FINAL WORKSHOP REPORT

Transcription

1 Measuring Irregular Migration: Innovative Data Practices Expert Workshop, May 2017 Novotel Hotel, Berlin Germany FINAL WORKSHOP REPORT Berlin, Germany This material has been funded by the UK government; however the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK Government s official policies.

2 I. Introduction: Irregular migration data in light of the SDGs and the Global Compact on Safe, Regular and Orderly Migration Speaker: Frank Laczko, IOM s Global Migration Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC) Measuring Irregular Migration in light of Agenda 2030 and the Global Compact After welcoming remarks and a tour de table, Frank Laczko briefly introduced IOM s Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC) and the specific aims of the workshop. In particular, he stressed the importance of improving irregular migration data given a) the recent rise in irregular migration to Europe; b) the need to develop indicators to monitor progress towards migration-related targets in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) specifically Target 10.7, which calls for all countries to implement policies that facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration, while making sure that no one is left behind; and c) renewed calls for better data on migration, including on irregular migration, migrant smuggling and human trafficking, in the New York Declaration for Refugee and Migrants. It is also important to assess which aspects of irregular migration can and should be measured: should data collection efforts focus primarily on irregular migrant stocks and flows, or also look at migrant smuggling and smugglers profits, human trafficking, migrant well-being and undocumented migrants access to basic services in countries of transit and destination? On its part, IOM s GMDAC so far focused on three of these areas: 1) Migrant smuggling, through collaboration on the publication Migrant Smuggling Data and Research: A Global Review of the Emerging Evidence Base (2016), which points out how little evidence exists on migrant smuggling around the world. 2) Irregular migrant deaths and disappearances, through the Missing Migrants Project and the annual Fatal Journeys Report. 3) Irregular migrants demographic and socio-economic profiles, vulnerabilities, migratory journeys, experiences and motivations, through the analysis of data collected in five IOM s transit centres in Niger, mainly among beneficiaries of IOM s Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) programme (report to be published in August 2017). No reliable statistics are available on the global scale of irregular migration, the well-being of irregular migrants and their access to services. In fact, the clandestine nature of this type of mobility, which per se poses significant issues in terms of data availability, and the political sensitivity surrounding the collection and sharing of data on irregular migration make it difficult to estimate stocks and flows of unauthorized migrants, or to understand irregular migrants profiles. However, irregular migration globally is likely to be of significant proportions: for instance in 2009, UNDP estimated that there were about 50 million irregular migrants worldwide (UNDP, 2009) though such numbers should be interpreted with caution, given the inherent difficulties of estimating the scale of irregular migration. IOM recently produced a thematic paper on international migration statistics, aimed to inform consultations towards the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM). The paper presents some recommendations on how to improve migration data, albeit not specifically irregular migration data: Enhance data dialogue between all stakeholders; Develop a global framework to monitor data progress; Make better use of existing data; 2

3 Exploit new data sources (e.g. Big data ); Build national capacity and evidence base; and Develop new methodologies of collecting data on irregular and regular migration. While in recent years there has been some progress in collecting data on global migrant stocks, remittances and human trafficking, there are still many gaps in information about migration, especially about irregular migration and migrants in vulnerable situations. The GCM and Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development provide an opportunity to enhance the evidence base of migration, and spur collaboration between relevant stakeholders towards this objective. Frank Laczko concluded that the workshop aimed to shed light on innovative practices for the collection of data on irregular migration, and to foster discussions on the importance and the limitation of available data. II. Session 1: Measuring irregular migrant stocks: examples from the U.S. and Europe Speakers: Jeffrey Passel, Pew Research Center Estimates of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. and their characteristics (keynote speech); Georges Lemaitre, formerly at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) A general method for estimating the size of the irregular migrant population based on traditional data sources Discussant: Philip Martin, University of California, Davis. During this technical session, two different methodologies to calculate the stock of unauthorized migrants in a country were presented and discussed. The first methodology was presented by Jeffrey Passel, Senior Demographer at the Pew Research Center 1, and is specifically designed to be applied in the context of the United States. Estimates of the unauthorized migrants stock are derived using a variant of a basic residual method, in which estimated numbers of unauthorized immigrants derive from subtracting the number of lawful immigrants from the foreign-born population residing in the country at a certain point in time. Therefore, the first step of the methodology consists of estimating the foreign-born population in the US, based on data from the Census, the American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey. The second step is to derive the number of lawful migrants from demographic estimates of lawful permanent residents (LPRs). The subtraction between foreign-born population and estimates of lawful migrants yields a first estimate of the unauthorized population in the country. The initial estimate is then inflated for omissions (e.g. the fact that short-term residents are not included in estimates of lawful immigrants). The final figure can be disaggregated by country and region of origin (i.e. Mexico, Latin America, Asia, or Other ) and by some limited demographic information (age, sex and/or period of entry). 1 The Pew Research Center is a fact tank that aims to inform about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. The Pew Research Center conducts public opinion polling and data analysis but does not take any specific policy position. For more information, see 3

