The case for including migration in the post-2015 agenda

The case for including migration in the post-2015 agenda

Smuggled migrants on edge of Sahara desert/ Photo courtesy of Ibrahim Diallo Manzo for IRIN

Smuggled migrants on edge of Sahara desert/ Photo courtesy of Ibrahim Diallo Manzo for IRIN

BANGKOK, 11 November 2014 (IRIN) – As the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) expire at the end of 2015, campaigners are calling for the inclusion of migrant worker protections in the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), noting that migrants contribute billions to reducing poverty – often at great cost to their personal safety and well-being.

The world’s estimated 232 million international migrants (2013 UN estimate) generated some US$400 billion in remittances for their families and communities back home in 2013, three times more than total overseas development assistance in the same year, according to the World Bank.

For the 10-15 percent of these migrants that the International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimates are undocumented, the human cost of their contributions to their home countries’ economies is often high, sometimes even fatal.

IOM estimates 40,000 migrants – almost all undocumented, including asylum-seekers – have died en route to a destination country since 2000.

An unknown number also lose their lives post-arrival in host countries as a result of unsafe working conditions.

But addressing these risks is politically sensitive, say activists, due to host countries’ fears about creating pull factors for migrants. Despite migrants’ significant contribution to national incomes, they are easy scapegoats for already overburdened health and education systems.

“Including migration in the SDGs would be a bold act,” said Kathleen Newland, co-founder of US-based NGO Migration Policy Institute (MPI). “The causes of migration and local costs of globalization are difficult to see, but people can see immigration,” she added, explaining that more awareness and outreach is needed at the national level to ease popular insecurity about all groups of migrant workers.

The working group on migration for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) spent five years discussing how to implement the 2007 ASEAN Declaration on the Protection of Migrants. In 2012, the group dissolved without reaching an agreement.

Advocates hope that where regional organizations have fallen short in addressing protection of migrant rights, the SDGs can help make migration less deadly by encouraging states and international organizations to invest more resources.

Benefits of remittances

The socio-economic and development benefits of remittances are clear: for every 10 percent of a population that migrates to work in a higher income country, there is a 1.9 percent reduction in poverty in the country of origin, the World Bank calculates.

In Latin America, a 1 percent increase in remittances reduced infant mortality rates by 1.2 deaths per 1,000 babies, noted a 2013 report by Peter Sutherland, the UN Special Representative on international migration.

Households are more likely to spend remittances on health and education than other types of additional income, according to MPI.

“If reduction of poverty, increased rates of education, and better health outcomes are markers of development, strong evidence exists that remittances make a major contribution,” noted MPI in a 2013 policy brief.

Migrants arriving on Lampedusa in August 2007/ Photo courtesy of Sara Prestianni

Migrants arriving on Lampedusa in August 2007/ Photo courtesy of Sara Prestianni

So major that in Thailand after the military seized power in June 2014 and cracked down on the country’s undocumented foreign workers, leading to the deportation of tens of thousands, it was not long before they returned, said Reiko Harima, regional coordinator for the Secretariat of the Mekong Migration Network (MMN), a Bangkok-based umbrella advocacy group for Southeast Asian migrants.

“Even one week without wages is too long for them,” she explained.

Harima estimates over one million of Thailand’s migrants are undocumented.

Construction, fishing, and farming industries rely on the country’s 2.2 million migrants, according to the Federation of Thai Industries, and the junta quickly changed tack. They ceased arrests and, instead, extended migrants’ registration to enable them to stay legally.

“Families take a huge gamble and go into debt to pay [for family members to migrate]. There is a lot of pressure on migration to be ‘successful’,” said Richard Mallett, an Overseas Development Institute (ODI) research fellow and co-author of a 2014 report on migration from Nepal.

Success is often measured in remittances, while the human costs are overlooked. The lack of documentation often means that migrants cannot access lifesaving health care and fear protesting unsafe, even fatal, working conditions.

Labour unions, NGOs, and human rights activists have documented employers in the Gulf states keeping migrants’ passports, essentially rendering them indentured until debts for travel to the host country are repaid.

