refugees already in the country into the labour market. ● Of all alternative pathways for refugees, student programmes elicit the greatest public support in destination countries, particularly in the academic community. Such programmes must, however, rise to a number of challenges, such as ascertaining candidates’ levels of education in the selection process and adapting services to beneficiaries’ special needs. Although student scholarship programmes for refugees are generally the most expensive alternative pathway, they have a valuable role to play in building a highly qualified workforce in post-conflict situations. ● Family migration is the alternative pathway that can be used to create the most places for displaced people in need of protection. Although international law and standards contain family reunification provisions for UNHCR refugees, people who have been granted temporary or subsidiary protection have to meet more stringent conditions. A number of OECD countries, especially in Europe, have recently stiffened requirements for family reunification. Building on the examples of Ireland and Switzerland, both of whom allow temporary family reunification, would avert the risk of reunification rights becoming a pull factor. Setting minimum standards for those under temporary/ INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION OUTLOOK 2016 © OECD 2016 149 4. INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOPOLITICAL SHOCKS: HOW CAN OECD COUNTRIES... subsidiary protection would limit the risk of “race to the bottom” in terms of conditions for family reunification. Finally, wider use of private sponsorship, as in Canada and Germany, could also be considered. ● Humanitarian visas are used to enable people to lawfully enter a destination country to file a formal asylum application. About one-third of OECD countries have developed this pathway, a highly flexible tool that complements traditional resettlement speedily and cost- effectively. The non-discretionary use of humanitarian visas is, however, a very unlikely prospect, and the number of visas granted is more likely to increase extensively (as more countries use them) than intensively (as countries that already use them issue

Load more