4 Using this method, the Pew Research Center calculated that in 2014, 5.6 million unauthorized men, 4.7 million unauthorized women and 750,000 unauthorized children were living in the U.S., 66 per cent of whom had been living in the U.S. for more than 10 years, on average. Jeffrey Passel noted that the methodology presents some important limitations. First of all, the final estimate does not account for the gross flow of migrants in and out the U.S., nor for changes of migrant status. Secondly, the estimate must rely on population controls used in the Census, the American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey. Also, the methodology inevitably rests on assumptions about categories of migrants who are in the country lawfully or unlawfully. Finally, some categories of unauthorized migrants might also be left out in the calculation (e.g. unauthorized migrants in detention). The second methodology to estimate stocks of irregular migrants in a country was presented by George Lemaitre, Senior Economist formerly at the OECD. The methodology can potentially be used in any country as it is (just like Pew s estimates) based on traditional data sources: (i) the national population census provided that it includes irregular migrants, even if they are not explicitly identified; and (ii) statistical series on authorized (legal) immigration (data on migration inflows and outflows). The objective of such a methodology is to estimate the number of unauthorized immigrants who entered over the flow data period and who are still present at the end of the period. The calculation is thus based on three pieces of information: (i) authorized migrants inflows which can be derived from administrative statistics; (ii) the total number of migrants residing in a country which can be obtained through the census; and (iii) the average duration of residence of all migrants which can also be obtained from the census. Besides these three pieces of information, it is necessary to calculate the outflow rates (deaths or emigration) of authorized migrants. This is obtained through a system of equations based on the average duration of residence of all migrants (authorized and unauthorized), calculated on the basis of census data. For instance, the estimate of unauthorized migrants in the U.S. can be calculated by looking at (i) data on the number of granted green cards over the period as the measure of regular inflows, (ii) the 2010 figure for total immigrants from the census, and (iii) the estimate of the average duration of residence of migrants. The final figure is then adjusted to account for the fact that the number of granted green cards does not actually correspond to actual migrants inflows, as 70 per cent of people receiving green cards are estimated to have already resided in the country for a long period of time. A first limitation of this methodology is that census data are normally available only at every ten years: hence, it is important to use other data sources to adjust the migrant stock figure for each year. Secondly, this methodology is based on the assumption that the census includes data on both unauthorized and authorized migrants: however, it is hard to know to what extent this is the case. Thirdly, this method of calculation does not account for the outflow of unauthorized migrants, the change/s of status irregular migrants experience throughout their life and often within a short period of time, nor for the fact that the average duration of stay of unauthorized migrants is usually longer than it is for authorized migrants. The session concluded with a discussion of the applicability of these innovative methodologies to the European context. It emerged that both methodologies cannot easily be used to calculate the stock of irregular migrants in European countries, as the vast majority of EU national censuses do not representatively capture migrant populations. This may be due to various reasons: 1) many migrants in Europe do not speak the language of the country where they are living, and that hinders their possibility to take part in the census survey; 2) over the past few years, significant numbers of migrants 4

