A look at international migration in the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda 2030

Written by Sabrina Axster

 

Most people in New York have, at some point in late September, run into a roadblock. Parts of Midtown were on complete lock-down for several days.

Why? Like every year, hundreds of world leaders — including Barack Obama and presidents, prime ministers, and majesties from countries all over the world — came to take part in the General Debate of the UN General Assembly. Many of them joined  the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit which was convened just before the debate as a high-level plenary meeting. Even Pope Francis came to deliver a special statement. Together, they endorsed a global Agenda for Sustainable Development consisting of 17 goals and 169 specific targets. The Agenda covers a diverse set of issues, ranging from poverty and inequalities, to hunger, gender, and industrial development.

The idea behind the goals outlined is simple: To achieve change and protect our planet, we must address the economic, social, and environmental drivers of unsustainable production, consumption, and living patterns.

How is this relevant to migrants? Several of the goals and targets discussed during the summit specifically referenced migrant rights and migration policy.

 

Including migration in the post-2015 development agenda

Contrary to prior development agendas, Agenda 2030 makes explicit references to migrants, both in the political declaration, which serves as an introduction and articulates the core vision and principles, and when outlining specific goals and targets.

The text of the political declaration recognizes “the positive contributions of migrants for inclusive growth and sustainable development.” It calls for the empowerment of vulnerable populations, including migrants and refugees, and highlights the need to ensure that they have access to high-quality, lifelong learning opportunities. Finally, the declaration goes beyond the narrow focus of the economic factors of migration by stating that governments “will cooperate internationally to ensure safe, orderly and regular migration involving full respect for human rights and the humane treatment of migrants regardless of migration status, of refugees and of displaced persons.”

However, while the inclusion of migrants and refugees in the political declaration is promising, it does not translate into meaningful, concrete goals and targets. Unsurprisingly, it was easier for governments to agree on generic statements, rather than to commit to undertake specific measures and changes.

There are only four targets that explicitly refer to migrants or migration. The first one, under the goal to advance economic growth and decent employment (Goal 8), calls for the protection of labor rights and for the promotion of safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers and, in particular, women migrants. The second target explicitly referring to migrants, under the goal of reducing inequalities within and among countries (Goal 10), calls for facilitating “orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.” An additional target under the same goal is to reduce the transaction costs of migrants’ remittances to less than 3 percent. Finally, under the last goal of the Agenda, which focuses on strengthening the means of implementation of the agreement, a target calls for increased support to help developing countries collect more reliable data to measure progress among different population groups, with an explicit mention of the need to breakdown data by migratory status (together with other indicators).

There are a few more targets that discuss other aspects of migration, including trafficking and student exchanges.

 

The shortcomings of Agenda 2030

It is hard to see how the targets set will be implemented and translate into improving the current situation of migrants. Some say it’s just lip service by governments, and that they will not put any of these goals and targets into practice. Others believe that this is an important framework that can shift leaders’ attention to sustainable development issues. What does this mean for migration advocates? The agenda could be an advocacy opportunity for people working with migrants and enable them to hold governments more accountable or at least to raise the visibility of some migration issues and highlight the interconnectedness between migration and development. An alternative opinion is that these goals and targets play into the existing, characteristically limited narrative on migration without pushing the boundaries further.

" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">set of recommendations that outlined which migration issues should be included in the post-2015 UN development agenda. It called for regional free movement agreements, regulation and monitoring of the migration recruitment industry, further possibilities for family reunification, reduction of the number of migrants in detention centres, and for the provision of more alternatives to detention. Other core recommendations touched upon included the need to address “migrants’ experiences of discrimination, violence, abuse, and exploitation.” Moreover, in Agenda 2030, there is no reference to some of the core issues affecting the wellbeing of migrants, such as forced migration and protracted displacement. The focus on reducing the costs of remittances is equally insufficient. The International Labour Organization has long advocated for a reduction of the recruitment costs, arguing that it would yield larger financial savings for migrants than reducing the costs of remittances.

 

The challenges of international decision-making

Given the shortcomings of how migration is included in Agenda 2030, there are valid reasons to be disappointed. The core migration issues are missing and the overall focus is on economic issues related to the financial contribution of migrants, rather than the protection and respect for migrants in general. Discrimination, racism, and xenophobia are side-lined. Understanding why this is the case requires one to grasp how international decision-making works.

Imagine 193 countries sitting around a table trying to agree on a set of global priorities. 10 countries are pushing the migration agenda, while another five are trying to exclude it by all means possible. In the end, it comes down to prioritization and bargaining: Each group of countries will list topics that they cannot by any means accept, and another set of issues that they must see included. During the negotiation phase, both sides generally soften their positions and hold on to core issues while giving up other controversial points, so that eventually all sides and countries feel that their most important themes are reflected. Essentially, international decision-making always comes down to the lowest common denominator that everyone can live with. Too often, the more complex migration issues do not fall under this category. While the “easy ones” are considered, anything more controversial is ignored.

Introducing more controversial issues at the international level takes time. It requires an ongoing discussion where more and more countries and stakeholders start signing on to a topic and reflect it in their own statements. It also requires a few powerful countries with significant leverage at the international level to push these issues — but change does happen. Over time, the discourse may evolve to a certain extent. Agenda 2030 might be the start of a more in-depth integration and discussion of migration issues at the UN.