Final Draft, 7 November 2018

GFMD Review 2018

Ten Years of GFMD:

Lessons Learnt and Future Perspectives
 2

Contents
1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3
2. The GFMD in a Changing Environment ....................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Evolution of the GFMD.............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 A Shifting Operating Environment ............................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Opportunities of the Current Moment… ................................................................................................. 9
Becoming a motor for GCM implementation.............................................................................................. 9
Bridging the gap on mixed migration ........................................................................................................... 9
Development solutions .............................................................................................................................. 10
Partnerships and multi-stakeholder cooperation....................................................................................... 10
2.4 … and Looming Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 11
Crisis of multilateralism............................................................................................................................... 11
Securitization of migration .......................................................................................................................... 11
3. GFMD Strengths & Weaknesses: Findings from GFMD Assessments ........................................................ 12
3.1 Space ........................................................................................................................................................ 12
3.2 Substance ................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.3 Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................................. 13
4. The 10-year Review: Purpose and Methodology ....................................................................................... 14
5. Review Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 15
5.1 GFMD Participation ................................................................................................................................. 16
5.2 GFMD’s Added Value ................................................................................................................................ 17
5.3 The Future of the GFMD ......................................................................................................................... 18
GFMD Role & Functions in the Context of GCM ..................................................................................... 19
GFMD Governance and Organization ....................................................................................................... 20
6. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 23
6.1 GFMD – Global Forerunners on Migration & Development .................................................................. 24
6.2 An Ambitious GFMD: Functions ............................................................................................................... 24
3Ps - Policy, Partnerships & Peer-Review… ............................................................................................... 25
… And Five Levers of Progress .................................................................................................................. 25
6.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 26
Deepen Policy Dialogue & Promote Coherence ....................................................................................... 26
Facilitate the Formation of Partnerships .................................................................................................... 27
Support the Review of Progress towards Agreed Goals ........................................................................... 28
Develop Sustainable Operating Modalities ................................................................................................ 28
 3

1. Executive Summary
The GFMD was created at a time, in 2006, when the very idea of discussing migration at the United Nations
was contentious. Over its first decade of operation, it has helped to lift migration onto the international
agenda, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and
to forge a global consensus on a comprehensive set of migration-related policy objectives and targets,
enshrined in the Global Compact for Safe, Regular and Orderly Migration. Is it time, then, for the GFMD to
pronounce its “mission accomplished”?
This ten-year review of the GFMD set out to assess the Forum’s outputs and contributions to the global
dialogue on migration and development, and to national level policy development and implementation, with a
view to assessing the continued value and relevance of the process. Results of a survey and consultations
with GFMD participating States, civil society and business suggest that the GFMD has continued relevance
and, in fact, faces heighted expectations for the future, including for support to the implementation, follow-up
and review of the GCM.
As it opens this next chapter and considers its future role, the GFMD will have to navigate a more crowded
migration and development space and negotiate its relationship with the architecture or ecosystem that is
emerging to support the GCM – the International and Regional Migration Review Fora, the UN Migration
Network and the Capacity Building Mechanism. There is some degree of uncertainty in its operating
environment as these new mechanisms begin to form and become fully operational. While the pieces around
it begin to settle, the GFMD can “hit the ground running”. It should seize the space created by the GCM to
experiment with new ways of working and formats of engagement.
States value the GFMD as a venue for networking, where they can forge partnerships and learn about
policies and good practices. It has provided governments with an informal and malleable space to discuss
sensitive topics, share challenges they are facing, and develop a common understanding and narrative
regarding the complex interlinkages between migration and development. The GFMD has developed a large
body of substance – including policy recommendations on migration and development that have shaped the
global consensus in the SDGs, the New York Declaration and the GCM – and the largest repository of good
practices from around the world, catalogued on the Platform for Partnerships (PfP). The GFMD has also
provided a venue for, and increasing space for interaction with, stakeholders from civil society and business to
discuss policies and practices that enable the development benefits and mitigate the risks of migration.
While it has largely thrived on informality, the GFMD also suffers from some resulting structural weaknesses.
It has repeatedly struggled to secure a succession of Chairs and continues to rely on a bare-bones Support
Unit. Its financial support has come from a small share of participating States that have begun to reduce their
contributions in recent years. Decisions made, such as on a long-term financing model or the rotation of
members on the GFMD Steering Group, are difficult to enforce. Furthermore, constituents have criticized the
GFMD as a still too formal and discussion-only format, lacking “teeth” when it comes to following up on its
outcomes. Its agenda is seen as skewed towards addressing migration over development policy concerns
while shortchanging normative considerations. Stakeholders remain largely siloed in the GFMD process with
demands growing for more interaction. Civil society, in particular, is seeking greater inclusion in all aspects of
the Forum.
Going forward, the GFMD should play to its strengths while seeking to address its weaknesses. This is all the
more important as it faces an increasingly challenging political environment. Many governments are
reassessing their commitment to multilateralism. Unilateral and transactional approaches to international
cooperation on migration and development are on the rise. The GFMD, too, will likely be measured
increasingly by whether it produces tangible results that serve States’ immediate national interests. An area
where States are looking for progress and the GFMD could facilitate practice-sharing is integration, with
receiving countries, in particular, expecting migrants to integrate and participate in society.
An increasing securitization of migration – sometimes based on legitimate concerns, e.g. related to the
involvement of organized crime in facilitating movements – limits the space for a development-oriented
approach that acknowledges and seeks to enhance benefits for migrants and societies. At the same time,
development actors that have been difficult to get to the table in the past, are now paying attention as they
are being called upon to solve migration problems. This could provide new opportunities to engage this
 4

constituency. The GFMD could also play a bridging role between the migration and refugee communities, as
the bifurcation of the New York Declaration into a Global Compact on Refugees and a Global Compact for
Migration leaves questions and coordination challenges when it comes to (large) mixed movements of
people.
Progress in the coming years will mean keeping channels of communication and dialogue open. But it also, and
critically, means generating action to make a tangible difference in the lives of migrants, diaspora communities
and the societies they leave and join. Implementation of the commitments made in the SDGs and the GCM
hinges on voluntary action and cooperation by States and other stakeholders.
The GFMD has always been carried by a small circle of committed governments that have brought along a
larger circle of interested governments. It has been one of the prime engines of progress in the migration
space, based on the principle of peer-to-peer motivation, learning, and cooperation. As the GCM enters the
implementation phase, the GFMD has a catalytic role to play. It is and will remain a voluntary format. As such,
the GFMD first and foremost provides a space for those governments and stakeholders who want to take
action, have good practices to share, are eager to learn, and seek cooperation with others. In a difficult
political climate, it can offer proponents of safe, regular and orderly migration a venue for peer support
among like-minded governments and other stakeholders. At the same time, as an informal process, it leaves
the door open for technical level exchanges even when the politics around migration are fraught.
Many States continue to see the core function of GFMD in providing an informal space for dialogue and
networking where sensitive issues can be tackled and trust is built in the process. At the same time, the
review tabled a number of other functions that States and stakeholders see for the GFMD: an expanded role
in facilitating the formation of (multi-stakeholder) partnerships to support GCM implementation; a new role,
emerging from the GCM, as a platform for reviewing progress in GCM implementation; and a role as a
central hub for the exchange of data and knowledge and for supporting learning and capacity development.
The recommendations in this report envision the GFMD of the future with three distinct spaces, respectively
dedicated to Policy, Partnerships, and Peer-Review. These spaces would structure GFMD activities at the
Summit and throughout the year, straddling both online and offline (in-person) interactions. All three spaces
are proposed to include a mix of both, governments-only and multi-stakeholder interactions. They should be
designed to activate five critical levers that have the potential to improve migration and development policy
making and generate better outcomes for migrants and societies. These are:
1) Data and knowledge to anticipate trends, appreciate the impacts of migration on sustainable development
and vice versa, assess policies and measure progress towards agreed objectives in the SDGs and the GCM.
2) Cooperation across sectors to foster a holistic understanding and whole-of-government approach to
migration and development. 3) Decentralization to promote problem-oriented and outcome-driven
approaches at all level of governance – be it global, regional, bilateral, national or local – depending on where
an issue can best be addressed. 4) Collective action by diverse stakeholders, including migrants, to harness
their diverse mandates, expertise, resources, networks and lived experiences. 5) Capacities to actively
facilitate and moderate integrated approaches that are evidence-based, multi-sector, multi-level and multi-
stakeholder.
There is more than one way of putting these pieces together. This report’s recommendations present an
ambitious scenario for the future of the GFMD, based on the feedback received from its stakeholders.
Realizing this ambitious vision will require revisiting the “infrastructure” that sustains the Global Forum, and it
will have resource implications. Yet, even a scenario that keeps the GFMD close to its status quo will require
investment in its capacities to live up to new tasks arising from the GCM. This includes considering closer
cooperation and synergies with the emerging UN structures that support the Compact, at the heart of which
sits IOM.

Recommendations

To deepen policy dialogue and policy coherence through the GFMD, we propose the introduction of more
continuous formats for technical discussions. Options could include either:
• Establish sector-specific networks that facilitate consultations among key ministries and agencies (e.g.
interior, labour, social affairs, and development) on a voluntary and regular basis to foster understanding
 5

among officials that are not usually involved in international cooperation, and to encourage inter-
ministerial communication ahead of GFMD Summits and a more holistic approach to national policy-
making on migration and development.
• Establish issue-specific, multi-stakeholder working groups that are State-led but include other
relevant stakeholders, to give sustained attention to difficult policy questions, for example the issue of
mixed migration.
Further, we propose a more systematic insourcing of research results into GFMD policy discussions:
• Create a dedicated window for interaction with the research community (think tanks, academia) –
online, at SG and FOF meetings, and during GFMD Summits – giving researchers a chance to present and
provide analysis of important findings and trends, while allowing governments and others to ask
questions and discuss policy implications.
To facilitate the formation of implementation partnerships, we propose that the GFMD use new formats of
engagement to help with match-making among governments and other stakeholders and to support the
formation of problem-driven and outcome-oriented partnerships at different levels of governance.
• Establish a solutions-driven “marketplace” to match potential partners: The GFMD could provide
an online and in-person marketplace for governments and other stakeholders who have a specific
solution or tools that they are willing to share (e.g. to facilitate a bilateral labour migration agreement or
local immigration integration) in order to help others develop their own solutions.
• Support the formation of outcome-oriented partnerships through Migration Labs: Building on the
Migration Lab pilot that was undertaken during the German-Moroccan GFMD Co-Chairmanship, the
GFMD could seek to forge a partnership for the replication of Migration Labs tailored to solving
problems in specific regional, national and local contexts.
To support learning and the review of progress towards the GCM and the SDGs, including GFMD reporting
to the IMRF and HLPF, a standing format is needed both, during the Government Days and the Common
Space.
• Introduce a peer-review space into the GFMD: The review could be organized thematically, around
clusters of GCM objectives, as well as around cross-cutting implementation and review challenges, such
as developing and financing national GCM implementation plans, exploring various partnership models,
and the development and testing of indicators for measuring progress. The latter issues may require more
in-depth and continued discussion, e.g. in the form of a working group or Lab.
• Develop an online “Learning Hub” that would absorb the existing online Platform for Partnerships
(PfP) and improve upon it by a) introducing “quality control” criteria for good practices and, potentially
offering States and others who have submitted practices the opportunity to access evaluation services;
and b) developing more interactive tools for online knowledge sharing, such as online communities of
practice, tutorials and online learning courses.
To broaden ownership of the GFMD, create incentives to contribute and take up the chairmanship, and
improve the overall “user experience” of the process, we propose that the GFMD:
• Introduce state-of-the-art facilitation techniques at the GFMD Summit and in other meeting formats
by insourcing outside professional expertise to offer GFMD focal points and/or participants a chance to
learn facilitation skills as a professional development opportunity embedded in the GFMD process with a
view to subsequently engaging their skills in the GFMD process.
• Reduce the frequency of GFMD Summit meetings: With the creation of the Regional and
International Migration Review Fora, it could be considered to hold the GFMD Summit meeting only
every second year, so that it alternates with the RMRFs and IMRF.
• Extend the GFMD Chairmanship to two years: If the frequency of Summit meetings is reduced, it
might be feasible to extend the Chairmanship periods to straddle both, a non-Summit and a Summit year.
Alternatively, countries could also opt for a co-chairmanship arrangement covering two years and a
jointly organized Summit meeting.
• Introduce the option of a Geneva-based GFMD Summit: The GFMD could gradually transition to a
permanent presence in Geneva by giving governments the option to organize the annual Summit there,
which would significantly reduce the costs of holding the Chairmanship.
 6

