Skip to main content

Discussion Spaces

IMRF Roundtable 2 Consultation

This discussion space is being organized as part of the preparations for the second roundtable (“Roundtable 2”) of the International Migration Review Forum (IMRF) which will take place in May 2022. The discussion is moderated by IOM, UNODC and the UN Network on Migration Secretariat and runs until 31 January 2022. Roundtable 2 focuses on reviewing the following GCM objectives:

  • 4 – Legal identity and documentation 
  • 8 – Save lives
  • 9 – Counter smuggling
  • 10 – Eradicate trafficking
  • 11 – Manage borders
  • 13 – Alternatives to detention
  • 21 – Dignified return and reintegration

The aim of this discussion space is to gather inputs from a broad range of Member States and stakeholders in the preparations for that roundtable, and in particular the drafting of its background note, which is being prepared by IOM and UNODC on behalf of the UN Network on Migration, in support of the Member State co-chairs of the roundtable (to be announced in 2022). To contribute, please respond to the discussion questions below.

 

Moderators

Login to post comment
Anonymous

Discussion Questions & Comments

Florence Kim

3. What emerging and priority challenges related to the objectives would you like to see the Roundtable address?

  

Dec 22, 2021
Kate Barth

Florence Kim 

As widely documented, including by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights to migrants (UN Doc. No. A/HRC/44/42), laws related to smuggling and trafficking have been misused to ensnare providers of humanitarian services to migrants. Activities that have been criminalized in various countries under the guise of countering smuggling and trafficking include the provision of humanitarian aid or assistance in seeking asylum and search and rescue missions. Some civil society organizations (CSOs) have reported that even activities such as providing food, water, medical supplies and shelter along migratory routes have been criminalized. Anti-smuggling and anti-trafficking laws—often bearing extremely harsh penalties--have been misused both against the CSOs that work with migrants and against people working in an individual capacity. Although most cases against individuals and CSO staff in Europe and North America have ended in dismissal or acquittal, the existence of these laws serves to chill the provision of necessary services to vulnerable migrants, stifles civil society, and ultimately begs the question as to whether such charges are being used by officials to harass migrant allies.  Criminal indictments, or the risk thereof, force CSOs to spend significant time, money and resources dealing with these threats and negative media exposure rather than carrying out their work by providing services to migrants.

The GCM itself emphasizes the importance of a whole-of-society approach and collaboration with civil society (see e.g., GCM, para. 15). A robust civic space enabling the free operation of migrant-allied CSOs is crucial to achieving GCM objectives. For example, States will not be able to effectively achieve Objective 15 (provide access to basic services for migrants) without the assistance of migrant-allied CSO providers who can help establish easily accessible service points at the local level and reach migrants in vulnerable positions. Most pertinent to this round-table discussion, if CSOs are prevented from providing services to vulnerable migrants, criminal groups are likely to step in to fill this gap, in direct opposition to the achievement of Objectives 9 and 10 (UN Doc. No. A/HRC/44/42, para. 85).

Therefore, the trend of States misusing overly broad anti-smuggling and anti-trafficking laws, ostensibly in pursuit of Objectives 9 and 10, to harass and criminalize providers of humanitarian services to migrants is extremely problematic from both a human rights standpoint and from the utilitarian standpoint of achieving GCM objectives. The means by which States implement all GCM objectives, but especially Objectives 9 and 10, should be carefully evaluated to ensure that such actions protect and promote human rights and civic space. Such review of the human rights impacts of State implementation will help confirm that Objectives 9 and 10 are not used as a justification for rights-repressive and self-defeating actions.  Instead, States should be encouraged to strengthen civic space to ensure that humanitarian providers and migrant-allied CSOs are well-position to help the State achieve GCM objectives.

In reply to by Florence Kim

Jan 07, 2022
Gabriele Aiello

Kate Barth 

The correct interpretation of the concepts of the crimes of smuggling of migrants and human trafficking is a key concern at UN level and beyond. At UNODC, as the guardian of the Palermo Protocols, we strive to promote the correct implementation of the international legal framework on countering human trafficking and migrant smuggling, including by developing guidance that help orient criminal justice efforts against these serious and profit-driven crimes. 

The UNTOC (United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime) Travaux Préparatoires, indicate that the reference to “a financial or other material benefit”, as an element of the definition of migrant smuggling, was included to emphasize the intention to criminalize the activities of organized criminal groups acting for profit, but to exclude the activities of those who provided support to migrants for humanitarian reasons or on the basis of close family ties. It was thus not the intention of the drafters of the Convention and its Protocols to criminalize the activities of family members or support groups such as religious or non-governmental organizations.  

