The International Organization for Migration and its Role in the Global Compact on Migration | Zuwanderung, Flucht und Asyl: Aktuelle Themen | bpb.de

In 2018, 164 states adopted the ‘Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration’ (GCM) to strengthen cooperation, facilitate migration, safeguard migrant rights, and prevent ‘irregular’ migration. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) provided states with advice during GCM negotiations, and organized consultations with experts, practitioners, journalists, and representatives of civil society and migrant organizations. Regarding such and other activities, states increasingly rely on non-state service-providers; international organizations, and IOM particularly, have become implementers of choice.

What does IOM do?

Each year, IOM carries out thousands of projects worldwide including ‘anti-trafficking’ and ‘information campaigns’ to prevent ‘irregular’ migration; or ‘pre-departure orientations’ (to support migrant integration); projects related to ‘migration and development’ (e.g., using remittances to reduce poverty); ‘migration and health’ (e.g., health tests for visa applicants; currently also COVID-19 tests); or ‘refugee resettlement’ (e.g., help with transport and documents); as well as politically charged activities like ‘integrated border management’ (e.g., advice on e-border technologies); or ‘assisted voluntary returns’ (AVRs), a supposedly less invasive alternative to deportations according to IOM.

On behalf of Germany, IOM currently assists United Kingdom (UK) nationals stranded in Germany following ‘Brexit’, with a focus on people who need special support, for example in dealing with authorities or in obtaining relevant documents. IOM also supports Syrian family reunifications with visa support and pre-departure integration courses. Since 1979, IOM’s main projects for Germany have been the ‘Government Assisted Repatriation Program’ (GARP), and ‘Reintegration and Emigration Program for Asylum-Seekers in Germany’ (REAG); people mandated to leave Germany receive cash incentives, tickets, counselling, and reintegration assistance. Prior the Taliban takeover in August 2021, IOM stopped AVRs to Afghanistan. With German support, IOM’s liaison office for humanitarian aid in Berlin tries to respond to Afghanistan’s new situation with relief and assistance.

IOM, a Global North organization?

IOM currently has 174 member states; its 15,311 staff members work mostly outside headquarters (Geneva), at one of 590 offices worldwide. In 1951, at the onset of the Cold War, IOM was founded by the United States (US) and 15 of its allies as the ‘Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe’ (PICMME) – a logistics agency to resettle refugees, displaced and other populations. Purposefully set outside the UN to shield it from ‘Communist’ influence, PICMME expanded, became permanent, and IOM emerged. Except for two Europeans, Bastiaan Haveman (1961-1969) and António Vitorino, current head of IOM and previous European Union (EU) Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, IOM has always had US-citizens as Director Generals. The US and other Global North countries (Germany, other EU states, Australia, Canada, UK, and Norway), and IOM’s biggest non-state donor, the EU Commission, provide most of IOM’s revenue (US$ 2.2 billion in 2020). which regularly leads to accusations against IOM of primarily serving Global North states, and their restrictive migration agendas. Non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch regularly accuse the IOM of primarily serving the states of the Global North and their restrictive migration agenda. IOM’s overt sales pitch of its own ‘migration management’ projects is also criticized. IOM’s revenue is mainly derived through ear-marked contributions to IOM projects (e.g., AVRs) which states, and other donors have funded to have certain issues (e.g. assisted return) addressed, managed and implemented by IOM.

IOM in the GCM, IOM in the UN. No turning point in global migration politics

The GCM negotiations came with the hope that states would find and agree on enhanced, rights-based approaches to migration. However, the GCM that was ultimately adopted as a non-binding document did not go much farther than listing optional policy measures. IOM’s role in the GCM is also problematic: Quite a few of IOM’s founding and top donor states (e.g., the US, several EU states, Australia) actively opposed the GCM. As lead agency, IOM is tasked to oversee the GCM’s implementation progress; however, it is likely also becoming the GCM’s main implementer of envisaged policy measures, which presents a serious conflict of interest and puts the GCM at risk of serving mainly as an IOM funding tool. Moreover, the fact that IOM’s project catalogue and the measures suggested by the GCM neatly match, may prevent states from considering and adopting genuinely different and enhanced approaches, contravening the spirit of the GCM.

In 2016, IOM asked to join the UN as a ‘related organization’. This was accepted by the UN despite far-reaching negative consequences: Unlike ‘system organizations’ (e.g., United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR) or ‘special agencies’ (e.g., International Labour Organization, ILO), IOM as a ‘related organization’ is exempted from mandatory reporting to the UN’s General Secretariate, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council. This prevents any effective monitoring of IOM, including its role as the GCM’s lead agency. IOM has also kept its own member states, and the autonomy over their contributions. This will potentially affect how the GCM is implemented. More crucially, as a ‘related organization’, IOM is not formally obliged to safeguard and monitor states’ compliance with a set convention, unlike the UNHCR which was created in 1950 to represent and protect the Geneva Refugee Convention. While UNHCR was made lead agency of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), the GCM’s sister companion adopted in 2018, ILO would have been a convincing alternative to the IOM as GCM lead agency. While ILO is smaller than IOM, it has been developing and safeguarding important rights instruments, including migration-related conventions since 1919 (since 1946, the ILO has been a specialized agency of the UN). ILO could well have been tasked to lead and monitor the GCM, including the implementation of measures by IOM and other providers. Deliberate decisions and concessions have been made to retain IOM instead and to keep IOM as autonomous and flexible as possible.

Conclusion

The lack of any genuine monitoring of IOM, and effective safeguards for the protection of human and migrants’ rights in the delivery of IOM projects are detrimental – for migrants and other people on the move, the GCM, and the future of global migration governance. IOM was made the ‘UN Migration Agency’ which means that IOM’s services can be regarded as the UN’s immediate migration-related responses. Tolerated by the UN, the GCM facilitates policy outsourcing by letting states ‘click & choose’ the measures they wish to pursue, but later likely delegate to IOM and others. This enables states and the UN to easily ignore their rights obligations. Meanwhile, IOM and other providers can claim that they are solely carrying out measures which states have authorized and funded, and for which they are not responsible. Global migration politics following the GCM and IOM’s merger with the UN resemble the past, casting doubts on the international community’s will to adopt and pursue enhanced and rights-centered responses to migration.

See also

Interner Link: The International Organization for Migration: A Key Player in Global Migration Policy