• Create designated oversight structures for Partnerships and Review: The Steering Group should
consider tasking individual members or specific groups, such as the ad hoc Working Group on the 2030
Agenda and GCM, to take responsibility for overseeing the GFMD’s enhanced role in promoting
partnerships and facilitating a meaningful review of progress towards agreed commitments.
• Differentiate the Steering Group and Friends of the Forum meetings: The profile of the SG could be
raised by cultivating it as a Group of Friends, enrolling the network of former GFMD Chairs to help
curate informal meetings at the Ambassadorial/Director General level. The frequency of FOF meetings
could be reduced to twice a year, featuring a more substantive agenda, for example by inviting expert
presentations or facilitating a dialogue among stakeholders.
• Strengthen the system of GFMD focal points by asking States to designate a Technical Committee on
Migration and Development (TCMD) composed of relevant government agencies that would provide a
broader interface for the GFMD and a motor for action on migration and development nationally,
including by seeking actively to promote partnerships and cooperation with other States.
To put the GFMD on a more stable financial basis, we propose the following short-term actions:
• Undertake the outstanding review of the GFMD Long-term Financing Framework that was
scheduled for 2017, to take stock of progress made in achieving the objectives of the Financing
Framework, identify bottlenecks, and assess the GFMD’s financing needs going forward, including
alternative avenues for resource mobilization.
• Leverage special initiatives and new formats to generate income outside the regular GFMD budget,
which could, however, support core GFMD functions such as knowledge management by generating
overhead for the Support Unit. A special project could be, for instance, the replication of the Migration
Lab format.
• Expand in-kind contributions from all participating States as well as other GFMD stakeholders –
e.g. the shouldering of travel costs, seconding experts, hosting meetings, or providing professional
services and expertise (knowledge management, meeting facilitation) – to broaden ownership and reduce
the financial needs of the Forum.
• Use incentives, such as matching funds, to broaden the circle of GFMD contributors: Longtime
funders of the GFMD could incentivize others to contribute by offering at least a share of their financial
support in the form of matching funds that are unlocked only if other governments and stakeholders,
such as large INGOs and businesses, make contributions as well.
Over the next couple of years, the GFMD will need to assess, if a more fundamental overhaul of its financing
model is needed.
• Explore the introduction of an annual fee for all GFMD-participating States based on country
income classification (high-income countries pay the most, low-income countries the smallest annual
contribution) and, possibly, membership of the decision-making ranks within the GFMD, i.e. members of
the Steering Group could face enhanced responsibilities in terms of membership fees and an obligation
to pay on time or be suspended from the SG.
• Carefully plan a possible transition to membership fees: A stopgap measure may be required to
facilitate the testing of and transition to a new financing model. To this end, the GFMD could ask donor
countries that have provided it with significant financial support over the last decade to continue doing
so while a new system of membership fees is being tested and rolled-out.
To enable the GFMD Support Unit to deliver a growing range of functions, and to do it well:
• Strengthen the GFMD Support Unit, starting with reviewing its actual scope of work, adequately
classifying posts, and addressing additional capacity needs to support knowledge management as well as
outreach and communications, in particular.
• Revisit the relationship between the Support Unit and IOM to ensure the SU receives the
operational support it requires, and to clearly define its relationship with the UN Migration Network, in
particular as regards cooperation, and potentially joint staffing, for the CBM. As it becomes clearer how
the GFMD will fit with the rest of the emerging GCM architecture, States may in due course wish to
consider further integrating the Support Unit with the IOM.
 7

2. The GFMD in a Changing Environment

2.1 Evolution of the GFMD

The GFMD was created upon the proposal of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in September 2006 at the
UN General Assembly High Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development (HLD). Against the
backdrop of longstanding resistance from some States to discuss migration at the UN, the GFMD was
conceived as a consultative process outside the UN system that would ensure and facilitate continued
dialogue following the HLD. As an informal, state-led and non-binding format, the GFMD was to offer a
platform for openly discussing migration and development challenges. It retained a link to the UN through
the office of the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) for International Migration held,
from 2006 to 2015 by Peter Sutherland, who played a pivotal role in championing the GFMD with States and
other stakeholders.
Since its inception, the GFMD has been led by a rotating Chair, i.e. a Member State that voluntarily offers to
organize the GFMD Summit and its preparatory activities. The Chair works with the outgoing and incoming
Chairs as a troika and is supported by a Steering Group comprised of 30 States that lend political and
strategic advice. The Chair is assisted by the GFMD Support Unit, a light support structure established in
2009 that extends multi-pronged services to the rotating GFMD Chair ranging from administration, finance,
and logistics to substantive support. It is hosted by, but works independently of, IOM in Geneva. The GFMD
budget consists of voluntary contributions from participating states.
The Forum’s main purpose over the years has been to advance understanding and cooperation on the
interplay between migration and development and to foster practical and action-oriented outcomes. The
GFMD has also played an important role in elevating new topics – and a fuller understanding of the
migration-development nexus – to the UN agenda. In 2013, the second UN High Level Dialogue on
International Migration and Development picked up many of its topics from the GFMD. In 2014 and 2015, the
GFMD advocated for the inclusion of migration in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were adopted by the UN General Assembly in September
2015. The GFMD Chair was subsequently invited to submit a thematic input to the annual High-Level Political
Forum (HLPF) which reviews progress in the implementation of the SDGs.
The inclusion of migration in the 2030 Agenda in many ways marked a culmination of the process that
started with the first HLD in 2006. But, it was events in Syria and the Mediterranean that made 2015 a
turning point for migration on the international agenda. The massive displacement out of war-torn Syria and
large onward movements from countries of first asylum triggered a political crisis in Europe, were EU
members were unable to agree on a system of responsibility-sharing, thereby exacerbating the humanitarian
situation along the main migration routes.
Against this background – and migrant fatalities in the Andaman Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and on the Central
American route – the UN convened a first ever Summit on Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants in
September 2016, accompanied by a “Leaders Summit on Refugees” organized by then US President Obama.
It was the first meeting of the General Assembly addressing the whole complex of migration and forced
displacement. The Summit resulted in the unanimous adoption of the “New York Declaration for Refugees
and Migrants”, which recognized the shared vulnerabilities and protection needs of refugees and migrants
that arise in the context of mixed movements.
Strong on principles, but short on actionable items, the most concrete outcome from the NYD was the
negotiation of two new (non-binding) agreements: the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) and the Global
Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM), to be adopted by the end of 2018.
 8

Figure 1: Timeline of Migration and Development-related Processes

UN GA HLD UN GA 2nd
on HLD on
International International
The GCM
Migration and Migration and The 2030
Development Development Agenda/SDGs 2017-
2006 2013 2015 2018

2007 2012- 2016

First 2015 The NY
Session of Declaration for
Post-2015
the GFMD Refugees and
Development
Migrants
Agenda

2.2 A Shifting Operating Environment

The elevation of migration to the top of the international agenda comes at a time of profound changes for
the global multilateral system. The adoption of the 2030 Agenda has ushered in a new era of international
development cooperation. The interdependence of the 17 SDGs and the agenda’s universal development
paradigm put the onus for progress – including to realize the SDGs migration-related targets – on policy
choices across sectors in all countries, developed and developing alike. The promise to “leave no one behind”
requires commitment to measuring progress, going beyond national averages to see where exactly targets are
met and for whom. Such knowledge can enable the legal and political empowerment of marginalized groups –
including oftentimes migrants and refugees – and help tailor interventions to local realities. Lastly, the 2030
Agenda recognizes the need to mobilize a wide range of resources (beyond development aid) and
stakeholders to achieve the SDGs.
The GCM, like the SDGs, marks a historic milestone for multilateralism. It reflects the same, universal spirit –
both in terms of transcending traditional divisions among UN Member States and in highlighting the need for
broad-based partnerships at all levels to realize its commitments. It contains an ambitious global consensus
on principles and provides a comprehensive, detailed and action-oriented policy agenda. Yet, it lacks the SDG’s
commitment to measuring progress, which reduces accountability and makes implementation even more
dependent on coalitions of willing States and other stakeholders rallying to take action on their priorities.
The GCM also arrives at a time when the optimism of 2015 has given way to a multilateral retrenchment
amidst rising nationalist and nativist tendencies in countries around the world. Increased political attention
to migration has gone hand in hand with the commitment of large-scale resources by some States, but also a
preference for short-term, transactional approaches to migration and development cooperation. Many new
actors have crowded into the migration field. At the same time, there has been some consolidation with IOM
joining the UN system and being asked to play a central coordinating role for UN implementation support to
the GCM. Thus, while the GFMD remains independent, it is now part of an emerging “implementation
ecosystem” for the GCM. This could give rise to either a competitive or collaborative relationship with the
UN, including old and new mechanisms such as the IOM’s International Dialogue on Migration (IDM), the
nascent UN Migration Network and the foreseen Capacity Building Mechanism of the GCM.
 9

The GFMD will have to navigate this new operating environment, which presents it with both, challenges and
opportunities for the way forward.

2.3 Opportunities of the Current Moment…

Becoming a motor for GCM implementation

The outcome document of the GCM, released on 13 July 2018, recognizes the role of GFMD in advancing
the international dialogue on migration and development, and lists it among the fora that could support the
implementation, follow-up and review of the GCM. Specifically, the outcome document of the GCM invites
the Global Forum:
➢ to provide platforms to exchange experiences on the implementation of the Global Compact, share good
practices on policies and cooperation, promote innovative approaches, and foster multi-stakeholder
partnerships around specific policy issues (para 47);
➢ to provide a space for annual informal exchange on the implementation of the Global Compact, and
report the findings, best practices and innovative approaches to the newly-founded quadrennial
International Migration Review Forum (IMRF), the successor of the High-level Dialogue on International
Migration and Development (para 51). (The modalities of the IMRF will be determined in 2019.);
➢ It further acknowledges the GFMD Platform for Partnerships (PfP) as a source of good practices on
migration and development that could inform the global knowledge platform of the capacity-building
mechanism that is to be established in the UN to support the implementation of the GCM (para 43c).