The Travaux are available here: https://www.unodc.org/pdf/ctoccop_2006/04-60074_ebook-e.pdf  

In 2017, on the occasion of the twenty-sixth session of the ECOSOC Commission on Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice, UNODC launched the Issue Paper: The Concept of "Financial or Other Material Benefit" in the Smuggling of Migrants Protocol, which digs deeper into this topic and sheds more a light on the definition of migrant smuggling and on whether a humanitarian clause excludes persons helping irregular migrants for altruistic reasons. It can be found here:  

https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant-Smuggling/Issue-Papers/UNODC_Issue_Paper_The_Profit_Element_in_the_Smuggling_of_Migrants_Protocol.pdf 

Within the Network we concretely work to support member states to develop strong, coherent and coordinated responses to forms of crime in the context of migration, with the key concern of better protecting victims and prosecute perpetrators in line with the international obligations. We further facilitate meaningful engagement of civil society organizations in planning, outlining and implementing responses to migrant smuggling and human trafficking and their adverse consequences on societies at large. 

In reply to by Kate Barth

Feb 09, 2022
Kate Barth

Florence Kim 

The pandemic has served to restrict migrants’ exercise of their civic freedoms and civic space. Many governments have used the pandemic as an excuse to impose excessive new legal restrictions on their peoples’ rights. This opportunistic response—coupled with extreme pressures that the pandemic put on migrants—has had significant negative consequences on migrants’ ability to exercise their freedoms of assembly, association, and expression. Thus, it has become more and more difficult for migrants to act in their own interest and for CSOs to freely operate (so they can provide services to migrants)—both preconditions crucial to the successful achievement of GCM objectives 15 and 16. The Roundtable should address the challenge of safeguarding civic space and migrant civic freedoms in a crisis environment that has encouraged States to place greater restrictions on migrants and migrant-allied CSOs.

Another challenge for the roundtable to address is how to ensure that considerations of migrant civic freedoms and civic space--fundamental to the successful achievement of the GCM objectives--are embedded into the implementation of the Compact even though the GCM itself is silent on these issues. It is recommended we do so by (a) asserting an understanding that Objective 16 incorporates the protection and promotion of migrant civic freedoms (especially, migrants’ right and opportunity to participate in their communities), and (b) ensuring that State implementation of the GCM is evaluated strictly for compliance with human rights obligations.

In reply to by Florence Kim

Jan 20, 2022
Andy Shen

One of the key priorities for Roundtable 2 should be to examine the role of the financial sector in preventing and discouraging the demand for human trafficking. The United Nations University Centre for Policy Research (UNU-CPR)’s Finance Against Slavery and Trafficking (FAST) initiative is working to unlock the potential of the financial sector to prevent, combat and eradicate human trafficking, including in the context of international migration. The financial sector cannot end human trafficking alone. However, human trafficking will not be eradicated without the full and proactive engagement of the financial sector.

Given the essential role of the financial sector in combating human trafficking and in relation to GCM objectives 10 and 21, Member States may wish to consider how they can, among other things, increase financial inclusion of migrants vulnerable to trafficking, and ensure sustainable financial reintegration of survivors. Banks and other financial institutions can help ensure that vulnerable populations and human trafficking survivors have access to banking and other financial services that can reduce the risk of (re)exploitation.

Discussions on data availability and strengthening prevalence estimates should consider how banks and other financial institutions can partner with anti-money laundering authorities to gather and disclose data on suspected trafficking, both for policymaking purposes as well as to enable remedy for victims.

For more information on how the financial sector can help prevent, combat, and eradicate human trafficking, see the FAST Blueprint for Mobilizing Finance Against Slavery and Trafficking.

In reply to by Florence Kim

Feb 01, 2022
Andy Shen

FAST would like to see the Roundtable address some of the major challenges the financial sector faces in its efforts to address human trafficking. These challenges should be a priority for Member States aiming to make more substantial progress on objective 10 of the GCM.

The challenges include access to data on trafficking risks and abuses throughout the value chain; de-risking that increases trafficking risks for vulnerable populations; client confidentiality rules limiting access to justice and remedy; and minimal provision of remedy whether directly to victims or through corporate clients.

Some challenges like access to data and client confidentiality require Member States to enact or amend laws requiring certain disclosures by firms. Others like de-risking and remedy may need a smart mix of voluntary guidance and legal requirements.