The UN special rapporteur on migrants, Francois Crépeau, in a statement to the UN General Assembly on 24 October, called on states to minimize the risks of abuse and urged migrants’ inclusion in the SDGs.

Wish list

One problem, according to MMN, is that policies fail to reflect the long-term reality of migration by trying to restrict migrants’ time in a host country.

For example, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Myanmar government and Thailand requires Thailand’s estimated 140,000 Burmese migrants (who fuel the shrimp and construction industries) to leave after four years and return to Myanmar for three years before they can re-apply.

“It wrongly assumes migration is temporary, when the reality is that migrants who learn skills to work in an industry, and their employers, want them to stay,” said Harima.

“The legal migration channel needs to be made cheaper, and more accessible for the workers who want to go abroad, while recruitment agencies are regulated properly,” she added.

In the current draft of the SDGs, the need for safe and orderly migration is stressed and protecting the rights and safe working conditions of all migrants, including migrant workers, is included under Goal 8.

“There is still a lot of horse trading to be done,” said Newland, explaining that the Open Working Group has submitted its recommendations to the panel and now the decision is in the court of states. “The risk is that any inclusion of migration in the SDGs will have to be reduced to the lowest common denominator to gain approval,” she said.

dm/pt/ks/cb

Pacific island women afraid to report domestic violence

Pacific island women afraid to report domestic violence

604

HONIARA, Solomon Islands, Nov 7 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) — Not long ago, Mele, a 24-year-old mother, was breastfeeding her six-month-old baby when her husband barged into their Honiara bedroom. He hit her repeatedly across the face with the back of his hand as his two younger brothers wrenched the baby from her arms. When her husband left moments later, Mele had a swollen right eye and cheeks blackened by bruises.

Some version of the story of Mele, who declined to use her real name, replays itself for every two out of three women in the Pacific Islands.

Up to 68 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 49 report routine intimate partner abuse and in some areas 26 percent admit to being beaten while pregnant, according to the latest Family Health and Safety Studies prepared by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community for the Ministry of Women, Youth & Children’s Affairs.

Other forms of violence against women, including rape, gang rape and non-partner physical assault are also common.

“It is an expected part of life, and part of women’s lives, to experience violence. It is a combination of the status of women, a sense of entitlement from men, impunity and lack of access to justice,” Alethia Jimenez, who works in Papua New Guinea on UN Women’s Safe Cities for Women and Girls programme, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

The number of laws and protection acts banning violence against women in the Pacific has multiplied in the past few years. Marital rape has been considered a crime in the Solomon Islands since 2012. Samoa passed legislation against sexual offences in 2013, and Tonga and Kiribati introduced family protection laws in 2013. As of May 2013, rapists in Papua New Guinea can face the death penalty.

But fear of payback, where the tribe of an accused person avenges them through further attacks against the claimant, makes survivors even more afraid to report now that there are harsher penalties for perpetrators, experts said.

“People are fearful of reporting someone because the family could take retribution or compensation for reporting that crime,” said Kate Schuetze, Amnesty International’s Pacific researcher.

The entrenched use of traditional justice mechanisms also prevents women from accessing criminal court systems, even in urban areas.

VILLAGERS STILL PREFER TRADITIONAL OVER CIVIL JUSTICE

In the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, where up to 80 percent of the population lives in remote rural villages, traditional justice has been in practice for hundreds of years, with village chiefs handling cases of violence against women.

Reliance on informal mechanisms continues even in Honiara, the capital of the Solomon Islands. When a woman is physically or sexually assaulted, the men in her family often beat or threaten the man responsible, rather than report the crime.

“Our father is dead, and we have no brothers, so we think maybe that is why her husband feels he can do this,” said Mary, 28, speaking about her brother-in-law’s abuse of her older sister Mele.

If women act against their abuser on their own, without the support of the men in their family, risk of payback from the abuser’s family is strong, according to advocates.