The GFMD has the opportunity to become a motor for GCM implementation, follow-up and
review, by playing a catalytic role in encouraging States and other stakeholders to take action,
share their progress (as well as failures), and thereby to learn from and motivate each other.
Indeed, at a time when migration is a toxic political issue in many countries, fostering a positive narrative and
a peer-support network for policy makers is critical. Furthermore, whereas other implementation support
mechanisms, such as the UN Migration Network and capacity-building mechanism will take time to
materialize and become fully operational, the GFMD can “hit the ground running” and has proven highly
adaptable to new challenges over the years.

Bridging the gap on mixed migration

Beyond the immediate role or request that the GCM articulates for the GFMD, the bifurcation of the refugee
and migration compacts, and insistence by States that migrants and refugees be addressed separately, leaves
important policy questions around the initial issue of large mixed movements that animated the NYD and
was at the root of both Compacts.
Governments around the world struggle to find adequate policy responses, as the traditional distinction
between voluntary migration and forced displacement is increasingly hard to draw. Many migrants leave their
homes involuntarily because they have lost their livelihood due to political, ecological or economic upheaval.
Climate change is likely to exacerbate that trend. In the absence of legal migration opportunities, refugees
and migrants often use the same, irregular and dangerous migration routes and end up using the same asylum
procedures. This slows down processes and ultimately delegitimizes both, asylum and migration policy, as only
those who can prove that they have been victims of persecution in their home country – or flee widespread
armed conflict – enjoy international protection in accordance with the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention.
 10

Whereas receiving countries see the main problem in irregular migration and the solution in fortifying
borders, countries of origin lament the absence of legal alternatives for migration. Transit countries often pay
the price for the inability or unwillingness of countries of origin and destination to manage migration. As
migrants and refugees get stranded on their territory, they must deal with the humanitarian, political, social
and economic impacts. The GFMD could offer a venue where the migration and refugee communities of
States and other stakeholders can jointly discuss the issue of mixed movements and develop coherent
approaches, using the Refugee and Migration Compacts as a toolbox.

Development solutions
As political pressure to address refugee situations and migration pressures has mounted in recent years
great, and often contradictory, hopes are currently pinned on development actors and development
cooperation instruments to help solve migration and flight-related problems. Development solutions are
supposed to:
• Reduce the root causes of unsafe and irregular migration and forced displacement, e.g. through
resilience-building and the creation of livelihood opportunities, as well as by enhancing the availability
and flexibility of pathways for regular migration;
• Support countries and communities that receive migrants and refugees, such as through new
development financing instruments and other incentives to include newcomers in local markets and
services;
• Increase human development gains for migrants, for instance through protections and flanking
measures in the context of temporary and circular migration programmes;
• Leverage migrant and diaspora contributions for development, e.g. by linking remittances to financial
inclusion programmes and providing investment incentives;
• Support the sustainable reintegration of returning migrants and strengthen receiving communities;
• Build capacities for migration governance and migration policy development in partner countries.
For the GFMD, as a platform that sits at the intersection between migration and development, this renewed
interest in development solutions provides an opening to position itself more prominently as a “go-to” place
for development actors to exchange experiences, knowledge and lessons learned, including as regards
challenges that arise from reconciling the short-term orientation of migration management and humanitarian
aid with the long-term nature of development planning and cooperation. The GFMD could consider
developing new formats for engagement to seize this opportunity.

Partnerships and multi-stakeholder cooperation

The development effects of migration ultimately depend on politics. In principle, unregulated migration has
less positive consequences for the development of the countries of origin and destination than regulated
migration. The chances for those affected are also lower if there is no or only inadequate political support.
This applies to both refugees and migrants. At the heart of the debate about migration and development thus
lies the question of legal pathways and how those can be jointly managed, e.g. in the context of bilateral
cooperation agreements and regional economic integration processes.
Public opinion in many receiving states is hostile towards migration, which means that opening legal channels
requires a significant investment of political capital on the part of political leaders. For this investment to pay
off, governments and those supporting their call in business and civil society must be able to demonstrate
that migrants do not harm the interests of locals; that those admitted are willing and can successfully
integrate into the labour market and society; and that temporary migrants will effectively return. International
cooperation can greatly facilitate their task, by ensuring that migrants have the right skills and can have them
 11

recognized at destination and upon return; by reducing costs so that they can reach their earning targets; by
making social security contributions portable; and facilitating the reintegration of returnees.
The GCM includes an entire objective on international cooperation and partnerships. Due to its informal
nature, the GFMD has an opportunity to become a match-maker for governments and a partnership cradle. It
has long been a multi-stakeholder space and is bound to expand that role with the association of local
authorities through a proposed new Mayors Mechanism of the GFMD. In an era where most issues require
cross-sector and multi-stakeholder collaboration, the GFMD is in the privileged position of providing a
central switchboard for a large network of stakeholders that do not necessarily speak the same language or
share the same perspectives on migration and development. Now is the time to develop more interactive
formats for bringing the resources of various actors to bear on solving common problems and cooperation
challenges.

2.4 … and Looming Challenges

Crisis of multilateralism
Many governments continue to regard migration policy as a core area of national sovereignty, although they
are aware that their management capacities are limited and that they need to cooperate in order to meet the
challenges of migration and seize its opportunities. In addition, increasing skepticism towards effectiveness
and legitimacy of multilateral agreements is making international migration policy cooperation more difficult.
Instead, unilateral or bilateral strategies are pursued for transnational challenges. Questions of long-term
effectiveness and sustainability are often not at the center of these considerations, nor are any negative side-
effects of such agreements. Some governments question or terminate membership of international
organizations and participation in multilateral processes if these processes do not sufficiently contribute to
the fulfilment of short-term national interests.
The GFMD is a non-binding process and, as such, is not perceived as threatening to national sovereignty in
the same way as the GCM is by some States. However, it is to be expected that the GFMD, too, will
increasingly be measured by Member States based on whether participation in it produces tangible results
that serve their immediate interests. This applies to the participation of States as well as to the involvement
of civil society and the private sector. This more transactional approach increases the pressure to find an
effective role for GFMD in the new global migration governance architecture, to deal with relevant issues and
to organize the exchange in such a way that participants can benefit from it in practical terms.

Securitization of migration
The elevation of migration on the political agenda often goes hand in hand with migrants and refugees being
framed as a threat, particularly in transit and destination countries. Concerns about migration-related
security risks are particularly pronounced in the case of large-scale unregulated migration but extend to legal
immigrants as well. Depending on the context, immigrants may be perceived as a threat to national identity
and social cohesion. Their presence may trigger conflicts over resources, such as access to services, jobs,
housing, land and water. In other cases, immigrants are associated with crime and terrorism or raise fears of
political interference and espionage from foreign powers. Risk perceptions are influenced by various factors,
including the economic situation, experiences with previous migrations, the origin of the immigrants, and
relations between countries of origin, transit and destination.
Migration can affect State security, for instance, if it is inadequately managed, migrants are not integrated, or
irregular migration is facilitated by organized crime. Massive forced displacement and protracted
displacement crises can have serious negative impacts on regional security and cooperation. However, a third
security dimension – human security – is just as important. Many migrants and refugees become victims of
 12

human rights violations before, during or after migration. For this reason, human security issues play a central
role in the NYD, as well as in the GCM and the GCR. Tensions around the security dimensions of migration
among Member States and civil society organisations are likely to arise and could impede progress in realizing
GCM commitments. The GFMD could provide a space for exploring whether and how state, regional and
human security concerns can be reconciled; side-stepping those concerns risks undermining efforts to unlock
the development potential of migration.

3. GFMD Strengths & Weaknesses: Findings from GFMD Assessments

As it confronts a shifting multilateral landscape, how well is the GFMD equipped to take on the opportunities
and challenges of the current moment? This section examines and summarizes findings of previous GFMD
reviews, and reflects on recent developments, with a view to identifying the Forum’s main strengths and
weaknesses as it enters this new, post-GCM stage.
The GFMD has conducted reviews of its relevance, governance arrangements and working methods under
different Chairmanships, notably in 2011-2012 and 2013.1 In addition, GFMD Summits regularly include
special sessions on the Future of the Forum. These previous assessments speak to the GFMD’s main
strengths and weaknesses manifesting around three key features of the process: 1) it being a state-owned,
informal space; 2) its focus on generating substantive outcomes in terms of policy and practice; 3) the multi-
stakeholder character of the Forum. It must be noted that, given varying expectations of the GFMD by
different States and stakeholders, what is considered a strength by one observer may be a weakness to
another. Thus, assessments are not always unanimous and clearcut, a fact that speaks to the versatility of the
process.

3.1 Space
States value the GFMD as a state-led, voluntary and informal space that they own and where they can openly
discuss and bring forward issues to seek mutual understanding on all aspects of migration and development.
The Forum has served to table sensitive and often controversial issues, including the human rights of
(irregular) migrants, climate-induced migration, return and reintegration, as well as the issue of mixed flows
and refugees – issues that have been considered rather toxic in official UN fora.
The ad-hoc nature of the Forum also means it has been a malleable space: The GFMD has introduced new
formats for discussion, branched out into the regions, held thematic meetings and formed thematic working
groups, and has developed modalities for interaction with civil society and business. This flexibility and
nimbleness are a distinct advantage over more formal multilateral processes at the UN and give the GFMD
an “edge” as a laboratory for innovation.
On the downside, GFMD discussions – though technically informal – often remain quite formal and scripted
in practice as few government officials come prepared to engage in genuine, interactive dialogue.
Furthermore, as an ad hoc process, the GFMD faces challenges in terms of ensuring consistency and
sustainability. It has repeatedly struggled to secure a Chair; its Support Unit, which has a limited mandate in
theory, has been called upon to deliver a wide array of tasks in practice, for which it is understaffed.Voluntary

1 The first assessment was carried out in a two-year period – Switzerland GFMD 2011 (Phase I) and Mauritius GFMD 2012 (Phase II),
which examined the way the GFMD operates as a process, including its governance structures; the impact and relevance of its
outcomes; and its relationship with United Nations and other stakeholders. Building upon the outcomes, the second phase of the
assessment elaborated on possible options for the future of the GFMD in the context of the debate on migration and development. In
2013-2014, the Swedish GFMD Chair commissioned a thematic survey with an objective to bring the Forum process forward,
including the Government-led Roundtables and GFMD Policy and Practice Database, by helping to achieve more concrete, evidence-
based and broadly relevant outcomes.
 13

contributions to the GFMD have significantly decreased over time and remain concentrated among a few
States, as less than 10% of participating governments contribute on a regular basis. This raises serious
questions regarding ownership of the process.
Furthermore, the GFMD has suffered from an inability to enforce decisions made, for example on financing.
Its Long-Term Financing Framework, adopted in 2011 has not been fully implemented2, not least due to the
shifting priorities of the rotating Chairs-in-Office. A proposed review of the framework in 2017 did not take
place. Similarly, agreement in the GFMD Steering Group to ensure rotation among its membership (as
foreseen in the SG’s TOR) has not been effectively enforced. States and other stakeholders have also
criticized the GFMD for being unable to ensure follow-up to its many outcomes and recommendations.