5 and asylum-seekers have arrived in Europe; these individuals have not been regularly surveyed, and in many cases their status is not yet determined; and 3) undocumented migrants avoid disclosing information because they fear they would be reported to the police. A further issue common to both methodologies relates to the definition of concepts: how do different data sources define different migrant groups? Do definitions correspond in different surveys/censuses? How can one establish who is an unauthorized migrant, when in fact different degrees of irregularity exist? In this regard, it is extremely important to look at the legal framework of a country and to compare definitions in order to be able to interpret the data appropriately, accounting for their various limitations. Finally, methodologies used to estimate the stock of unauthorized migrants aim to provide a demographic base to start reflecting on the phenomenon of irregular migration and recognize its magnitude in different countries. However, they cannot account for the nuances that relate to migrants status the many degrees of irregularity/regularity and the fluidity of such legal status nor do they provide information on irregular migrants journeys, profiles, needs and vulnerabilities. In order to address these issues, other data collection practices are necessary. III. Session II: Measuring irregular migration flows: innovative quantitative and qualitative methodologies Speakers: Linnea Lue Kessing, Danish Refugee Council (DRC) Mixed Migration Monitoring Mechanism Initiative, 4MI Vivianne van der Vorst, IOM IOM s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) Amr Wazaz, European Asylum Support Office (EASO) Social Media Monitoring Agnieszka Politewicz, Frontex Migration Data Collection by Frontex Discussant: Frank Düvell, Centre of Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS), University of Oxford This session of the workshop focused on data collection practices concerning irregular migration flows to Europe. The session began with a presentation by Linnea Lue Kessing, Mixed Migration Coordinator at the Danish Refugee Council (DRC), who provided an overview of the Mixed Migration Monitoring Mechanism Initiative, otherwise known as 4Mi. 4Mi was first piloted by the Regional Mixed Migration Secretariat (RMMS) in the Horn of Africa in 2014 as an innovative approach to collecting data on irregular migration flows. The 4Mi has since then expanded into other regions in which the DRC is active: Central Asia South West Asia (CASWA), West Africa (WA) and Libya. The initiative works with a network of local monitors from migrant communities placed in known migration hubs, who are equipped with smartphones to conduct surveys with migrants and smugglers. The monitoring provides small datasets, with about 5 15 interviews per monitor per month. Thus far, 95 per cent of those surveyed are migrants on the move and the remaining 5 per cent are smugglers. This survey technique provides real-time data on the profiles of migrants, drivers of migration, journey conditions, protection risks, destination countries and the role of smugglers. The overall objective of 4Mi is to create a monitoring system that can provide information to identify protection gaps and inform policy and 5

6 humanitarian programmatic response. Findings are published on an interactive website, in monthly trend reports as well as in in-depth reports. In addition, the raw data is made available so that other agencies can use it. 4Mi is still in its pilot phase and is therefore work in progress. In this regard, there are quite a few limitations related to this monitoring system. First of all, there is a selection bias, as some migrants may be more willing than others to participate in the survey. Secondly, surveys must often rely on migrants memories of past events, which can also bias interview results ( recall bias ). Third, migrants may consciously avoid to share specific information due to protection concerns or fear. In addition, the information collected is not completely representative, due to the still very limited number of surveys conducted every month. In the second part of the session, Vivianne van der Vorst presented the work of IOM s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) a data collection system that provides a methodological framework to capture and monitor displacement and population movements across and within 34 countries. The main objective of DTM is to provide useful and relevant data, mainly serving the humanitarian community. DTM data covers the movements of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and, in some locations, of returnees (mainly IDP returnees), through camps, transit points and places of resettlement. Mobility tracking, flow monitoring and survey activities conducted by DTM aim to capture information regarding migrants profiles, reasons for moving, area of origin, transit points, time of displacement, intentions and expectations, cost of the journey, dangers along the route, instance of human trafficking, vulnerabilities, education and priority needs. One of DTM s main operations is the flowmonitoring system in the Mediterranean, which regularly collects information on migrants and asylumseekers arriving in Europe and returnees from Europe. One goal of such a system is to monitor whether migrants perceptions of Europe and of the asylum procedure change at different stages of the journey. In the third part of the session, Amr Wazaz, Communications Officer (Social Media) at the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), presented EASO s Social Media Monitoring project. The project, jointly implemented with UNHCR, began in March 2016, after the EU-Turkey statement was made. Through this project, EASO intends to provide EU Member States, institutions and other agencies with updated input on aspects such as pre-departure information, smuggling and human trafficking networks, asylum seekers and migrants routes and access to services, reception conditions in countries of transit or destination, and secondary migration plans. The Social Media Monitoring project specifically monitors two communities the Arabic and Pashto/Dari-speaking communities, respectively. According to what presented at the workshop, these communities rely heavily on their own network as a source of information, by word of mouth or through Facebook, while smugglers also promote their business through social media platforms, mostly using Facebook. Further communication between smugglers and migrants occurs off the social media platforms and through closed communication/messaging channels, such as WhatsApp or Viber. Pricing offered by smugglers constantly fluctuates, depending on the route and conditions of the trip (i.e. what kind of boat is offered for the journey). For instance, offers for boat trips to the Greek islands recently became relatively inexpensive. Yet, due to reception conditions on the Greek islands since the EU-Turkey statement, smugglers seem to have begun offering road trips from Istanbul to Thessaloniki for higher prices. Through these platforms, smugglers often lure potential migrants with the promise of luxurious journey conditions and images of rich life prospects in destination countries. On the other hand, however, social media platforms also allow community members to warn individuals against smugglers false promises. The fourth and final presentation concerned the irregular migration data collection work of Frontex, presented by Agnieszka Politewicz, Data Analyst at the Agency. Frontex uses a collaborative and 6