The FAST Blueprint notes that financial institutions often de-risk (terminate a relationship with a business partner to avoid risk exposure) as a response to regulatory pressure to disassociate from human trafficking risks. FAST’s consultations suggest a need to be cautious about the potential for financial sector institutions to unintentionally increase trafficking risks for vulnerable populations through de-risking practices. Anti-money laundering (AML)/combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) regulators can help address the risks to victims and survivors, and workers, by issuing guidance on how financial institutions can take a human rights-based approach when dealing with all cases. Such an approach could include exercising leverage on clients and correspondent banks to effectively address the trafficking issues, and to remain vigilant and continue to monitor these entities for suspicious behaviour. It could also include complying with AML/CFT rules in a manner that ensures financial inclusion for survivors.

In reply to by Florence Kim

Feb 01, 2022
Florence Kim

2. What emerging trends, progress and innovations, related to the GCM objectives under review, do you think should be highlighted?

  

Dec 22, 2021
Andy Shen

FAST suggests highlighting these emerging practices from the financial sector, relevant to GCM objectives 10 and 21, at Roundtable 2:

1.  Improving transparency through stock exchange guidance

In December 2021, FAST, Walk Free, and the Stock Exchange of Thailand jointly published Guidance on Modern Slavery Risks for Thai Businesses. The guidance responds to the FAST Blueprint’s recommendation to use market regulation, including environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria, to enforce the ban on human trafficking, forced labour, and other forms of modern slavery. If implemented, the Guidance will result in a clearer picture of modern slavery risks, the actions taken to address them, and the remedy gap to be filled in Thailand. FAST looks to work with other stock exchanges to develop similar guidance.

2. Strengthening investor and corporate action on modern slavery

The Investors Against Slavery and Trafficking Asia-Pacific (IAST APAC) is an investor-led project launched in 2020 by First Sentier Investors, Aware Super, Australian Super, Fidelity International, Ausbil Investment Management, and the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors. With over USD 4 trillion in funds under management, IAST APAC uses its influence and leverage to reduce modern slavery risks through policy advocacy and engagement with invested companies based in the Asia-Pacific region, and engagement with Australian companies on their reporting under the Australian Modern Slavery Act (Commonwealth Act). Walk Free supports this investor coalition as IAST APAC’s Secretariat and FAST serves as a knowledge partner. This initiative is primed to catalyse more action from Asian investors and improve the conduct of businesses in the region with the highest prevalence of modern slavery worldwide.

In reply to by Florence Kim

Feb 01, 2022
Andy Shen

3. Increasing financial inclusion for survivors

Since 2019, over 2,000 bank accounts have been opened for survivors in the UK, Canada, and the US, through FAST’s Survivor Inclusion Initiative, a consortium of banks and survivor support organizations focused on the reintegration of survivors into the formal financial system. In 2022, FAST will be expanding the initiatives for survivor inclusion to the Global South, prioritizing engagement, consultation and partnership development in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Financial exclusion (exclusion from financial services or products) is not only a consequence of the experience of being trafficked or exploited, but also a factor that increases future vulnerability to the risk of experiencing modern slavery and human trafficking for survivors, as well as populations made vulnerable by poverty, inequality and other structural, sociopolitical and environmental issues. To respond to the increasing need to both address and prevent modern slavery and human trafficking, FAST will lead on developing specific evidence-based and needs-led regional, cross-border and in-country financial sector interventions to increase protection for vulnerable populations and provide and enable remedy for victims and survivors. 

One recent notable development that could accelerate survivors’ financial inclusion is the Debt Bondage Repair Act (DBRA), passed by U.S. Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, which addresses credit repair needs resulting from trafficking experiences. The DBRA provides a regulatory framework that ensures “[a] consumer reporting agency may not furnish a consumer report containing any adverse item of information about a consumer that resulted from a severe form of trafficking in persons or sex trafficking if the consumer has provided trafficking documentation to the consumer reporting agency.” The Act enables relief for survivors who provide evidence of an “adverse item of information” (of delinquent credit status) that resulted from their exploitation.

This legislation signals an important shift for Government and the financial sector as they take steps to collectively help remedy financial harm and its long-term ramifications for survivors of trafficking, as well as to prevent future (re)victimisation.