3.2 Substance
The GFMD hosts a wealth of acquired policy experience and practice-oriented recommendations on
migration and development. Since its early days, the GFMD has helped shape the global debate and develop
common narratives around the multi-faceted nature, potentials and risks of migration and its links with
development.
In recent years, substantive inputs from the GFMD have directly influenced formal multilateral processes,
such as the HLD, the 2030 Agenda, the NYD, and the GCM. An internal analysis by the GFMD revealed that
the outcome document of the GCM included over 70 policy options and options for practical action
proposed in the 2007-2017 GFMD Thematic Recollection, which was submitted by the German-Moroccan
Co-Chairs at the GCM stocktaking conference in December 2017. Furthermore, the outcome document
explicitly recognizes that the GFMD has been instrumental in paving the way for the New York Declaration,
which, in turn, launched the process for the elaboration of the GCM.
Among the weaknesses of the GFMD, and closely linked to the current capacities of the SU, is its limited
ability to analyze and effectively disseminate the wealth of knowledge it has generated. Existing tools such as
the PfP remain underdeveloped and underutilized, not least to due to a lack of strategy and capacity for
active outreach and communication.
In terms of substance, the GFMD has faced criticism from some parts of the UN system and civil society for
a lack of normative focus and advocacy. It has also been criticized for failing to adequately address the
development side of the migration-development nexus and for its limited success in bringing development
actors to the table. Although the GFMD has continually discussed the issue of policy coherence, it has
garnered mixed reviews in terms of advancing more integrated policy responses and a whole-of-government
approach.

3.3 Stakeholders
While it is a state-led process, a strength of the GFMD is seen in its inclusiveness of other stakeholders. It
regularly brings together policy-makers from all world regions, representing countries at all stages of
development and a range of government agencies, as well as UN and other international organizations,
academia, migrant, diaspora and civil-society organizations, and business representatives. While participation
by civil society was initially quite restricted, space for interaction between states, civil society and business
has increased over the years, though during GFMD Summits the Government and Civil Society Days remain

2Key objectives of the Framework are: a) to support a multiannual work plan; b) to enable donors to make multi-year contributions
and c) to facilitate the carryover of unspent funds from one year to the next. The main features would include a standardized budget, an
established pledging mechanism, clear governance and accountability framework, and a proposed review in 2017.
 14

largely separate events.3 In 2017, the 4th Mayoral Forum on Migration, Mobility and Human Development
was held back-to-back with the GFMD in Berlin. Building on this initial exchange with local authorities, the
GFMD Co-Chairs have proposed to incorporate a new Mayors Mechanism into the GFMD process.
Although the GFMD has made progress in terms of stakeholder integration, it does remain largely siloed –
both in terms of its engagement with governments through the Focal Point system, and in terms of the way
the various GFMD stakeholders maintain separate spaces in the process. Civil society has long advocated for
full access to all GFMD spaces, including the Steering Group, and criticized the limited opportunities for
interaction with States during Summit meetings. Both civil society and business have struggled to mobilize
financial support for their participation in the GFMD and have asked for inclusion in the GFMD budget to
ensure the sustainability of the Forum as a multi-stakeholder space. However, especially in the case of
business, States are also expecting contributions and are still looking for ways to more actively engage the
private sector.

4. The 10-year Review: Purpose and Methodology

As migration is becoming firmly anchored in the United Nations, through the entry of the IOM and the
expected adoption of the GCM, the 2017-2018 GFMD Co-Chairs, Germany and Morocco, decided to
commission this ten-year review of the GFMD’s outputs and contributions to the global dialogue on
migration and development, and to national level policy development and implementation, with a view to
assessing the continued value and relevance of the GFMD.4 Based on feedback from GFMD constituents, the
review identifies options and recommendations for making the GFMD fit for the purpose of supporting
Member States in the implementation, review and follow-up of the GCM, as well as the migration-related
SDGs. The results of the review will be presented to the GFMD Co-Chairs and shared with participating
Member States at the 11th GFMD Summit in Marrakesh for consideration in discussions on the Future of the
Forum.
The Review Team adopted a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods to carry out its assignment and seek
out the perspectives of GFMD stakeholders. The team prepared a 15-point questionnaire5 - “GFMD Review
2018 – Questionnaire for Member States” – which was circulated to all Government Friends of the Forum

3 The participation of civil society has continuously evolved, from one, then two “civil society day(s)” in Belgium and Philippines,
respectively, to the launch of the Common Space at the 2010 GFMD Summit in Mexico, followed by civil society taking responsibility
for self-organizing the civil society involvement in the GFMD during and since the 2011 GFMD in Switzerland. The participation of
diaspora groups and migrant organizations has increased ever since. The systematic incorporation of the private sector since the 2015
Turkish Chairmanship has ensured that the voice of businesses is heard in the Forum. Cooperation with the Civil Society and Business
Mechanism components of the GFMD was further strengthened in joint planning of GFMD sessions before and during the GFMD
Summit in Berlin, including the entire program of Common Space and the Business Mechanism. The German-Moroccan Co-Chairs
have systematically consulted both civil society and private sector representatives in the preparation of the GFMD Thematic
Recollection for the GCM.
4The proposal to conduct a GFMD review was first presented by the GFMD 2017-2018 Co-Chairs to the Steering Group and Friends
of the Forum in November 2017, and reiterated in February 2018, before the adoption of the GFMD 2018 concept note. Thereafter, the
GFMD Co-Chairs engaged the services of an Experts Team, co-led by Ambassador Eduard Gnesa, GFMD 2011 Chair and former
Swiss Special Ambassador for International Cooperation on Migration issues, and Ambassador Esteban Conejos Jr., GFMD 2008
Chair and former Philippine Undersecretary for Migrant Workers’ Affairs. Both Ambassadors served as GCM Rapporteurs of the Tenth
GFMD Summit, wherein they synthesized the outcomes of the Berlin Summit that were relevant for the 2030 Agenda and GCM
debates. The other team members are: Ambassador Arturo Cabrera (Ecuador), Dr. Steffen Angenendt (SWP), Sarah Rosengärtner
(Columbia University), Chukwu-Emeka Chikezie (Up!-Africa Ltd) and Maksim Roskin (GIZ). All have expertise on varied migration
and development issues and have followed closely the evolution of the discourse within and outside the UN. In addition, Estrella
Lajom, Head of the GFMD Support Unit was involved in the conceptualization and conduct of the entire review process, providing
vital institutional memory and lessons learned, which have informed many of the recommendations in this report.
5 Annex_ copy of the Questionnaire.
 15

(FOF)6 to seek their input. The questionnaire was divided into three main parts, respectively inquiring about:
1) the involvement of the responding government in the GFMD process; 2) the perceived added value of the
GFMD; and 3) the government’s views and ideas regarding the future role of GFMD in the context of the
GCM. Most questions were open-ended to allow governments to share their views, experiences and
suggestions. The questionnaire was translated into French and Spanish to increase accessibility and response
rates.
Consistent with the state-led but multi-stakeholder nature of the GFMD process, the Expert Team also
sought feedback from the civil society, private sector, and UN entities members of the Global Migration
Group (GMG). The International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), coordinating office of the GFMD
civil society, hosted a civil society hearing with the Expert Team in Geneva. Following the hearing, the civil
society International Steering Committee (ISC) submitted its formal recommendations to the GFMD Review
team titled, “12 civil society recommendations for the future of the GFMD.” Organizing consultations with
businesses and GMG members proved difficult due to their geographic dispersion and time constraints. The
team, therefore, relied on the coordinating office of the GFMD Business Mechanism, the International
Organisation of Employers (IOE), to coordinate the business input, which was submitted to the GFMD
Review Team in August 2018. GMG members were invited to complete a modified review questionnaire, to
which seven agencies submitted a response.7
The team also considered the outcomes of the GFMD Special Meeting on the GCM with the Co-Facilitators
and SRSG on 19 June 2018 and participated in the GFMD Dialogue on the GCM Implementation on 4
September 2018. Desk research and interviews with select experts further served to gather information to
help situate the GFMD and findings of the review exercise and to develop the recommendations in this
report.

5. Review Findings
A total of 65 governments8 (out of 193 UN Member States) completed the GFMD review questionnaire,
including 26 of the 30 Steering Group members. A breakdown of the responses by SG Membership and by
regional groupings is provided below.

% of
Country Total % of total
Government FOF SG
SG Members (out of 30) 26 13 87
193
Non SG Members 39 20
TOTAL 65 193 34

Regional Group Received Total % of group

African Group 20 54 37
Asia-Pacific Group 11 50 22
Eastern European 6 23 26

6 The GFMD Friends of the Forum is open to all Member States and some Observers of the United Nations. For the purpose of this
review, the questionnaire was sent to all Government FOF.
7
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO); International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); International Organization for Migration (IOM);
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA); United Nations Population Fund
(UN FPA); and World Food Programme (WFP).
8 An overview of the governments that participated in the survey is provided in Appendix A.
 16

Latin America and Caribbean Group 12 33 36

Western European and Others Group 16 29 55

On average, some 150 governments have actively participated in the GFMD process since 2007. Computed
against this number, the response rate of governments is 43%. This indicates a relatively good turnout9,
considering that the questionnaire was administered for a period of only two months, and that the time-
frame (mid-June to early August 2018) of the review exercise coincided with the fifth and sixth
intergovernmental negotiations of the GCM in New York.