“Men in the jail are sending word out to other men warning them to make sure their abused wives never make it as far as the shelter,” reported the Lowy Institute, a Sydney-based think tank, in an August 2014 report about the situation in Papua New Guinea.

While practitioners say that laws are a first step, traditional justice’s focus on reconciliation fosters impunity since the perpetrator is not socially stigmatized, said Amnesty International’s Schuetze.

“The reality is that there needs to be a dramatic shift in social culture in the country so there is a zero tolerance policy around violence and sexual assault,” she said, noting that only then can civil laws be effective. (Reporting by Dana MacLean, Editing by Lisa Anderson)

Concern over World Bank proposals to roll back safeguards for indigenous people

IRIN Global

BANGKOK, 3 September 2014 (IRIN) – Activists warn of a harmful regression in the World Bank’s safeguard policies, claiming that proposed changes being considered this autumn could weaken the rights of indigenous people, and others in danger of displacement and abuse as a result of Bank-funded development projects.

“This [version of the safeguards] will be dangerous backsliding into their bad legacy of treatment against indigenous people if it is approved,” said Joan Carling, secretary-general of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), a network that operates in 14 Asian countries.

According to the World Bank, “the proposed Environmental and Social Framework builds on the decades-old safeguard policies and aims to consolidate them into a more modern, unified framework that is more efficient and effective to apply and implement.”

However, campaigners say the current draft dilutes the protective promise of the safeguards and fails to include indigenous rights considerations in projects funded by the World Bank by obtaining “free, prior, and informed consent” for development interventions. The proposed changes, including an “opt out” policy, could leave development decisions solely at the discretion of governments.

In a 22 July statement the Bank Information Centre (BIC), an independent watchdog, explained: “The Bank is proposing a new loophole that allows governments to ‘opt out’ of following requirements related to indigenous peoples, which would be a major blow to indigenous peoples who have counted on the Bank to recognize them when governments refuse.” The World Bank was the first multilateral development bank to introduce an indigenous people’s policy (in 1982).

Other adjustments suggest a broader attempt to roll-back responsbilities: “The elimination of clear, predictable rules also appears to be a clear attempt by the Bank to avoid accountability for the negative impacts of projects that it funds,” BIC said.

With more than US$50 billion in development aid at risk of being funnelled into projects that could forcibly evict, displace, or fail to adequately compensate communities for resource losses, pressure is mounting on the Bank as board meetings begin on 3 September.

Loophole

The pending amendments retain the requirement for project-affected peoples’ “free, prior and informed consent” to relocate; proper compensation; labour rights of workers; and non-discriminatory development. However, the draft includes options for the Bank’s non-compliance, which leaves it for governments to decide how to proceed with projects – including by ignoring indigenous people.

“Allowing [governments] not to recognize groups [as indigenous] is incredibly problematic particularly when we know the history of government violating indigenous peoples’ rights,” said Jessica Evans, senior researcher on international financial institutions at Human Rights Watch’s (HRW).

According to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons (UNDRIP), indigenous people are those who maintain historical continuity with pre-colonial groups, have strong relationships with natural resources and land as the basis of their cultural and physical survival, and self-identify themselves as indigenous as part of their belief systems which differ from the dominant society.

While UNDRIP has been adopted by 143 countries, domestic implementation has been limited. The draft safeguards give governments a loophole to escape recognition of indigenous persons when it comes to Bank-funded development interventions status if it causes conflict or goes against the constitution of the country.

According to a 30 July statement from the Bank about the proposed safeguards draft, indigenous status can be opted out of “in exceptional circumstances when there are risks of exacerbating ethnic tension or civil strife or where the identification of Indigenous Peoples is inconsistent with the constitution of the country…”

“Setting the standard is something an institution as powerful and influential as the World Bank should be considering as mandatory, rather than optional.”

As the draft safeguards go under review by the Bank’s board, activists warn that without major reform to the draft, consultations with indigenous groups when designing and implementing development projects have little meaning.