7 network-based approach, called Frontex Risk Analysis Network (FRAN), to collate data on a variety on indicators, including illegal border crossings, clandestine entries, facilitators (more commonly known as smugglers), illegal stays, entry refusals, users of forged documents, return decisions, effective returns and passenger flow at countries entry/exit points. Data are published in Frontex s Quarterly Risk Analysis reports, though not all data collected by Frontex are made publicly available. In sum, these four data collection practices albeit not always representative provide a significant amount of information on the profiles of irregular migrants, their journeys and the challenges they face on different migratory routes. As raised by the discussant, Franck Düvell, however, by seeking to delineate a general picture of migratory flows in and through certain regions, these research projects seem to lack specific research questions that justify and support their very existence. Another limitation of such data collection exercises is that they may often measure the number of incidences, not the number of individuals experiencing a certain incident, which makes them prone to doublecounting (as is the case with data sources based on law enforcement/administrative processes). It would also be important to clarify the terminology used in each data collection exercise; for instance, how are concepts such as transit country, smuggler, temporary migration defined, and how do definitions affect data collection practices? As emphasized by the discussant, such questions are central to account for the complexity of irregular migration, and provide reliable information to devise effective protection and assistance programmes, and address migrants vulnerabilities and needs. Furthermore, it is important that such large-scale data collection systems take into account ethical concerns involved in research with people in vulnerable situations: migrants should always be informed about the use and implications of data that is collected, given the sensitivity of the information and the fact that it could be used for law enforcement purposes, for instance. A final aspect to consider consists of the impact and implications these projects actually have and how these are monitored and measured. IV. Session III: Migrants in vulnerable situations and access to services Speakers: Nando Sigona, University of Birmingham MedMig Project Michele LeVoy, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) Eliza Galos, IOM s Migrant Assistance Division Migrants in Vulnerable Situations: evidence from the Central and Eastern Mediterranean migration routes, and IOM s global human trafficking database Luigi Achilli, Migration Policy Centre, European University Institute The Hidden Secrets of the Blatantly Obvious: Researching Human Smuggling in the Americas and the Middle East (with Gabriella Sanchez, University of Texas, El Paso) Discussant: Dita Vogel, University of Bremen During this session, recent research and data collection practices that aim at identifying irregular migrants in vulnerable situations and their ability to access basic services were presented and discussed. Nando Sigona, Senior Lecturer and Deputy Director of the Institute for Research into Superdiversity at the University of Birmingham, presented the results of the MedMig project, led by the Centre for Trust, 7

8 Peace and Social Relations of the Coventry University, the University of Birmingham and the University of Oxford,. The project involved 500 structured interviews with boat migrants who arrived in Italy, Greece, Malta and Turkey in 2015, and with local, national and international statutory and nonstatutory stakeholders. The project identified 96 different trajectories to Europe through the Central and the Eastern Mediterranean routes, highlighting key points of transit and stop-over. The research showed that migration journeys through the Central Mediterranean route turned out to have had a much longer duration (often over 24 months) than journeys through the Eastern Mediterranean route. The research also showed the variety of reasons underpinning the migratory journey: ninety-one per cent of those interviewed in Greece said that they had been forced to leave their country of origin; 66 per cent of those interviewed in Italy and Malta identified violence or persecution as the first reason for migration but a third of them also mentioned economic reasons for migration. The importance to distinguish between initial and subsequent drivers of migration also clearly emerged from the study: experiences of kidnapping, violence and exploitation were always mentioned as reasons for remigration, even for those migrants who said they had originally left mainly for economic reasons. Sigona also mentioned that one of the main issues raised in the context of the MedMig project relates to the politics of naming, or clearly categorizing groups of migrants (refugees, asylum-seekers and other migrants) despite the difficulty of making such distinctions in practice. The MedMig research highlighted a clear evidence of a continuum between forced and economic drivers of migration, in line with what previously argued by various scholars: the project found that the longer and more fragmented the migratory journey, the more difficult it may be to distinguish between these two forms of migration. Moreover, migrants status is often not entirely clear or definable as it may change several times over relatively short periods. Yet, Sigona argued, despite the complexity of the phenomenon, European migration policy has been shaped by assumptions of push and pull factors, which clearly separate between forced and economic migrants: the former, identified as refugees, and the latter identified as irregular migrants. He also argued that these categories seem to correspond to different hierarchies of deservingness, according to which certain groups of migrants defined by status, age, gender, nationality or by the migration route they followed are granted more visibility, better protection and access to services than others. During his presentation, Sigona also addressed use of the term crisis commonly associated with the large increase in numbers of asylum-seekers travelling to Europe in recent years arguing how this is a problematic term, referring in different contexts to humanitarian, refugee, border, security or even political issues, and thus becoming a floating signifier. According to Sigona, different knowledge production processes carried out by different actors (national and international organizations and agencies, academia, the media) sustained different and often competing meanings of the term crisis. At the same time, data have often been presented to the public as objective facts supporting or justifying specific narratives, without always appropriately accounting for the limitations of such data and the complexity that lies behind numbers. The second presentation concerned the work of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), presented by Michele LeVoy, Director of PICUM. The organization aims to promote the fundamental rights of undocumented migrants in EU countries, including nondiscrimination in access to basic services. As a matter of fact, in most EU Member States, undocumented migrants do not have the same access to healthcare facilities as other people: for instance, only in 9 countries in Europe undocumented children have equal access to healthcare services as other children. In some countries, such as Germany, undocumented migrants are required to be registered at the local municipality and to show their identity cards before being entitled to basic 8