5.1 GFMD Participation

The survey asked Member States to share information on their participation in, and contributions to the
GFMD over the years, including their level of representation at GFMD meetings, the frequency of attendance
at GFMD Summits, the duration of being the GFMD focal point for the respective government, and the
country’s financial contribution to the GFMD.
The survey results suggest that almost half of the responding governments (49 %) are engaged in the process
through their Ministry of Foreign Affairs (37 %), including Permanent Missions in Geneva (12%). Far fewer
governments are represented by their Immigration and Citizenship Authorities (7%). Other entities that were
mentioned are Ministries of Labour and Ministries or Departments of Economic Cooperation and
Development.
Most government focal points for GFMD-related matters are capital-based and have held this role for less
than two years (39%). A third of GFMD focal points (33%) have been in place for two to four years, while a
full fifth (20%) have been focal points since the inception of the GFMD in 2007. This indicates that there is a
strong core of committed government officials who have accumulated significant institutional memory of the
GFMD process as well as expertise on migration and development.
Whereas most government respondents attend the GFMD preparatory meetings and GFMD Summits (74%
combined), a rather limited share of governments (8%) has attended the Business Mechanism and the Civil
Society Days. It is unclear whether this is due to a lack of interest or perhaps a lack of information or
resources. Geneva-based focal points more frequently attend preparatory meetings and thematic workshops
(which usually take place in Geneva), but often cover a range of topics and therefore depend on their
hierarchy to prioritize GFMD meetings. For focal points based in the capital, the frequency of participation at
technical meetings is often a matter of resources.
In terms of the level of representation at GFMD Summits, a fifth of government respondents (20%) indicated
that they participate at the Ministerial level, while another fifth ensured participation at the level of
Director/Director General, indicating that the GFMD is a forum for political dialogue and not only technical
level discussions. One government observed that the value of GFMD as a venue for networking very much
depends on the caliber of counterparts attending Summit meetings. While the GFMD has little control over
who attends the Summits, there might be measures to encourage high-level participation and guide delegates
in their networking.
Only a few governments provided information on their financial contributions to the GFMD, which mirrors
the fact that only a few Member States fund the GFMD on an annual basis. The biggest share of financing has
usually come from the Chair-in-Office. An even more limited number of countries have contributed to the

9The GFMD 2011 assessment under the Swiss Chairmanship received a response rate of 47%, after taking into account that an average
of 140 governments had actively participated in the GFMD process since 2007. Meanwhile, the GFMD 2013-2014 thematic survey held
under the Swedish Chairmanship elicited a total of 48 responses from June to October 2018.
 17

Civil Society Days, including to enable the participation of migrant and diaspora organizations, and to the
GFMD Business Mechanism. The GFMD’s small donor base contrasts with the wide appreciation of the
process reflected in the survey responses.

5.2 GFMD’s Added Value

The review asked all GFMD stakeholders to assess the added value of the process. Overall, feedback affirmed
the continued relevance of the GFMD beyond the adoption of the GCM. UN respondents saw a positive
trajectory of the GFMD, stating that the Forum had acquired growing importance and relevance over the
years. By bringing together the perspectives of countries with different migration realities, it had advanced
mutual understanding and led to a convergence of views on emerging migration priorities and dilemmas.
The Business Mechanism noted that involvement with the GFMD had encouraged greater engagement of
national employers’ organisations on migration issues, both with their member companies and with
governments, sparking innovative thinking on practical measures to improve the functioning of migration
systems. GFMD participation also led to a deepened dialogue with civil society organisations on issues of
common concern, such as ethical recruitment. The IOE further suggested that businesses would see value in
participating in the GFMD and shaping the conversation as long as governments remain engaged in the
process.
The GFMD review questionnaire for governments provided a list of possible dimensions along which
respondents were asked to assess the value added of the GFMD.

Most participating States (77%) ranked networking as the biggest added value of the GFMD, providing a
number of examples for how the process had benefited them in this regard. For instance, one African country
mentioned it is establishing trade links with countries where its nationals are settled, while a Western
European country highlighted participation in a GFMD working group as an opportunity for close
collaboration not just with other member states but with international organizations such as IOM, ILO,
ICMC, MPI, and other think thanks. A North American country appreciated opportunities for dialogue with
non-traditional but like-minded partners.
 18

Closely linked to the networking function of the GFMD, State responses identified partnerships as the
second most important added value of the process. 72% of the respondents indicated that they have gained
new insights and deepened their knowledge about the interests and priorities of partner countries.
Responses underlined the significance of partnerships in addressing and solving migration issues holistically
and appreciated the role of GFMD in strengthening both, South-South and North-South cooperation on
migration; encouraging coordination with regional consultative processes on migration, such as the Regional
Conference on Migration; and facilitating access to funding and technical cooperation. Governments also
mentioned having gained new perspectives on regular pathways and circular migration programmes and
formed bilateral migration projects through the GFMD, as well as paving the way for the GCM.
Several governments underscored the value they attach to interaction with other GFMD stakeholders, stating
that this “has enabled us to learn how stakeholders view migration and development and what role they can
play in moving forward towards building robust international cooperation." Conversely, UN respondents
noted that participating in GFMD Roundtables had helped inform their assessment of member states’
positions on key policy issues and helped them formulate input into the GCM. The Common Space was
mentioned to have helped integrate academic work and institutions into the Forum’s deliberations.
63% of government respondents saw knowledge as an important value added of the GFMD, indicating that
they have gained new insights and learned about new ideas, concepts, policies and programmes – for example
as regards the contributions of migrants and diaspora and migrant integration – which helped them develop
national migration policies. Almost half (48%) of respondents have either contributed to or consulted the
GFMD’s main tool for promoting knowledge on migration and development related practices – the Platform
for Partnerships (PfP).10 The PfP was referenced as a useful tool for the preparation of Summit events (such
as the Roundtable sessions), for inter- and intra-regional sharing of experiences, and for countries of origin,
transit and destination to explore policy options. 18% of respondents had neither consulted nor contributed
to the PfP. UN respondents commended the PfP as the richest repository of migration and development
practices, which also links to the international governance framework by allowing to filter practices in
accordance with SDG targets and the themes of the GCM.

Asked about the relevance of GFMD themes and topics over the years, 79% of State respondents
suggested that the GFMD has been topical and relevant, including by being responsive to newly emerging
issues. Over half of respondents did not see any gaps or biases in the selection of topics. Nonetheless, it was
suggested that the GFMD establish a transparent (online) consultation mechanism to discuss and provide
feedback on the overarching theme and topics selected by the GFMD Chair-in-Office. UN respondents
observed that the GFMD had sometimes struggled to address emerging issues in a timely manner but had
become more responsive and attuned to new dynamics over time. They also saw an evolution from thematic
discussions – focused, for example, on labour, protection, remittances, human trafficking – to a more cross-
cutting and multi-dimensional exploration of the interconnections among various phenomena. This more
complex approach was deemed valuable in light of the foreseen role of the GFMD in supporting GCM
implementation.

5.3 The Future of the GFMD

States and the other GFMD stakeholders were asked about the future of the GFMD in the context of the
foreseen adoption of the Global Compact for Migration in December 2018: what the Forum’s role should be

10The PfP fosters knowledge-sharing in two ways: (1) the online Policy and Practice Database, a repository of now over 1,000 good
practices undertaken by governments and organizations in the field of migration and development on national, regional, and global
levels; and (2) a special PfP session at the annual Summit Meeting that features state-of-the-art migration and development policies
and practices for government and non-state policymakers and practitioners.
 19

and how it can contribute to fostering multi-stakeholder collaboration between States, civil society and
business. While some governments shared ideas for the future role of the GFMD, most respondents chose
not to provide comments beyond the answer choices that were offered in the review questionnaire.

GFMD Role & Functions in the Context of GCM

For the most part, government respondents were in favor of the GFMD playing a support role for the
implementation and follow-up of the GCM, as stipulated in the Compact. Some framed GFMD’s role as that
of an advocate for GCM and SDG implementation, providing a bridge between global objectives and national
level policies. It was suggested that future GFMD discussions could use the 23 GCM objectives as a
framework to facilitate an “exchange among States on the implementation of some or the entirety of the
objectives and commitments”. As a venue for annual discussions on implementation progress, the GFMD
could help States identify and address gaps, shortcomings and bottlenecks in their national and sub-national
approaches, capacities, and ownership and facilitate knowledge sharing on how to implement the objectives
effectively (in terms of time, cost, policy coherence, human rights dimension, etc.). This would enable the
GFMD to report findings, best practices and innovative approaches to the IMRF and HLPF.
However, one government that is not party to the Compact voiced its dissent, underlining that the GFMD
should remain an informal, voluntary and state-led process. UN agencies’ responses called on the GFMD to
remain responsive to the evolving interests and priorities of Member States. While the Forum should give
particular attention to the GCM, it should not limit itself to that framework, but have a broader vision and be
open to exploring other potentially upcoming topics and challenges.
Thus, despite broad convergence among respondents, some differences in emphasis emerged regarding the
desired functions of the GFMD going forward:

Informal Policy Dialogue

Many responses spoke to governments’ satisfaction with the status quo of the GFMD. One mentioned that
national governments are and should remain the primary constituency of the GFMD. Some comments
explicitly underlined the Forum’s added value as an informal platform for dialogue and the exchange of
practices and delineated this function from a more implementation-oriented role. As the negotiations on the
GCM have unearthed a number of issues and areas that remain sensitive or contentious, responses suggest
that there is still demand for maintaining the role of the GFMD as an informal “safe space” in which those
issues can be further discussed and where agreement on greater detail can be explored.

Data, Knowledge and Learning

Several comments touched on the role of the GFMD as a hub for data, information, knowledge and learning.
Some governments suggested that the GFMD should strengthen its role in this area and made concrete
suggestions in this regard, including for the GFMD to collect data through surveys and studies, to serve as a
global repository for data, and to set up a global data-sharing platform. One concrete area where the need
for better data was highlighted is in quantifying the contributions of migrants.
Other comments focused on strengthening the role of the GFMD in disseminating knowledge and facilitating
learning. Suggestions were made to focus GFMD discussions more squarely on quality case studies, identify
trends and synthesize lessons learned across years. Several respondents proposed a role for the GFMD in
capacity development by organizing trainings, workshops and seminars, and facilitating peer-to-peer learning
and skills transfers through matching-making among partners.
Respondents positively highlighted the online PfP and called for reinforcing and strengthening it in the future
to serve as an improved information and learning resource and to allow for an ongoing exchange of
 20

information among users. It was suggested to expand the PfP database, including by linking it with other
databases run by IOM, and to improve outreach by using of social media channels and issuing a regular
newsletter that would highlight updates to the PfP, feature examples of good practices, and help practitioners
connect. A few governments saw an opportunity to revitalize the PfP by linking it to the Capacity Building
Mechanism that is to be established under the GCM.

(Multi-Stakeholder) Partnerships and Projects

A number of government comments spoke to a more “interventionist” vision of the GFMD, calling for the
Forum to become more action and results-oriented. They highlighted the need for improving follow-up to
GFMD discussions and outcomes and for the GFMD to be able to showcase its contributions to both, the
international community and to migrants. A more action-oriented GFMD was seen as one that better
facilitates cooperation – not just dialogue – among the different stakeholders. To this end, it was suggested
that the GFMD offer States and other stakeholders more opportunities to come together to work out joint
approaches and solutions to issues of common concern. One suggestion was to increase participation by
governments in the Civil Society Days and the Business Mechanism and to strengthen links between those
spaces. It was also proposed to diversify national delegations to include different stakeholder groups and to
have more than one focal point for each country.
States and stakeholders suggested to strengthen the outreach of the GFMD into different regions, by
organizing regional and sub-regional consultations and pursuing closer cooperation with Regional
Consultative Processes and regional economic integration bodies (such as ECOWAS, MERCOSUR, EU, and
ASEAN). Both the Business Mechanism and civil society proposed that they could contribute to the GFMD
by convening regional level meetings that would bring together governments and other stakeholders to
address region-specific issues in an action-oriented manner, to build capacities, and to strengthen
implementation partnerships.
Some called for more stakeholders to be part of GFMD discussions, including local and sub-national
authorities, children and youth, migrants and refugees, and media representatives. Others suggested not to
increase the number of partners present, but to involve the current partners – civil society and business –
more actively into the GFMD discussions. One called for partners to be carefully selected for their relevance
and ability to advance implementation on a particular topic or issue. States expressed a desire to strengthen
the presence and contribution of the private sector, including through more active engagement with the
World Economic Forum. Civil society proposed the introduction of a “Sutherland Award”11 to encourage and
reward practical cooperation among the GFMD stakeholders. Awards would be given for “Excellence in
Partnership” and “Excellence in Exchange that Widens Implementation”.