In reply to by Florence Kim

Feb 01, 2022
Andy Shen

4. Increasing access to remedy through bank grievance mechanisms

In 2019, ABN AMRO began consulting with civil society organizations, trade unions, academics, and other stakeholders about the options for a bank grievance mechanism that could enable remedy for affected populations in direct linkage cases. In 2020, they began testing their new grievance procedure with simulations based on real cases. The bank acknowledged the importance of partnering with civil society organizations and trade unions in publicizing the grievance mechanism and ensuring affected communities have access to the mechanism when their rights are violated. They also recognized a client’s unwillingness to cooperate in remedial processes could prevent the provision of remedy to affected populations. In these cases, ABN AMRO noted it would flag internally the client’s lack of participation as a concern in their client due diligence process.

In November 2021, ANZ Bank launched a Grievance Mechanism Framework to assess and respond to human rights-related complaints, including allegations of trafficking, associated with its institutional or corporate lending customers. Civil society organizations and other stakeholders participated in the bank’s 18-month consultation process. It lays out how ANZ will respond to complaints, including aiming to resolve the complaint with its client, and contributing directly to remediation of harms where appropriate. It also creates a channel through which the bank can receive recommendations aimed at improving its human rights policy and due diligence processes. The Framework further reflects ANZ’s commitment to reporting on the type of complaints received and their outcomes. While ANZ cannot accept a complaint about a client when the client does not agree to disclose the existence of a lending relationship, it has publicly stated its expectation on clients to consent to disclosure of such relationships, and it has committed to exercising leverage when they do not.

In reply to by Florence Kim

Feb 01, 2022
Florence Kim

1. What are the key priorities that should shape discussions and best highlight the issues covered by this Roundtable?

  

Dec 22, 2021
Kate Barth

Florence Kim 

A key priority is how States can pursue the enumerated GCM objectives in ways that promote and protect human rights and civic space, instead of through rights-restricting means.

In reply to by Florence Kim

Jan 07, 2022
Kate Barth

Florence Kim 

One key priority is ensuring an enabling legal and policy environment for the achievement of Objectives 15 and 16.

In order for migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion (Obj. 16), migrants must be fully empowered to act in their own interests. Migrants cannot “become active members of society […] promoting the reciprocal engagement of receiving communities and migrants in the exercise of their rights and obligations towards each other” (GCM, para. 32) if they are prohibited in law or in practice from speaking, organizing and assembling to pursue collective goals. Unfortunately, migrants’ ability to exercise their civic freedoms is increasingly under threat around the world.  Migrants commonly face significant barriers to their exercise of rights, including discriminatory laws and policies, difficulty in accessing information, insecure migration statuses, employer blockages and community stigmatization. These barriers are often even more formidable for migrant women and have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis.

In order to ensure that migrants can are fully included in their communities, it is a priority for States to remove any legal or practical barriers to migrant exercise of their civic freedoms. In addition, States should proactively invite migrant involvement in crafting and implementing laws and policies that affect their lives by creating meaningful opportunities and frameworks for migrant participation. One practical way to address this priority would be for States to recognize that Objective 16 is understood to include the promotion and protection of migrants’ right to free expression, association, assembly and participation.

For States to ensure migrant access to basic services (Obj. 15), CSOs that provide services or support to migrants (migrant-allied CSOs) must be able to operate freely. Migrant-allied CSOs are often in a better position than authorities to deliver services to migrants because they are viewed as independent from law enforcement and political pressures, because they can reach migrants at different points in their journey and because they may have capacity to support migrants in particular ways (such as by providing legal support) that governments struggle with. Migrant-allied CSOs can also serve as effective advocates for migrants, especially those in irregular situations, because they can safely and publicly relay information or negotiate agreements between government and migrant populations without putting the spokesperson at risk. However, the rights of migrant-allied CSOs are also under attack around the world. As detailed by the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants migrant-allied CSOs have been increasingly criminalized for their humanitarian work, often after being smeared by a toxic narrative painting their assistance to migrants as akin to criminal smuggling or trafficking (UN Doc. No. A/HRC/44/42, para. 66-73). In recent years, migrant-allied CSOs have also faced the imposition of onerous administrative or financial burdens on their operations. These criminalization or toxic narrative campaigns and increased obstacles to operation often lead to de jure or de facto harassment of migrant-allied CSOs, and complicate their ability to carry out their work—much of which is crucial to the accomplishment of GCM 15 (as well as other GCM objectives).

Therefore, in order to achieve GCM Objective 15, as a priority, States should commit to strengthen civil space and create an enabling environment for civil society organizations.