9 health services. In this respect, Levoy noted, many undocumented migrants often avoid to access health facilities for fear of being reported to the authorities. Similarly, the fear of being detained also prevent undocumented women to report gender-based violence and abuses to the police. At the same time, evidence shows that the condition of irregularity that forces undocumented migrants to live hidden lives, in fear of being detained or deported, strongly influence their physical and psychological well-being. Levoy highlighted the need to improve undocumented migrants access to services and ensure their rights in all European countries. She also stressed the importance to implement data collection systems and develop indicators to monitor how different countries address undocumented migrants rights in their legal framework. The Migration Governance Index, developed jointly by IOM and the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), might represent an important tool in this direction, as it includes an indicator on national legal provisions ensuring access to basic services for undocumented migrants. The third presentation, delivered by Eliza Galos, Data Analyst at IOM s Migrant Assistance Division, focused on results from a specific module of IOM s DTM Flow Monitoring Surveys concerning instances of exploitation and abuse of migrants. The survey is regularly conducted in 7 countries (Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Serbia, Slovenia and the FYR of Macedonia) along the Central and the Eastern Mediterranean routes. The sample includes about 16,000 individuals and generally reflects the profiles of migrants travelling along these routes, by basic characteristics. As part of this specific module, migrants are asked questions about individual experiences that might amount to exploitation and/or human trafficking during the migratory journey. The survey does not aim to estimate the prevalence of human trafficking per se, but represents a way of quantifying people s experiences and of qualifying the kind of environment within which human trafficking occurs. Results of the survey along the Central Mediterranean route revealed that 73% of respondents answered yes to one of the trafficking/exploitation indicators, compared to 14% along the Eastern Mediterranean route. A multi-level logistic regression revealed that migrants in particularly vulnerable situations, on average i) are male, ii) have only attained primary or secondary education, iii) have close family members in the country of destination, iv) are travelling alone, v) have departed from a country in crisis or have left a country of origin in crisis, vi) have spent more time in transit, vii) have spent large sums of money during their migration journey (over USD 5,000) and viii) are travelling along the Central Mediterranean route. Surprisingly, results showed that children aged do not appear to be more vulnerable than young people aged However, children travelling alone were more likely to be vulnerable to abuse or exploitation than children travelling with other people, be them family members of not. According to survey results, men and boys appear as the most vulnerable to exploitation and human trafficking, challenging the assumption that women and children always face greater risks of exploitation. Moreover, the route and characteristics of the journey appear to be strongly related to risks of exploitation. Libya emerged as the country where most trafficking and exploitation take place, independently of it being the country of destination, departure or transit for migrants. Secondary migration movements are generally associated with higher risks of abuse for migrants. The survey methodology is affected by some limitations: first of all, some groups of migrants may be overrepresented given the sample used is not random. Secondly, some migrants are more likely to participate in the survey and to share their experiences than others. Thirdly and lastly, the survey does not include specific question on the type of exploitation (e.g. sexual, labour, etc.), hence an in-depth 9

