Towards a Global Compact for Migration: A Development Perspective A Series to Inform the Debate July 2018 Issue No. 4 Mind the Gap Bringing Migration into Development Partnerships and Vice Versa By Kate Hooper and Kathleen Newland Executive Summary The 2014 surge in unaccompanied children arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, the 2015–16 migration crisis in Europe, and other recent spikes in irregular migration have prompted many destination-country governments to look beyond border management for ways to ad- dress the underlying drivers of such movements. Governments have committed large sums to these efforts, including the 3.2 billion euros policymakers committed for the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa at the Valetta Summit in November 2015 and the U.S. decision to com- mit USD 750 million for the Alliance for Prosperity in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras in - tion into development programming and vice versa. fiscal year 2016. In short, policymakers are thinking about how they can incorporate migra Greater collaboration between migration-management and development actors carries some - gration, such as instability and limited economic opportunities, hinges on the support, knowl- clearedge, benefits.and resources The ability of development of governments actors. to For address example, factors the thatJoint drive Valletta displacement Action Plan and signed mi by European and African heads of state sets out an ambitious agenda for tackling the drivers of migration and displacement, promoting legal migration, improving protection for those in The ability of signatory states to follow through on these commitments will depend both on need, disrupting human trafficking and smuggling, and improving returns and reintegration. Trust Fund for Africa, and on development actors’ expertise in partnering constructively with European development budgets, which provide most of the financing for the EU Emergency developingrecognition countries.that migration In turn, can migration make important is becoming contributions a growing to priority development. in development work, reflecting both the events of recent years and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’s But coordinating the work of development and migration-management actors in partner- ships with countries of origin comes with risks. Recent migration partnerships have focused heavily on tackling irregular migration and policy implementation, crisis response, and effecting returns of unauthorized migrants. labor-market regulation, which could have an These priorities can be sensitive subjects for impact on migration dynamics. A third area partner countries—particularly those that is facilitation of skilled migration and the ef- rely on remittances from their diasporas and fective transfer of skills as tools for economic have not been able to spur adequate domes- growth, with initiatives striving to create a tic job creation—and they may undermine “triple win” in which migrants, origin coun- development cooperation in other areas, including the core mission of poverty allevia- from migration. tion. The divergent approaches migration- tries, and destination countries all benefit management and development actors take - to establishing and managing partnerships dination between development and migra- present another challenge. While develop- Intion-management order to reap the actors—from benefits of greater sharing coor ment agencies have long sought to mitigate expertise to realizing economies of scale— the power imbalance between donor and recipient countries, some migration-man- - agement actors see this asymmetry as an policymakerscessful cooperation must firstlies intackle setting the mutually challenges opportunity to enforce support for their thatagreed have goals kept for these cooperation two fields that apart. balance Suc priorities. A “more-for-more” approach uses development and migration priorities and in increased assistance to reward countries establishing realistic expectations about the that make progress on migration goals—and, likely outcomes and the timeline for results. more recently, a “less-for-less” approach foresees reductions for countries that do not. Such transactional strategies stand in sharp contrast to the partnership approach that I. Introduction characterizes most development coopera- tion, and they may risk further destabilizing The 2015–16 migration and refugee crises in fragile states and undermining development Europe and elsewhere have prompted many priorities. destination-country governments to look beyond the measures necessary to deter, or Despite these challenges, cooperation be- to receive and integrate, new arrivals. New tween development and migration-manage- policy thinking has increasingly focused ment actors on common priorities could add on assessing where and how governments value in several areas. For example, address- should invest to address the structural fac- ing barriers to economic growth is a long- tors, such as weak governance and economic held priority for development actors that can stagnation, that drive irregular migration in from other government departments and renewed push to incorporate migration aims benefitthe private from sector. the growing These additional input and sourcesfunding theinto first development place. As aprogramming, result, there has and been vice a of support and expertise present new op- versa. portunities to address economic develop- ment more comprehensively, including by This shift can be seen in a range of destina- improving investment conditions in priority countries, boosting access to concessional 2015 address to the European Parliament, tionGerman countries Chancellor and regions. Angela MerkelIn an October called for addressing trade barriers. Resilience-build- Europe to “tailor our foreign and develop- financinging in origin for or middle-income transit countries countries, is another and ment policy far more closely to the goals of priority of development agencies; it too could of agencies working on capacities such as resolvingto increase conflicts funding and for combatingthese goals. the1 The factors fol- benefit from the experience and resources that cause people to flee their homes,” and 2 Mind the Gap: Bringing Migration into Development Partnerships and Vice Versa Policy Brief lowing month, at the Valletta Summit, European ensure the successful socioeconomic integration and African leaders launched the EU Emergency of returning migrants in their countries of origin Trust Fund for Africa, which has to date pooled or transit.”7 This is a tall order for development 3.4 billion euros in EU and national funds to policy, and risks diverting resources from the address the drivers of migration from Africa to primary development objectives articulated in Europe.2 the SDGs adopted by all members of the United goals will slip from the development coopera- committed USD 750 million from the U.S. budget Nations.tion agenda It is, any however, time soon; unlikely for example, that migration the In the same period, the Obama administration management of irregular migration is likely for Prosperity in El Salvador, Guatemala, and to be a priority in the upcoming negotiation forHonduras fiscal year as part 2016 of toits support broader the response Alliance to a re- of a successor to the Cotonou Agreement, the surgence of unauthorized migration from these 2000–20 treaty in which the European Union countries—consisting primarily of children and and 79 developing countries in Africa, the Carib- families—across the southern U.S. border.3 And in 2017, the U.S. Secretaries of State and Home- on a variety of development priorities.8 bean, and the Pacific region pledged cooperation At a national level, development agencies are land“the TrumpSecurity administration and the president is committed of the Inter- to mak- also placing greater emphasis on migration, Americaning this initiative Development a pillar Bank of its confirmed broader strategy that launching new migration-related initiatives and to combat illegal immigration.”4 revisiting existing projects to see if there are opportunities to link them more explicitly to Yet greater collaboration between migration- migration.9 But as development actors incor- management and development actors can also porate migration into their work with partner create tension. Unlike the Millennium Develop- countries, and as migration actors pay closer ment Goals that preceded them, the UN Sus- attention to development cooperation in theirs, tainable Development Goals (SDGs) unveiled questions remain about how these actors can in September 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development included migra- concern is that bringing migration goals into tion targets. SDG 10.7 calls for all countries to workdevelopment together cooperation most effectively. can complicate One common rela - facilitate “safe, orderly, regular, and responsible tionships between partner countries that have migration and mobility of people, including been carefully cultivated over years or decades, through the implementation of planned and potentially undermining long-term development well-managed migration policies.”5 The 2030 goals by introducing a transactional element Agenda also recognizes the important contri- that seems to trade off migration cooperation for butions of migrants to inclusive growth and development assistance. Conversely, critics see sustainable development.6 certain development approaches as undermin- ing the livelihoods of the rural poor