“If they provide the opt out option for recognizing indigenous groups, indigenous people will suffer adverse impacts,” warned AIPP’s Carling, adding that government refusal to acknowledge the indigenous status of many ethnic minorities can be a contributing factor to statelessness, poverty and forced relocation.

A history of abuses

A root concern about the proposed safeguards is that they shift the onus forenvironmental and social responsibility away from the Bank and onto borrowing governments, which means funds could go to states alreadynotorious for land grabs, corruption and human rights violations.

In recent years researchers have documented cases of forced evictions in poor communities as a part of World Bank-funded projects.

For example, in East Badia, a community in Lagos, Nigeria, Amnesty International reported that 9,000 people had their homes razed to make way for luxury apartments. In Colombo, Sri Lanka’s capital, up to 135,000 families will be relocated in the next three years to make way for urban development, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), a Sri Lankan NGO, argues.

In East Badia, community protests against the razing of homes met all of the requirements to trigger the safeguards for a full World Bank investigation. However, the Bank’s eight-member board instead decided to institute a pilot project for resettlement which compensated communities one-third below the market rate for informal housing in Lagos.

“The compensation was so low it did not enable them to live anywhere else except another slum or precarious accommodation which will put them in danger of being forcibly evicted again,” said Alessandra Masci, Amnesty International’s senior analyst for business and human rights, and lead researcher for the report on Lagos.

The Bank’s pilot, implemented in November 2013, was in line with the new direction of the bank (and the draft safeguards currently under consideration), in which vague language creates flexibility in decision-making for the Bank and the borrower government – leaving the poor to fend for themselves, analysts say.

“Banks and panels are standing back and leaving communities completely alone to deal with entities much more powerful than them,” explained Masci.

In the case of Sri Lanka, the government, armed with US$213 million of World Bank loans, will forcibly relocate an estimated 300,000 people under the Metro Colombo Urban Development Project (MCUDP), according to CPA.

A commitment to ending poverty?

Critics warn that without airtight safeguards for vulnerable people, the rights of indigenous groups will continue to be violated by development projects, and undermine the very target the Bank has set for itself: to end poverty.

While indigenous people comprise 5 percent of the global population, they make up 15 percent of all people living beneath national poverty lines globally,according to the UN.

“In order for grievance mechanisms to work, environmental and social standards need to be clear and prescriptive,” said Kristen Genovese, a senior attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), a Washington-based watchdog.

Some fear that growing competition in international lending – with the emergence of Chinese and Japanese development banks, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and the BRICS bank – may stoke a fear of losing clients and trigger a race-to-the-bottom panic. Experts argue that the World Bank should see its safeguards as an opportunity to assert its position as a global leader.

“Competition is good. It means more finance for development,” said HRW’s Evans. “The Bank could show other lenders best practices and be a model development bank.”

Sophie Chao, a project officer with the Forest People’s Programme (FPP), a Netherlands-based indigenous and environmental rights organization, said: “Setting the standard is something an institution as powerful and influential as the World Bank should be considering as mandatory, rather than optional.”

Carling asked: “If their main target is to address poverty – if not for the poor, who is development really for then?”

dm/kk/cb

Link

Interview with UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar

BUENOS AIRES, 24 October 2013 (IRIN) – Myanmar’s government has signed individual ceasefire agreements with 14 main non-state armed groups since 2011, and is pressing ahead with plans for a national ceasefire agreement, originally scheduled for the end of October, but now delayed. The most recent round of negotiations with northern Myanmar’s Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) brought further hope of nationwide reconciliation.

Link

Analysis: Keeping human rights on the agenda in Myanmar

BANGKOK, 6 June 2013 (IRIN) – As hundreds of representatives from 55 countries, including world leaders, business chiefs and media people meet in Myanmar for the World Economic Forum on East Asia, activists are warning the international community not to forget human rights. 

Link

MYANMAR: Rights abuses continue unabated, activists say

BANGKOK, 24 May 2011 (IRIN) – More than six months since Myanmar held its first general elections in 20 years, human rights abuses continue unabated, say activists.