10 assessment of which groups experience which type of exploitation and in which circumstances is not possible. However, the survey still represents an important tool to study human trafficking and exploitation along migratory journeys, especially as it allows for cross-country comparisons and it provides a general idea of which migrant profiles may be more exposed to exploitation than others. This is particularly important as reliable and comprehensive figures on the global stock of victims of human trafficking either identified or unidentified do not exist. Finally, Luigi Achilli, researcher at the European University Institute, presented the findings of a comparative study on human smuggling in the Americas and in the Middle East, conducted with Gabriella Sanchez, Assistant Professor at the University of Texas at El Paso. The ethnographic research was conducted between April 2015 and June 2016 along the Eastern Mediterranean route and since 2009 along the American Corridor, between the U.S. and Mexico. The first point raised by Achilli based on this research is that, despite being portrayed by Western media exclusively as a criminal business activity, human smuggling is in fact very much grounded on notions of solidarity and reciprocity: smugglers may often simply act, and be perceived as, facilitators of irregular migration. The study therefore highlights the social aspects of the smuggling phenomenon. Although many differences were identified between the two routes, several common findings emerged in both contexts. First of all, smuggling networks are markets characterized by high competition and fast-changing scenarios: they change constantly and very quickly, adapting to the needs of migrants and to different policy contexts. The role of each member of the smuggling network is flexible, not bounded to long-term agreements or integrated into rigid hierarchies. Achilli and Sanchez also argue that the relationship between clients/migrants and smugglers is based on trust, ties of kinship and ethnicity. Also, the migrant-smuggler dichotomy is much more nuanced than often portrayed: smugglers are often migrants themselves, offering services to other migrants to finance their own migration journey. The establishment of smuggling networks appears to work towards protecting fellow nationals from the systematic exploitation by smugglers of different ethnic backgrounds. In this regard, the research reveals how, when border controls intensify and smuggling networks are potentially affected, the likelihood of migrants being abused and exploited raises dramatically. However, in this context, exploitation is often consciously and willingly endorsed by its victims as a mean to enhance their own mobility chances. In light of these points, Achilli and Sanchez argue, European efforts to eradicate smuggling networks that are exclusively based on security considerations may be dangerous, expensive and counterproductive, as smuggling groups may be deeply entangled within migratory flows. The four data collection practices presented during this session, highlighted the many different layers of vulnerability that irregular migrants experience during their journeys and upon arrival at destination countries. Different groups may be more or less exposed to risks of exploitation, violence, danger and abuse at different stages of the migratory journey. Vulnerability often seems to derive from a combination of personal characteristics and circumstances in which migrants happen to find themselves. The session also raised issues concerning the use of different terms to describe irregular migration: language may often be used strategically to support and justify specific policies and narratives by different actors; terminology therefore plays a central role in shaping public opinion and attitudes towards (irregular) migration. Similarly, the discussion emphasized the importance of reflecting on how data are discussed and presented: when not properly contextualized, numbers may create 10

11 misconception in the public domain and contribute to the spreading of antagonism and fears towards (certain groups of) migrants. V. Concluding roundtable discussion: Needs, challenges and ways forward for improving data on irregular migration and ensuring nobody is left behind Speaker: Frank Laczko, IOM s Global Migration Data Analysis Centre. The workshop provided an opportunity to learn about and discuss among experts various data collection exercises on irregular migration. Efforts to estimate irregular migration based on statistical sources, such as censuses and national household surveys, and to measure or better understand irregular migration based on large-scale surveys conducted in the field, media monitoring activities, ethnographic and qualitative research all demonstrate the ongoing efforts to improve the evidence base on irregular migration. Even in the presence of significant methodological limitations, the data collected contribute to quantifying the magnitude of an inherently hidden, phenomenon, as well as to identify and to address irregular migrants vulnerabilities and needs. This is particularly important in light of the development of a Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, and of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, based on the principle of leaving no one behind, and its specific migration-related targets, requiring the need to measure whether migration is indeed becoming safer and more regular globally. Several limitations and challenges related to these data collection practices also emerged from the workshop, which need to be acknowledged by all actors producing knowledge on irregular migration. Some of the main points raised and discussed during the workshop, and a few preliminary recommendations to improve the evidence base on irregular migration are listed below. European countries should improve their traditional data collection systems, in particular their population censuses, to comprehensively capture the foreign-born population regardless of their legal status. This is fundamental to estimate the stock of irregular migrants in a country. Producing better estimates of the number of irregular migrants in a country at a given point in time largely depends on the availability of migration data from national censuses. Methodologies estimating the stock of unauthorized migrants in different countries aim to provide a demographic base to start reflecting on the phenomenon and recognize its magnitude. However, they hardly account for the nuances and fluidity of migratory status (the many degrees of irregularity/regularity), nor the heterogeneity of the irregular migrants population. Other data collection exercises are necessary to identify irregular migrants profiles, needs and vulnerabilities. Monitoring and surveying practices that seek to track irregular migration flows are extremely important to understand migrants routes and identify risks and vulnerabilities. However, they should be framed on specific research questions. This is necessary to justify their very implementation and address ethical concerns, especially in relation to respondents privacy and civil liberties. Also, more collaboration between organizations collecting data and researchers would be beneficial to contextualize new evidence on irregular migration and identify trends. 11