GFMD Governance and Organization

Government comments on the GFMD governance structures suggest that there is broad consensus that no
radical overhaul is needed, but there is some divergence on specific elements and aspects, most notably
regarding the GFMD’s relationship with the UN System. A number of governments expressed their desire to
maintain current structures, keep governance arrangements simple, and avoid dependence on the UN and
duplication with other agencies and fora. However, several comments also spoke to governments’ concern
with seeing follow-up to GFMD outcomes and, in that regard, saw closer links with IOM and the UN as
necessary. Comments also touched on questions of inclusion and ownership of the Forum, highlighting the
need to be regionally representative and enabling involvement of all regions by translating GFMD documents

11
The civil society suggested that in each category, a first prize of USD $25,000, and a second prize of USD $10,000 may be given.
“Put the “we” in that, too: civil society could contribute some of the funds we raise toward that award, and hopefully the business
mechanism too.”
 21

in French and other languages. One response called for strengthening communication and transparency with
national focal points.

Summits
While some suggested that the GFMD should maintain the current design and structure of the summit
meetings, including the thematic round tables, there were also calls for a more interactive and goal-oriented
Forum that enables collaboration among stakeholders. One comment lamented too much lecturing and not
enough discussion; another suggested that the number of round tables should be limited to consider the
capacities of member states. It was proposed to use sessions at the GFMD summits more in the spirit of
market places and less for general and generic discussions. Multiple Member States highlighted the need to
encourage depth over breadth with the aim of having more focused and continuous discussions. The
Migration Lab, piloted during the German-Moroccan Co-Chairmanship, was highlighted as an innovative
approach to foster dialogue and engage diverse stakeholders in solving migration and development problems.
Submissions also proposed new formats such as lunch talks and “speed dating” events to foster interaction
between governments and CSOs. Another suggestion was to transform the Common Space into a space for
initiating cooperation projects among various stakeholders.
Civil society expressed a desire to broaden their participation in the GFMD process, including the newly
proposed Mayors Mechanism, and put forward ideas for how to facilitate more and better interaction with
governments. This included proposals to introduce more and smaller spaces for meaningful dialogue (e.g. tea
table format); to allow civil society and migrants to access the Government Days as participants (even if just
in a “listening capacity”) and as speakers and panelists; and to add a “Compact Day” to the Summit schedule
that would be dedicated entirely to the implementation, follow-up and review of the GCM. Going forward,
the GFMD Common Space could be used to accelerate good practices and partnerships to fulfill the SDGs,
as well as to constructively discuss more controversial or less understood aspects of migration.
The civil society submission also advocated for strengthened engagement throughout the year, including by
creating more opportunities to meet regionally and thematically outside the GFMD Summit. One
recommendation is for GFMD to put more emphasis on national level briefings for governments and national
stakeholders before the GFMD, as well as debriefings after the Summit to encourage and support
implementation and follow-up actions in line with countries’ national implementation, follow up and review of
the Global Compact and the 2030 Agenda.

Chairing arrangements
Considering the annually rotating GFMD chairmanship and recurring challenges in securing a Chair, several
comments expressed a concern with ensuring continuity. In this regard, the introduction of the principle of
co-chairmanship by Germany and Morocco in 2017/2018 was welcomed as a positive example that should be
maintained. One response suggested the adoption of multi-year chairmanships. It was further proposed to
expand the GFMD Troika from three to five countries to create interest and buy-in from more States.
Comments spoke to concerns with ensuring equitable regional representation and an alternating of the chair
between developing and developed countries, as well as between countries of origin, transit, and destination
of migration. It was suggested that it would be important to better understand why governments hesitate to
take on the GFMD chair so as to be able to address existing bottlenecks. For example, it could be considered
to move to a more political chairmanship with less financial and organizational responsibilities attached to it.
One response observed that GFMD Troika members should refrain from letting their national priorities spill
over into their chairmanship, generating GFMD positions or work streams that are not supported by the
majority of Member States.
 22

Governing bodies
There were few comments on the GFMD governing bodies, mainly focused on the Steering Group. While one
comment called for widening the membership of the SG, others proposed that the SG be given a clearer
leadership role as its discussions tended to be repetitive of those conducted with the wider Friends of the
Forum. It was suggested that the membership of the FOF should include more officials with expertise in and
responsibility for migration management. As a potential addition to the current governance bodies, it was
suggested to create a supervisory structure composed of government, civil society, and private sector
representatives that would oversee GCM implementation – presumably within the context of GFMD
discussions on this topic.
Civil society urged the GFMD to follow the Sutherland Report recommendation to “repurpose” and
“consider governance reforms to encourage joint ownership by States, civil society and the private sector.” It
suggested to do so, for example, by including a workable number of leading civil society actors and
practitioners in the Ad hoc Working Group on the 2030 Agenda and GCM. Civil society also asked to be
represented in the GFMD Steering Group and to expand civil society participation in the Friends of the
Forum. UNICEF suggested to strengthen child and youth participation in the GFMD process, based on a
successful pilot experience in 2018, and laid out various options in this regard12.

Support Unit
All comments that related to the GFMD Support Unit recognized that it would need strengthening going
forward. Some mentioned the need for additional technical and administrative personnel; others also called
for an expanded mandate, transforming the SU into a full-fledged secretariat. It was suggested that the latter
would need to involve close cooperation with IOM and the UN SRSG (if continued), or could be achieved by
removing the firewall between the SU and IOM.

Financing
Suggestions for improving the financing of GFMD were concerned with making funding more predictable, and
with diversifying the sources of funding and other contributions. Proposals were made to fix a minimum
annual voluntary contribution; to move to multi-annual contributions; and to ask all governments to
contribute financially or in-kind, e.g. by paying for their participation in the Forum or through secondments to
the Secretariat. Other respondents, however, suggested that further funding support was needed to enable
small developing states to participate in GFMD meetings. In terms of financing the CSD and Business
Mechanism, it was suggested to include both into the overall GFMD budget. At the same time, States
proposed to pursue additional means of funding from civil society and the private sector.

Relationship with the UN

UN respondents noted that GMG members, individually and increasingly together, have supported the GFMD
since its inception, including through secondments and technical advice to the Chairs and by contributing
thematic expertise and practice examples to Roundtables and the PfP. The GMG, and individual agencies, have
also aligned their work plans to the thematic priorities of the GFMD and used the Forum’s recommendations
to inform their activities, programming, advocacy and outreach at national, regional and international levels.
GMG-produced tools and guidelines (e.g. on protection of vulnerable migrants, on data, and on migration

12
These options are: The GFMD could organize a child/youth focused event every year where young people are invited to advocate and raise their
concerns. There could be a minimum youth representation at every major GFMD event. The GFMD could create a standing child/youth sub-group to
ensure permanent representation. The sub-group could be chaired by the UN Major Group for Children and Youth, with rotating membership of young
migrants and from UNICEF and/or an NGO.
 23

mainstreaming in the UNDAFs) were seen as supporting follow-up to GFMD recommendations at the
country level.
In terms of future UN-GFMD relations, a number of governments suggested that the GFMD should pursue a
closer relationship with the UN System, with one submission suggesting that it join the System. The GFMD
Business Mechanism also called for the GFMD to cooperate with the UN to avoid duplication and ensure a
seamless linkage with other relevant platforms, such as Regional Consultations Processes, IOM events, and
ILO initiatives. In particular, more regular consultations and cooperation with the UN were deemed
“imperative to translate the GCM into action”. It was proposed that the UN could continue to support the
GFMD process with operational guidance to inform governments on how to transform the Forum’s
recommendations into concrete actions and programs, providing examples of good practices and enabling
them to achieve national development objectives. Moreover, the GFMD and UN could collaborate on
identifying emerging issues, understanding development linkages, and supporting the creation of structured
partnerships for the implementation of the GCM. States and agencies alike suggested that the GFMD PfP
could link to the planned Global Knowledge Platform of the CBM.
However, there were also responses that urged the GFMD to remain independent from the UN and to keep
a “healthy distance” from the new UN Migration Network. Multiple responses further suggested the need to
clearly delineate between the roles of the GFMD and IOM. Some States sought to clarify that they see IOM –
not the GFMD – play the lead role in coordinating GCM implementation. Most called for closer GFMD
collaboration with IOM in its capacity as coordinator and secretariat of the UN Migration Network. One
comment touched on the GFMD and IOM’s International Dialogue on Migration (IDM), suggesting that the
latter could serve to undertake a deeper examination of topics discussed at the GFMD. It was also proposed
that IOM be given a role in assisting future Chairs and the governing bodies (SG & FOF) in shaping the
agenda of the GFMD. IOM, for its part, suggested that it could serve as an important bridge between the
GFMD and the UN system given its new role as the secretariat to and coordinator of the UN Migration
Network. By removing the firewall with the GFMD Support Unit, IOM could provide both substantive and
logistical support to the GFMD.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

This 10-year review of the GFMD process comes at a moment of change for the migration field and for
international relations and global politics more broadly. Many governments are reassessing their commitment
to multilateral cooperation. Migration has become a highly political, if not geopolitical issue, heightening the
stakes and broadening the range of actors and policy instruments that are brought to bear on the issue. The
Global Compact provides a new framework for international cooperation and new institutional structures –
such as the IMRF, the UN Migration Network, and the Capacity Building Mechanism – that will, however, take
time to take shape and become fully operational. Even then, implementation of the GCM will first and
foremost hinge on governments and other stakeholders taking initiative and action on the Compact’s 23
goals.
For the GFMD, this means it will be operating in, and will have to adapt to, a highly dynamic environment in
the coming years. While participating States face some big choices on the overall direction of the Forum, the
current context with its inherent uncertainties calls for an exploratory and iterative approach to evolving the
GFMD as the many “moving parts” around it begin to settle. If anything, the current environment, combined
with a new role for the GFMD in supporting the implementation, follow-up and review of the GCM create
space for experimentation and entrepreneurship, for seizing the informal nature of the process to test new
formats, initiatives and forms of partnership.
 24

The recommendations in this section are crafted in this spirit of adaptive evolution. They seek to provide
stepping stones for initiatives that could be taken in the near future, while also laying out options for some of
the bigger choices facing the GFMD.