In reply to by Florence Kim

Jan 20, 2022
Maria Gabriela…

Florence Kim 

Save My Identity and Coalición por Venezuela highly recommend a transparent and honest discussion on the Objective 4, which has not been implemented by many countries, not even for their own nationals. There are one billion people without legal identification. The Venezuelan legal identification crisis with 6 million refugees, migrants, and displaced persons is increasing the list of persons not treated as human beings because of the lack of a legal identification document.

The United Nations has supported the development of digital ID for refugees going from Myanmar to Thailand, could the same type of solutions be implemented for refugees without legal identification in Latin America? Is this a selective process or solution? 

If countries like Costa Rica could issue travel documents for Venezuelans with expired passports allowing them to exercise their human rights, why can't that happen in any other Latin American country?

Colombia was supported by the IOM to create a Biometric Registry of Venezuelan beneficiaries of the temporary status so that they could be duly registered and issued an ID? Couldn't the same type of solution be implemented in other Latin American countries? 

Uruguay issues passports to its foreign resident citizens that do not grant nationality, but clearly identify the person, these type of documents could also be discussed, analyzed and adopted in the legislation of other countries.

Why the countries that have signed the Geneva Convention of 1954 (Refugees) do not issue travel documents to refugees with expired passports or without legal identification? 

Why the countries that have signed the Geneva Convention of 1961 (Statelessness) do not issue a travel document to the de facto stateless children born in their territory who are not registered because their parents are irregular migrants or do not have legal identity documents?

Why the International Red Cross does not issue humanitarian passports to refugees without legal identity documents?

There are so many possible solutions for the issuance of a legal identity document for those who for some reasons beyond their control do not have a national passport or legal identity document, so what is keeping the states and the intergovernmental organizations from implementing these multiple solutions? 

States and intergovernmental organization, stakeholders, including the civil society, should promote further analysis and research on Self-sovereign digital identity inviting experts to discuss about what this exactly is and how could it be implemented. 

In reply to by Florence Kim

Mar 27, 2022
Andy Shen

One of the key priorities for Roundtable 2 should be to examine the role of the financial sector in preventing and discouraging the demand for human trafficking. The United Nations University Centre for Policy Research (UNU-CPR)’s Finance Against Slavery and Trafficking (FAST) initiative is working to unlock the potential of the financial sector to prevent, combat and eradicate human trafficking, including in the context of international migration. The financial sector cannot end human trafficking alone. However, human trafficking will not be eradicated without the full and proactive engagement of the financial sector.

Given the essential role of the financial sector in combating human trafficking and in relation to GCM objectives 10 and 21, Member States may wish to consider how they can, among other things, increase financial inclusion of migrants vulnerable to trafficking, and ensure sustainable financial reintegration of survivors. Banks and other financial institutions can help ensure that vulnerable populations and human trafficking survivors have access to banking and other financial services that can reduce the risk of (re)exploitation.

Discussions on data availability and strengthening prevalence estimates should consider how banks and other financial institutions can partner with anti-money laundering authorities to gather and disclose data on suspected trafficking, both for policymaking purposes as well as to enable remedy for victims.

For more information on how the financial sector can help prevent, combat, and eradicate human trafficking, see the FAST Blueprint for Mobilizing Finance Against Slavery and Trafficking.

Feb 01, 2022
Gabriele Aiello

Andy Shen you are underlining a key point in advancing our efforts to prevent and counter trafficking in person, which is also reflected in one of the GCM guiding principles: a whole-of-society approach, that is involving all relevant stakeholders to achieving common objectives.

At UNODC, we have recently launched an initiative in that direction, the Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) Project, which aims to improve effective partnership between the public and private sectors with a view to better assisting Member States in their implementation of the UNTOC and its supplementing Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.

The PPP Project’s overall aim is fostering strategic partnerships between the public and private sectors, to more effectively prevent human trafficking, prosecute its perpetrators, and more thoroughly protect the victims. The PPP Project, in its first phase, focusses on three key sectors particularly vulnerable to be taken advantage of by traffickers: technology, supply chains and finance.

The main outcome of the PPP Project is the development of a Compendium of Promising Practices on Public-Private Partnerships to Counter Trafficking in Persons, launched in October 2021. The Compendium examines lessons learnt based on the analysis of existing PPPs and other forms of public authorities’ engagement with the private sector to prevent and combat human trafficking. Four Regional Expert Group Meetings have been organized between 2020 and 2021 in South Eastern Europe, the Americas, Asia-Pacific and Africa to gather insights from the various geographical perspectives. The meetings facilitated sharing of knowledge among leading public and private sector stakeholders having solid expertise in countering trafficking in persons.

