Preserving a fragile consensus on migration, but what comes next?

At a time when migration is increasingly politicized and migrants are often targeted by hostile rhetoric, the second International Migration Review Forum (IMRF) showed that states can still find common ground on migration and migrants’ rights. Held at the United Nations in New York this May, the Forum demonstrated that international cooperation grounded in human rights remains possible – and important – even in a difficult political climate. That is no small achievement. But the consensus also reveals difficult tensions: preserving agreement can come at the expense of more ambitious commitments and cannot replace concrete action to protect migrants’ rights.

A fragile consensus

The IMRF brought together states, UN agencies and other stakeholders to take stock of progress on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM), the global framework adopted by UN Member States in 2018.

As set out in a recent publication by the Quaker United Nations Office, supported by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Geneva Office, the Forum concluded with the consensus adoption of a Progress Declaration containing important reaffirmations of migrants’ rights. It recognizes that all migrants are human rights holders, regardless of their migration status, and that states must respect, protect and fulfil migrants’ rights without discrimination – something that should go without saying, but bears repeating in the present political climate. The Declaration also acknowledges some emerging human rights risks facing migrants, including online scams and the growing use of digital technologies in migration governance. 

However, on some of the most pressing challenges facing migrants today – including the externalization of migration governance, preventing migrant deaths and disappearances, and responding to climate-induced mobility for example – the Progress Declaration is either silent or less ambitious than existing commitments. The Declaration also stops short of committing to end child immigration detention, though it did create an opportunity to strengthen action by mandating reporting on progress and challenges in developing child-sensitive alternatives to detention.

While, in the end, consensus was reached at the IMRF, it should not be mistaken for unanimity on substance. Some states did not participate in the adoption or dissociated themselves from the consensus, while others expressed reservations about parts of the text, and, unlike 2022, it was later voted in the UN General Assembly. Against a backdrop of growing polarization around migration and wider pressures on multilateral cooperation, reaching a consensus and preserving a multilateral framework for cooperation on migration is significant. As the policy brief notes, that broad support meant some more rights-affirming language in earlier drafts was dropped during negotiations, raising the question of when the price of consensus becomes too high to pay? 

How inclusive is the review process?

There were encouraging signs in the way states engaged with the process during the second IMRF. A record number of countries submitted voluntary national reviews of their GCM implementation, while many announced new pledges for action and were represented at the Forum by high-level ministers. 95 states submitted voluntary national reviews, around 60 were represented at ministerial level, and more than 180 new pledges on GCM implementation were made.

But political engagement alone is insufficient. Recognizing the expertise that migrants themselves bring when decisions about them are being made, the GCM calls for a whole-of-society, human rights-based and people-centred approach to migration governance. Migrants and other civil society actors were involved in this year’s review: more than 350 stakeholders, observers and international organizations attended the IMRF and the preceding multistakeholder dialogue, and some states included migrant leaders in their national delegations – a positive development that should be built on. Yet their ability to shape outcomes was more limited due to several practical barriers, including a shortened negotiation process, reduced transparency, limited access for civil society, fewer hours for stakeholder consultations than in 2022, and restrictions that prevented many participants from actively intervening. And, the Progress Declaration did not manage to even repeat, let alone build on, language from the previous such declaration in 2022 acknowledging the value of meaningful migrant participation.

The road to 2030

The next IMRF is expected to take place in 2030. Making the IMRF more rights-based, inclusive and action-oriented will depend not only on what happens at a once-every-four-years UN meeting, but on the progress made between now and then – through day-to-day implementation of the GCM at local, national and regional levels.

The IMRF showed that multilateral cooperation on migration can withstand difficult times. The achievement in New York, then, is real – but it is also not the end of the journey. Declarations, reviews and pledges are not an end in themselves; their value depends on whether they lead to follow-up action and accountability at the national level and, in line with the GCM’s acknowledgement that no country can address migration alone, improved cooperation on international migration so that it works for all. 

For the next IMRF in 2030 to be a success, it will need to demonstrate not only consensus, but what has changed for migrants, communities and states.

The Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) promotes justice, peace and sustainability at the United Nations. Our priorities are based on the concerns of Quakers worldwide. Through different areas of work, our offices in Geneva and New York, seek to ensure that the UN system and community of nations support and uphold the dignity of all, so that justice and peace can flourish, and our shared home can be nurtured. QUNO Geneva’s Human Rights and Refugee programme works for international law, standards and processes that uphold the inherent worth of each and every person.