12 All data collection practices presented at the workshop demonstrated the very mixed character of irregular migration flows and the impossibility of assigning migrants to well defined categories. Language is never neutral and has the power to influence public opinion and attitudes: for this reason, it is extremely important to monitor and disentangle different knowledge production processes, and communicate (irregular) migration numbers appropriately. Different actors producing information on irregular migration should carefully think of the most accurate and balanced ways to present such information. A global assessment of data availability on irregular migration stocks and flows, as well as undocumented migrants access to basic services, such as health and education, is needed as a baseline on which to base measurement of progress towards the safety and regularity of migration. Such an assessment would also contribute to the identification of priorities in terms of data needed to measure such progress in the coming years, in light of the SDGs and the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. 12

13 ANNEX I Measuring Irregular Migration: Innovative Data Practices Expert workshop, May 2017 Berlin, Germany Aims of the workshop Irregular migration is inevitably difficult to measure due to its clandestine nature. Given the recent increase in irregular migration to Europe, there is growing interest in developing new ways to collect and analyse data on irregular migration. This expert workshop will provide an opportunity for participants to learn about innovative ways of collecting data on irregular migration. While the focus will be on Europe, there will also be some discussion of methods of gathering data on irregular migration in other parts of the world which might apply to Europe and its neighbouring countries. This workshop is particularly timely given current preparations for a Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which signatories of the New York Declaration on 19 September 2016 committed to adopting in This implies that there will be a need to track whether migration is safe, orderly and regular once the Global Compact is signed, calling for more and better data on irregular and unsafe migration. Better data on irregular migration will help States to understand how far migration is becoming more regular, orderly and safe. In light of such commitments, IOM s Global Migration Data Analysis Centre is organizing a workshop to discuss innovative data collection practices on irregular migration, with support from the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The event represents a follow-up to a previous workshop held in Nuremberg (Germany) in 2016, also supported by UK DFID, focusing on the measurement of safe migration. 2 This year s workshop aims to bring together experts from the governments, academia, international and non-governmental organizations, and provide an opportunity to: a) Learn about recent initiatives to improve qualitative and quantitative data on the size and dynamics of irregular migration, particularly in the European context. b) Exchange practices to estimate stocks of irregular migrants, with a focus on Europe and a comparison with the U.S. context. c) Propose solutions to the challenges of disaggregation of data by migratory status when such status is irregular. d) Discuss how to improve understanding of the specific vulnerabilities of migrants travelling irregularly whether assisted or not by smugglers. e) Explore how to gather more data on migrants in an irregular situation their numbers, profile, needs, and access to services. 2 Workshop discussions informed a special issue of Migration Policy Practice, a quarterly journal for migration policymakers and practitioners. 13

14 Agenda Day 1 Thursday18May :00 09:30 Registration 9:30 09:45 Welcomeremarks and tour de table Introduction: Irregular migration data in light of the SDGs and the Global Compact on Safe, Regular and Orderly Migration 09:45 10:00 By adopting the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, countries committed to facilitating safe, orderly, regular and responsible migration, and to make sure nobody is left behind. In this respect, reliable and disaggregated data on different migrants groups, including irregular migrants, are fundamental, but traditional sources of data will hardly capture irregular migrants. This introductory session will set the scene of the workshop by outlining the potential and the limitations of traditional sources of migration data to count those migrants who may often be invisible. Speaker: Frank Laczko, IOM s Global Migration Data Analysis Centre Session 1:Measuring irregular migrant stocks: examples from the U.S. and Europe 10:00 10:45 Collecting data on irregular migrant stocks is notoriously difficult. This is due to the fact that migrants status (regular or irregular) can be subject to frequent change, depending on countries legislation regulating entry, stay, residence and right to work of foreigners. During this session, innovative ways of estimating stocks of irregular migrants in Europe and in the U.S will be presented and discussed. Some proposed questions to guide the discussion are the following: How are estimates of irregular migrant stocks calculated in different countries? What can be learned from such experiences? How can the challenges of disaggregation by migrant characteristics be accounted for? Speaker: Jeffrey Passel, Pew Research Center, Estimates of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. and their characteristics Keynote speech 10:45 11:00 Coffee break 11:00 12:45 Speaker: Georges Lemaitre, formerly at OECD, A general method for estimating the size of the irregular migrant population based on traditional data sources Discussant: Philip Martin, University of California, Davis 12:45 14:00 Lunch break Session 2: Measuring irregular migration flows: innovative quantitative and qualitative methodologies 14:00 15:30 Documenting irregular migration flows is also very challenging as these should account not only for inflows and outflows of irregular migrants into and from a country, but also for people moving into and out of irregularity in the same country, and vital events (births and deaths) within the irregular migrant population, all of which are difficult to track. 14