6.1 GFMD – Global Forerunners on Migration & Development

Since its inception, the GFMD has played a critical role in socializing governments and other stakeholders to
the migration-development nexus and in lifting migration onto the global agenda. With the adoption of the
GCM this aim has been achieved. The GCM lays out a comprehensive and (almost) universally endorsed
consensus on migration. While new issues and challenges may emerge, the primary task in the coming years
will be to generate action on commitments made and to further deepen consensus on objectives and
understanding of policy options. Progress will hinge on voluntary action by champions and coalitions of the
willing. This has important implications for the future role and functions of the GFMD, and its added value as
a platform for networking, partnerships, knowledge-sharing and learning.
The GFMD has always been carried by a small circle of committed governments that have brought along a
larger circle of interested governments. It has been one of the prime engines of progress in the migration
space, based on the principle of peer-to-peer motivation, learning, and cooperation. As the GCM enters the
implementation phase, the GFMD has a catalytic role to play. It is and will remain a voluntary format. As such,
the GFMD first and foremost provides a space for those governments and stakeholders who want to take
action, have good practices to share, are eager to learn, and seek cooperation with others. In a difficult
political climate, it offers proponents of safe, regular and orderly migration a venue for peer support among
like-minded governments and other stakeholders. At the same time, as an informal process, it leaves the door
open for technical level exchanges even when the politics around migration are fraught.
The results of this 10-year review go to validate the continued relevance of the GFMD. Indeed, they signal
heightened expectations of the Forum for the way forward. This is good news, but also comes with
challenges. Views on how the GFMD should evolve are not unanimous. Incoming Chairs may seek to
accommodate different countries’ priorities and demands by expanding the GFMD’s functions to do “a bit of
everything”. However, the GFMD has faced a decline in financial support in recent years, has repeatedly
struggled to secure a succession of Chairs, and continues to rely on a bare-bones Support Unit.
There is a real risk then that the GFMD will be asked to meet elevated expectations and to deliver more
functions with its current, limited capacity. If the GFMD is to do more, it will require more predictable
leadership and greater financial and human resource support, underpinned by broader ownership of the
process. The alternative is for States to make some hard choices regarding priorities for and the main added
value of the GFMD, including on how it should work with the newly emerging UN structures that support
the GCM.
The following sections lays out some critical organizing elements for the GFMD going forward.

6.2 An Ambitious GFMD: Functions

States value the GFMD as an informal space for dialogue and networking where sensitive issues can be
tackled and trust is built in the process. Many continue to see this as the Forum’s core function. At the same
time, the review tabled a number of other functions that States and stakeholders see for the GFMD: an
expanded role in facilitating the formation of (multi-stakeholder) partnerships to support GCM
implementation; a new role, emerging from the GCM, as a platform for reviewing progress in GCM
implementation; and a role as a central hub for the exchange of data and knowledge and for supporting
learning and capacity development.
 25

3Ps - Policy, Partnerships & Peer-Review…

We envision the GFMD moving forward with three distinct spaces, respectively dedicated to Policy,
Partnerships, and Peer-Review, reflecting this set of old and new functions. They would structure GFMD
activities at the Summit and throughout the year, straddling both online and offline (in-person) interactions.
All three spaces are proposed to include a mix of both, governments-only and multi-stakeholder interactions.

Partnerships:
Match-making,
Policy: Agenda- Problem solving
setting,
consensus
building,
problem solving

Peer-review:
Practice-sharing,
Review of GCM
progress &
lessons learned

Future GFMD

… And Five Levers of Progress

The findings of the review exercise point to five critical levers that have the potential to effect change and
propel progress in the migration and development field. We suggest that any measures taken to reform and
evolve the GFMD should seek to address and activate as many of these levers as possible:
1) Data and knowledge will be a critical ingredient for informed policy dialogue and action, allowing
governments and others to anticipate trends and understand changing patterns of migration, to
appreciate the impacts of migration on sustainable development and vice versa, and to find out what
and how policies work, measure progress towards agreed objectives in the SDGs and the GCM, and
assess the impact of actions taken.
2) Delivering on the GCM and the SDGs will require policies across sectors to work in concert towards
the same goals. The GFMD has a catalytic role to play in fostering a whole-of-government
approach to migration and development at the national level by activating different parts of
governments and building sector-specific global peer-networks that currently don’t exist.
3) While remaining a global forum, a certain decentralization of its activities will allow the GFMD to
support governments and other stakeholders to work in a problem-driven and outcome-oriented
manner, engaging in policy dialogue and partnership development at the level of governance – be it
global, regional, bilateral, national or local – where a particular issue can best be addressed.
4) Managing migration and development related problems and achieving SDG and GCM commitments will
further hinge on fostering a common understanding and mobilizing collective action by diverse
stakeholders, including migrants, so as to harness the formal and informal roles, expertise, resources,
networks and lived experiences of various constituencies.
 26

5) For the GFMD, governments and other stakeholders involved, working in this manner will require
developing and strengthening their capacity to actively facilitate and moderate integrated
approaches that are evidence-based, multi-sector, multi-level and multi-stakeholder.

There is more than one way of putting these pieces together. In the following, we present an ambitious
scenario for the future of the GFMD, based on the feedback received from its stakeholders. Realizing this
ambitious vision will require revisiting the “infrastructure” that sustains the Global Forum, and it will have
resource implications.Yet, even a scenario that keeps the GFMD close to its status quo will require
investment in its capacities to live up to new tasks arising from the GCM. This includes considering closer
cooperation and synergies with the emerging UN structures that support the Compact, at the heart of which
sits IOM.

6.3 Recommendations

Deepen Policy Dialogue & Promote Coherence

Setting the agenda for policy dialogue through the GFMD should remain the purview of the Chair-in-Office in
consultation with all the GFMD stakeholders. Yet, the shifting thematic focus of the Summits could be
combined with more continuous formats for technical level dialogue that would allow to deepen
consideration of specific issues and to advance policy coherence. To this end, we propose two possible
options:
• Establish sector-specific networks that would bring together key ministries and agencies (e.g. interior,
labour, social affairs, and development) on a voluntary and regular basis to discuss policy. This could foster
understanding among officials that are not usually involved in international cooperation, encourage inter-
ministerial communication at the national level ahead of GFMD Summits, and a more holistic approach to
national policy-making on migration and development. A model is the G20. The GFMD Summit could
remain the purview of predominantly ministries of foreign affairs representing their countries, but its
policy deliberations would be informed by the range of sectoral perspectives emerging from the
consultations.
• Establish issue-specific, multi-stakeholder working groups that are State-led but include other
relevant stakeholders, to give sustained attention to difficult policy questions, for example the issue of
mixed migration. This would be in keeping with the spirit of the GCM process of including stakeholders
upfront in identifying problems and formulating policy options, not just in down-stream discussions on
policy implementation. While convened under the auspices of the GFMD, such working groups could
rotate to address specific regional or sub-regional contexts and dynamics.
Online communities of practice could be used to prepare these smaller group formats by facilitating
knowledge sharing and supporting network building. In addition, we propose that the GFMD make a more
systematic effort to insource research findings into its policy deliberations:
• Create a dedicated window for interaction with the research community (think tanks, academia) –
online, at SG and FOF meetings, and during GFMD Summits – giving researchers a chance to present and
provide analysis of important findings and trends and allowing governments and others to ask questions
and discuss policy implications. Such a format could be organized in partnership with KNOMAD and/or
the IOM’s Research Syndicate, for example.
 27

Facilitate the Formation of Partnerships

To facilitate the formation of implementation partnerships, we propose that the GFMD use new formats of
engagement to help with match-making among governments and other stakeholders and to support the
formation of problem-driven and outcome-oriented partnerships at different levels of governance.
• Establish a solutions-driven “marketplace” to match potential partners, both online and in-person.
To this end, the Platform for Partnerships should be reoriented from a passive repository of good
practices into an active match-making mechanism. It would seek out governments and other stakeholders
that have a specific solution or tools to share (e.g. for facilitating a bilateral labour migration agreement),
and who are willing to advise others, and would link them up with governments and stakeholders that
are seeking to develop their own solutions. The GFMD could support match-making among partners, as
well as networking among beneficiaries who are developing similar solutions, whereas the actual follow-
up cooperation among the partners could be accompanied by IOM and the UN Migration Network, thus
creating synergies between the GFMD Partnership space and the foreseen connection hub of the
Capacity Building Mechanism.
• Support the formation of outcome-oriented partnerships through Migration Labs: Building on the
Migration Lab pilot that was undertaken during the German-Moroccan GFMD Co-Chairmanship, the
GFMD could seek to forge an operational partnership under its roof that would advance the replication
of Migration Labs, but tailored to specific regional, national and local contexts. All GFMD stakeholders,
including governments, civil society, business, and mayors could be eligible to propose or request a Lab to
tackle a specific problem (e.g. lowering recruitment costs, rescue at sea, skills recognition…) in a
particular context. The Lab experiences, lessons learned, and results could be documented and shared
through the GFMD, including to inform its inputs to the IMRF.

The Migration Laboratory: Multi-stakeholder dialogues to implement global policy frameworks on

migration and development

The Migration Laboratory was a pilot mandated by the GFMD ad hoc Working Group on the 2030 Agenda and the
GCM. Commissioned by the German and Moroccan GFMD Co-Chairs, the Migration Laboratory brought
together 33 international leaders and change agents from 18 different countries, representing governments, civil
society and the private sector. Over the course of three meetings held during the German-Moroccan GFMD Co-
Chairmanship, the participants engaged in in-depth dialogue on the question of how migration can be beneficial for
all actors in society. Working in a safe space that allowed a better understanding of different perspectives and
critical exchange, the Lab participants developed concrete change initiatives that aim at putting the GCM
objectives and the migration-related SDGs into action. In a whole-of-society approach and based on multi-
stakeholder partnerships, the proposals address the issues of return and reintegration, migration data analysis,
public narratives, protection of vulnerable migrants as well as the involvement of the private sector. Through this
innovative approach, the GFMD has been able to introduce a unique opportunity to share the power of dialogue in
the field of migration and development and more specifically as a method to implement the 2030 Agenda and the
GCM. The results of the Migration Lab were presented to the Steering Group and during the GFMD Dialogue on
the GCM Implementation in September 2018 where this innovative approach was well-received by the
participating stakeholders. Further outcomes and future reflections of the Migration Lab will be presented at the
11th GFMD Summit in Marrakesh in a side event.

Movie: “Voices from the Migration Laboratory”

Publication on the outcome and results of the Migration Laboratory

 28

Support the Review of Progress towards Agreed Goals

As things stand, the GCM is lacking any kind of metrics – targets, indicators – that would allow governments
and other stakeholders to know how well they are doing in meeting their commitments. Indicators for the
migration related SDG targets are in place, but measurement of progress is far from universal and the
structure of the SDG review process does not cater for reviewing all the migration-related targets together.
The GFMD has been called upon to report to both, the IMRF and the HLPF. The challenge will be to provide
a safe space for peer-learning and multi-stakeholder dialogue on GCM implementation efforts, while also
introducing some rigor (i.e. criteria) around good practices and a focus on impact.
• Introduce a peer-review space into the GFMD that straddles both, the Government Days and the
Common Space. The review could be organized thematically, around clusters of GCM objectives, as well
as around cross-cutting implementation and review challenges, such as developing and financing national
GCM implementation plans, exploring various partnership models, and the development and testing of
indicators for measuring progress. The latter issues may require more in-depth and continued discussion,
e.g. in the form of a working group or Lab.
• Develop an online “Learning Hub” that would absorb the existing online Platform for Partnerships
(PfP) and improve upon it by a) introducing “quality control” criteria for good practices and, potentially
offering States and others who have submitted practices the opportunity to access evaluation services;
and b) developing more interactive tools for online knowledge sharing, such as online communities of
practice, tutorials and online learning courses. An effort to build out the online “Learning Hub” could be
overseen by the SDG/GCM Working Group of the GFMD and led by the Support Unit, working in close
coordination with the UN Migration Network Secretariat to ensure synergies and potentially pool
resources with the foreseen knowledge platform of the GCM Capacity Building Mechanism.

