Left-behind: Gender in the Global Migration and Development Forum

Women and gender-diverse individuals routinely face distinct obstacles in their migration journeys, including limited access to safe migration pathways, unequal recognition of skills, and disparities in social protection and labour rights. While global migration governance spaces, including the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD), have acknowledged the importance of gender-responsive approaches, the integration of gender across policies, participation structures, and implementation frameworks remains inconsistent, uneven, and incomplete. More specifically, the focus on women in migration governance and their role in development is understated.

For the 15th GFMD process, Colombia has three overarching themes and six thematic priorities, which include a focus on “strength in movement: the impact of women on global migration in development.” In the past, discussions on gender-sensitive issues tended to be concentrated in side events or dedicated thematic sessions, with limited influence over the forum’s core agenda. Drawing on comparative experiences from Africa and the Americas, this analysis identifies shared challenges and region-specific factors that influence the positioning of gender within GFMD deliberations.

Formally, gender is present ⎯ But structurally thin

The GFMD recognises gender in principle, but integration into its agenda remains fragmented and superficial. It appears most visibly in dedicated sessions on labour mobility, protection, or development, yet rarely shapes the forum’s core deliberations. Once thematic sessions conclude, gendered dimensions often disappear, leaving state-led policy debates detached from the lived realities. This reflects a structural gap: agenda-setting rotates annually, with host governments producing uneven commitments and limited continuity. Progress in one GFMD  is seldom tracked into the next.

The Civil Society Mechanism (CSM) has created some consistency, convening feminist organisations and, in the 2024–25 cycle, leading a consultation on women, migration, and development. These spaces allow advocacy, but participation depends heavily on limited and unpredictable resources. Without institutionalised roles or sustained funding, feminist actors remain peripheral in shaping outcomes.

Regional dynamics: an open door to gender inclusion

The Africa–Latin Americas lens is particularly instructive, revealing parallels between regions shaped by colonial and racialised histories that continue to influence perceptions of who is seen as a “deserving” migrant. Women from marginalised racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups contribute significantly, through care work, informal trade, agricultural labour, and remittances, yet remain underrepresented in global migration governance forums.

Regional frameworks highlight the contrast between norms and practice. The AU migration Policy Framework (2018-2030) embeds gender equality as a cross-cutting priority, while ECOWAS and IGAD commit to recognising women traders and promoting gender-responsive governance. Yet these commitments rarely translate into coordinated advocacy within GFMD processes, where ministries of interior and labour dominate and gender priorities recede behind security or remittance concerns. In Latin America, the Quito Process and Cartagena Declaration affirm strong commitments to migrant women and refugee rights, and feminist networks mobilise around Afro-descendant, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ communities. Yet GFMD participation remains sporadic, often dependent on donor-driven projects, and interventions aligned more with state priorities than sustained gender advocacy.

Role of non-state actors: another door for enhanced gender inclusion

Against this backdrop, non-state actor platforms have emerged as critical spaces for amplifying gender perspectives. The African Non-State Actors Platform on Migration and Development has pushed since 2023 to make visible the role of trade unions, diaspora organisations, and women’s associations in shaping migration policy debates. Similarly, the Bloque Latinoamericano sobre Migración has connected feminist and community-based networks across the Americas, translating local realities, from domestic work to displacement, into collective advocacy within GFMD processes.

The joint African-Latin America forum held in December 2024 illustrates how these platforms can “blow up” gender inclusion: by linking regional experiences and advocating collectively, they created cross-regional messages that reached GFMD preparatory spaces. Still, participation remains constrained by funding and language barriers, limiting continuity and visibility.

This dynamic illustrates a recurring pattern: gender is acknowledged in frameworks and consultations but remains structurally absent from the GFMD agenda-setting. Without institutional mechanisms to sustain the role of civil society actors, gender risks remaining symbolically present rather than substantively transformative. This gap between formal recognition and structural absence creates not only policy blind spots but also shapes who can influence the debate.

Who gets to speak on gender?

The structural thinness of gender integration in GFMD is mirrored in the dynamics of participation. Even when included on the agenda, the voices shaping those discussions are often drawn from governments or large institutions, while the grassroots actors most affected remain excluded. In both Africa and Latin America, grassroot and community-based organisations such as women cross-border traders or Las Patronas, the Red de Mujeres Migrantes provide direct humanitarian support while advocating for rights, yet their access to GFMD is inconsistent, often donor-dependent.

The absence of these voices reinforces a policy space where gender is spoken about, but rarely by those directly affected. These exclusions matter because they prevent the forum from benefiting from grounded knowledge and collective organising already taking place across regions, such as through the African Non-State Actors Platform and the Bloque Latinoamericano sobre Migración, which have sought to bridge grassroots voices into global spaces. True inclusion requires more than space at the table: it demands policy frameworks that explicitly integrate gendered experiences into agenda-setting, negotiations, and outcomes.

Build mechanisms to embed gender as a structural concern

Experiences from Africa and Latin America point to the same conclusion: gender in global migration dialogue remains present in principle but thin in practice. The challenge is not only about including women in discussions, but about embedding gender as a structural concern, informed by grassroots voices and intersectional realities. GFMD’s flexibility and multi-stakeholder format create potential for progress, but this requires deliberate change. Institutional mechanisms must be established to ensure consistent representation of migrant-led networks, linguistic inclusivity, and accountability for gender commitments.

By integrating regional lessons into global processes, the GFMD can move beyond symbolic references and become a platform that strengthens equity, dignity, and rights for all migrants. The comparative lessons from Africa and Latin America suggest that building institutional mechanisms to embed gender is both possible and urgent. GFMD’s future credibility as a multi-stakeholder forum depends on whether it can move from symbolic acknowledgement to structural integration of gender.