15 15:30 15:45 Coffee break 15:45 17:30 Day 2 Friday19 May 2017 This session aims to present innovative methodologies, both quantitative and qualitative, to improve understanding of flows of irregular migrants and their characteristics. Some proposed questions to guide the discussion are the following: What can be learned from innovative methods to track irregular migration flows? What are the limitations of such methodologies and how could these be improved? How can estimates of irregular migration flows contribute to a better understanding of those who may be left behind? Speakers: Linnea Lue Kessing, Danish Refugee Council (DRC) Vivianne van der Vorst, IOM s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) Amr Wazaz,European Asylum Support Office (EASO) Agnieszka Politewicz, Frontex Discussant: Franck Düvell, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS), University of Oxford Session 3: Migrants in vulnerable situations and access to services 10:00 11:00 Collecting data on irregular migration is necessary to inform policy and provide assistance and access to services to vulnerable migrants. However, tracking irregular migrants in vulnerable situations at different stages of their journey is extremely challenging. This session will focus on different perspectives on how to identify irregular migrants vulnerabilities and exposure to risk as well as irregular migrants access to services. Some proposed questions to guide the discussion are the following: What are the current sources of data on irregular migrants in vulnerable situations? How can we achieve better disaggregation of data to deliver targeted protection and assistance to such individuals? What are the boundaries between irregular migration, smuggling and human trafficking and how can these be defined and accounted for in data collection? How can access to services for irregular migrants be measured? Speakers: NandoSigona, University of Birmingham Michele LeVoy, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) 11:00 11:15 Coffee break 11:15 12:30 Eliza Galos, IOM s Migrant Assistance Division Luigi Achilli, Migration Policy Centre, European University Institute, and Gabriella Sanchez (co-author, not attending), University of Texas at El Paso Discussant: Dita Vogel, University of Bremen 15

16 Concluding roundtable discussion: Needs, challenges andways forward for improving data on irregular migration and ensuring nobody is left behind 12:30 13:00 The final session will summarize the workshop findings. It will conclude with recommendations on how innovative data collection methodologies may enhance estimations of the size and dynamics of irregular migration, and understanding of the specific vulnerabilities of migrants travelling irregularly. It will highlight the potentials and the limitations of different data practices in counting those who may be left behind and in measuring safe, orderly, regular and responsible migration, so to contribute to preparations for the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Speaker: Frank Laczko, IOM s GMDAC 13:00 14:00 Lunch End of Workshop References Kraler, A. and D. Reichel 2011 Measuring irregular migration and population flows what available data can tell.international Migration, 49 (5): Düvell, F Pathways into Irregularity: The Social Construction of Irregularity. Comparative Policy Brief, Clandestino Project. Pew Research Centre 2017 What we know about illegal migration from Mexico, available at United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) 2011 Smuggling of migrants: A Global Review and Annotated Bibliography of Recent Publications. UNODC, New York. 16

17 ANNEX II Surname Participants list Participant Name Organisation Achilli Luigi Migration Policy Centre, European University Institute, Florence Bidart Tsvetomira UNICEF Cazes Sandrine OECD Dolan Robert Mixed Migration Platform (MMP) Düvell Franck Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS), University of Oxford Galos Eliza International Organization for Migration Juchno Piotr Eurostat Kampani Stylia IOM Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC) Kemsley Michael UK Department for International Development (DFID) Kessing Linnea Lue Danish Refugee Council Kouba Sabrina International Labour Organization Kull Annina IOM Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC) Kreienbrink Axel Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, BAMF Laczko Frank IOM Data Analysis Centre Lemaitre Georges Formerly at OECD Leonardelli Irene IOM Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC) LeVoy Michele Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) Mäder Sabine German Federal Police (BundesPolizei) Martin Philip University of California, Davis 17

18 Participant Organisation Surname Name Mertz Thomas IOM Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC) Odlum Alex Mixed Migration Platform (MMP) Pappalardo Luca European Commission, DG Home Passel Jeffrey Pew Research Center Politewicz Agnieszka Frontex Polycandriotis-van Duynhoven Spiros Raffray Emma Interpol European External Action Service (EEAS) Rango Marzia IOM Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC) Reinig Alexandra Berlin Institute for Population and Demography Salazar Pichardo Frank UK Department for International Development (DFID) Sigona Nando University of Birmingham Tjaden Jasper IOM Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC) van der Vorst Vivianne International Organization for Migration Vespe Michele European Commission, Joint Research Centre Dita Vogel University of Bremen Wazaz Amr European Asylum Support Office (EASO) 18