Develop Sustainable Operating Modalities

The review does not suggest that there is a big appetite to overhaul the GFMD’s governance structures and
operating modalities.Yet there are areas for improvement. This section presents a number of ways in which
the GFMD could encourage broader ownership of the process, create incentives to contribute – including by
making the prospect of taking up the Chair a less daunting prospect, – and improve the overall “user
experience” of GFMD participants.

• Introduce state-of-the-art facilitation techniques at the GFMD Summit and in other substantive
meetings with a view to improving the quality of dialogue, knowledge-sharing and networking throughout
the process. The incoming Chair could seize on the partnership that has been established with
professional facilitators through the Migration Lab to institute a pilot scheme that would offer GFMD
focal points and/or participants a chance to learn facilitation skills as a professional development
opportunity embedded in the GFMD process. The idea is to train a cadre of GFMD participants that can
serve as future facilitators to the process (thereby reducing the need for costly outside facilitation), and
institute a culture of improved facilitation within their respective governments and countries.
• Reduce the frequency of GFMD Summit meetings: With the creation of the Regional and
International Migration Review Fora, it could be considered to hold the GFMD Summit meeting only
every second year, so that it alternates with the RMRFs and IMRF. This would be in line with the past
practice of not having a GFMD Summit in 2013 when the UNGA held its second High-Level Dialogue on
 29

International Migration and Development. The non-Summit years could be used to organize smaller,
preparatory meetings.
• Extend the GFMD Chairmanship to two years: If the frequency of Summit meetings is reduced, it
might be feasible to extend the Chairmanship periods to straddle both, a non-Summit and a Summit year.
Alternatively, countries could also opt for a co-chairmanship arrangement covering two years and a
jointly organized Summit meeting, respectively at the end / outset of each chairmanship.
• Introduce the option of a Geneva-based GFMD Summit: The GFMD could gradually transition to a
permanent presence in Geneva by giving governments the option to organize the annual Summit there,
which would significantly reduce the costs of holding the Chairmanship. This model would not preclude
the organization of consultations and preparatory events outside of Geneva (as the GFMD has done for
many years), but those activities would be the responsibility of the convening countries and not form
part of the core GFMD budget.
• Create designated oversight structures for the partnerships and review functions of the GFMD: To
ensure that the GFMD gives continued priority to the promotion of partnerships and cooperation, on
the one hand, and provides for a meaningful review of progress, on the other, the Steering Group should
consider tasking individual members or specific groups, such as the ad hoc Working Group on the 2030
Agenda and GCM, to take responsibility for overseeing these proposed spaces, in consultation with the
GFMD Chair and stakeholders, and working closely with the Support Unit and the UN Migration
Network. The governments tasked with overseeing the two workstreams would report back to the
Steering Group.
• Differentiate the Steering Group and Friends of the Forum meetings: Both, the SG and FOF
meetings tend to be heavily focused on process with little consideration being given to strategic or
substantive issues. What is more, both meetings tend to happen back-to-back with almost identical
agendas. The GFMD could seek to enrol the network of former GFMD Chairs to help cultivate the SG
members as a Group of Friends, curating more informal meetings at the Ambassadorial/Director General
level. Meanwhile, the frequency of FOF meetings could be reduced (e.g. to twice a year) but with a more
substantive agenda (expert presentations, dialogue among stakeholders).
• Strengthen the system of GFMD focal points by asking States to designate a Technical Committee on
Migration and Development (TCMD) composed of representatives from government ministries and
agencies with migration and development related functions. While each country would maintain a lead-
interlocutor with the GFMD who can speak for the government, diversifying the interface between the
GFMD and governments would broaden ownership, deepen the pool of expertise at GFMD meetings and
encourage inter-ministerial coordination at the national level and with Geneva missions. Nationally,
TCMDs would provide a motor for action on migration and development and for actively promoting and
seeking partnership and cooperation with other States.

Financing the GFMD

The GFMD has faced perennial challenges in securing predictable financing, which makes it difficult for the
Chair-in-Office to plan ahead.13 Furthermore, reliance on ad hoc and voluntary contributions from a limited

13The GFMD’s standardized budget currently amounts to around USD 2.5 million per year. This includes the costs of preparatory
activities and Support Unit operational costs, in the range of USD 1.1 million, and the cost of organizing the GFMD Summit, which
for budget estimation purposes has been pegged at around USD 1 million per year (including for travel and participation costs of
developing countries), though costs have varied widely across Chairmanships and are not always fully disclosed. Furthermore, it has
been agreed since 2014 that the current Chair would carry forward a minimum seed funding of USD 400,000 to the incoming Chair to
cover the preparatory and SU expenses during the first six months.
 30

share of GFMD participating Member States, many of which are facing domestic challenges on migration,
presents a real risk in terms of sustainability. If the GFMD is to be an engine of progress for the GCM that
generates tangible outcomes, its financial arrangements will have to be revisited. To put the GFMD on a more
stable financial basis, we propose that, in the short run, the GFMD:
• Undertake the outstanding review of the GFMD Long-term Financing Framework that was
scheduled for 2017 with a view to take stock of progress made in achieving the objectives of the
Financing Framework, identify bottlenecks where commitments have not been met, and assess the
GFMD’s financing needs going forward, including alternative avenues for resource mobilization.
• Leverage special initiatives and new formats to generate income outside the regular GFMD budget,
which could, however, support core GFMD functions such as knowledge management by generating
overhead for the Support Unit. A special project could be, for instance, the replication of the Migration
Lab format.
• Expand in-kind contributions from all participating States as well as other GFMD stakeholders to
broaden ownership and reduce the financial needs of the GFMD. This could take the form of, for instance,
all delegations shouldering their own travel costs, secondments of experts to the SU, hosting of meetings,
or the provision of professional services and expertise (e.g. for knowledge management, meeting
facilitation). The GFMD Support Unit should develop a guide for all GFMD participants, clearly outlining
available options and procedures for making in-kind contributions to the process.
• Use incentives, such as matching funds, to broaden the circle of GFMD contributors: Longtime
funders of the GFMD could incentivize others to contribute by offering at least a share of their financial
support in the form of matching funds that are unlocked only if other governments and stakeholders,
such as large INGOs and businesses, make contributions as well.
Over the next couple of years, as the future of the GFMD and its role in the context of the GCM
implementation and follow-up architecture become clearer, the GFMD Troika and Steering Group should
seriously consider whether there is need for a more fundamental overhaul of the GFMD’s financing model.
The role accorded to the GFMD in the GCM implementation, follow up and review could provide a strategic
opportunity to move to a system of membership fees, as States’ potential financial commitment to the GFMD
could be tied to their national commitment to GCM implementation. In this way, continued participation in
the GFMD process could be appreciated as an integral component of honouring the country’s commitments
to the GCM.

• Explore the introduction of an annual fee for all GFMD-participating States based on country
income classification (high-income countries pay the most, low-income countries the smallest annual
contribution) and, possibly, membership of the decision-making ranks within the GFMD, i.e. members of
the Steering Group could face enhanced responsibilities in terms of membership fees and an obligation
to pay on time or be suspended from the SG. This could have the side effect of encouraging rotation in
the membership of the SG.
• Carefully plan a possible transition to membership fees: A stopgap measure may be required to
facilitate the testing of and transition to a new financing model. To this end, the GFMD could ask donor
countries that have provided it with significant financial support over the last decade to continue doing
so while a new system of membership fees is being tested and rolled-out.
 31

The main challenge with a membership fee system would be to ensure compliance. Given competing
priorities and limited financial resources in most States, there is a risk that participation will go down. In
addition, time and resources of the SU would be tied up with collecting membership fees, including follow-up
with governments to encourage payment. The GFMD would also have to decide how to handle cases of non-
payment or countries in arrears.

GFMD Support Unit

State responses to the review almost unequivocally recognized the need to strengthen the GFMD Support
Unit, with some suggesting that it be converted into a more full-fledged Secretariat. There can be no doubt
that a GFMD that does more things will also need a more robust support function: to support the GFMD
Chair in all aspects of the mandate (diplomacy, substance and logistics); to respond to States’ request for
more active outreach and knowledge sharing; to liaise with an increasing number of GFMD stakeholders; and
to ensure close coordination and cooperation with the United Nations and other partners, as the GFMD is
being asked to contribute to the GCM and SDG processes.
Former SRSG Peter Sutherland suggested in the past that the inter-agency Global Migration Group, formerly
the UN’s main coordinating body on migration, provide the secretariat for the GFMD. However, this idea
failed to gain traction with both member states and some UN agencies. The survey results suggest that
reluctance to see the GFMD too closely affiliated with the UN persists among some governments today.
However, if the GFMD is to play a more active role in supporting GCM implementation, a Support Unit that
is removed from the rest of the implementation support architecture with limited resources and capacities is
likely to be a suboptimal solution.

• Strengthen the GFMD Support Unit: As its responsibilities have expanded over the years, the German
and Moroccan Co-Chairs have initiated a review of the actual scope of work of the GFMD Support Unit
with a view to adequately classifying posts and addressing additional capacity needs, in particular to
support knowledge management (including, going forward, an online knowledge and learning platform
that links to and serves the needs of the CBM) as well as outreach and communications (including an
improved GFMD website, mobile App, and social media presence). In this context, it is important that the
capacity of the Support Unit is evaluated not just against its current, but also in relation to possible new
responsibilities emerging from the GFMD’s role in GCM implementation, follow-up and review.
• Revisit the relationship between the Support Unit and IOM: The SU’s current situation, whereby it
is embedded in, but separate from the IOM, satisfies States’ desire for political independence, but creates
operational challenges for SU staff, e.g. in terms of access to information and staff development. A review
of the SU’s capacities and scope of functions should extend to revisiting its relationship with IOM to
ensure the SU receives the operational support it requires, and to clearly define its relationship with the
UN Migration Network, in particular as regards cooperation, and potentially joint staffing, for the CBM.
As it becomes clearer how the GFMD will fit with the rest of the emerging GCM architecture, States
may in due course wish to consider further integrating the Support Unit with the IOM. This would mean
recognizing the de facto reliance of the GFMD on IOM and other UN agencies for the substantive
preparation of its policy discussions; it could also unlock synergies with other processes that IOM
services as a secretariat – including the UN Migration Network Secretariat, the IDM, the RCPs and
potentially the IMRF – facilitating the exchange of information and cross-fertilization across various fora.