UNODC is committed to link up the identified priorities and achievements of the PPP Project to inform coordinated responses to trafficking in persons including as part of the IMRF process.

The compendium is available at the link: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/ngos/ppp-compendium.html

In reply to by Andy Shen

Feb 09, 2022
Dr. David Edwa…

I'm hoping that Roundtable 2 will be able to highlight the idea of international cooperation regarding family reunification. 

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a plethora of international travel restrictions affecting the migration of multinational families. This caused a significant number of family separations due to government policies not reflecting the diverse, global makeup of families today. My organization were directly responsible for the Extended Family and Compassionate Exemptions into Canada. Such policies did not, however, exist in many countries, leaving countless multinational families separated throughout the travel restrictions.

I've attached a draft outlining a framework and a pitch I'm hoping could be reviewed by stakeholders, and am unsure of how to move it forward. 

Much appreciated for your time!

 

Feb 11, 2022
Pablo Sebastia…

The GFMD Mayors Mechanism – co-steered by United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), the Mayors Migration Council (MMC), and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) – submits its Position Paper for Roundtable 2.

This paper has been prepared for the 2022 International Migration Review Forum (IMRF). It illustrates the contributions and progress of Local and Regional Governments (LRGs) toward the implementation objectives of the Global Compact for Migration (GCM) under discussion at Roundtable 2 of the IMRF. It proposes recommendations to national governments and international organizations for joint action to advance future progress.

May 31, 2022
Wamba André Le Doux

TRAFFIKING AND SMUGGLING OF FEMALE MIGRANTS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

The problems of the Female Migrant Smuggling in Sub-Saharan Africa (FMSSA) usually begin at home country. Statistics reveal that the highest percentage of unemployed females is within the age group 20–24 years, closely followed by 15–19 years old. These age groups are most vulnerable to the lure of migration, especially trafficking. The study is mainly concerned with an assessment of the major causes of the FMSSA to foreign countries out of Africa.

 
The root causes of the FMSSA are the following: feminization of poverty, high unemployment rate in the country, modern days slavery, traditional community attitudes and practices which tolerate violence against women, lobbies of brokers, smugglers and recruitment agencies, inability to secure visas and passports, difficulties to understand legal migration’s mechanisms, increase of demand for foreign workers for domestic and care-giving roles, growth of the billion-dollar sex and entertainment industry. 

Key interviews of female returnees, police and religious leaders were realized; documented and undocumented material used - including videos, media, national statistics, etc. as a source and group discussions from media, Non Governmental Organizations, associations of female migrants and returnees have been recorded in the study.

National and international laws dealing with trafficking and smuggling have been promulgated though several of them are still pending for ratification in many Sub-Saharan countries of Africa.

Governments in Africa should strengthen its embassies and missions abroad to perform their functions efficiently for the gathering of information and data on female migrants - legal or trafficked - and for the responding to their needs in times of distress in their host countries.

 

Jul 28, 2022

About the Migration Network Hub

What is the Migration Network Hub?

The Hub is a virtual “meeting space” where governments, stakeholders and experts can access and share migration-related information and services. It provides curated content, analysis and information on a variety of topics.

The Hub aims to support UN Member States in the implementation, follow-up and review of the Global Compact for Migration by serving as a repository of existing evidence, practices and initiatives, and facilitating access to knowledge sharing via online discussions, an expert database and demand-driven, tailor-made solutions (launching in 2021).

What content is displayed in the Hub?

The Hub aims to help you find information on migration, ranging from policy briefs and journal articles, existing portals and platforms and what they offer, to infographics and videos. The different types of resources submitted by users undergo peer review by a panel of experts from within the UN and beyond, before being approved for inclusion in the Hub. To provide guidance to users based on findings of the needs assessment, the content is ordered so that more comprehensive and global resources are shown before more specific and regional ones. Know a great resource? Please submit using the links above and your suggestion will be reviewed. Please see the draft criteria for existing practices here.

Apply to join the Peer Review Roster

Content submitted to the Migration Network Hub is first peer reviewed by experts in the field from both the UN and beyond. Applications are welcomed to join the roster on an ongoing basis. Learn more here.

Apply Now

Contact us

We welcome your feedback and suggestions, please contact us

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this discussion are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Network on Migration and its members. The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the discussion do not imply expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations or the United Nations Network on Migration concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries.

*References to Kosovo shall be understood to be in the context of United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999).