Tighter borders and aid cuts could risk greater instability, UN migration chief warns – The Washington Post

Report on Migration Management and Sustainable Development

Executive Summary

A report from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) warns that prevailing strategies in Western nations, which simultaneously tighten border controls and reduce development aid, are fundamentally at odds with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). IOM Director General Amy Pope asserts that such an approach is “short-sighted” and risks exacerbating instability in countries of origin, thereby undermining global efforts to achieve SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). A sustainable approach to migration management requires integrating policy with long-term development investments that address the root causes of displacement, directly supporting SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

The Imperative of Integrating Development Aid with Migration Policy

The Risks of Decoupling Aid and Border Control

The IOM Director General has cautioned that focusing exclusively on border enforcement without addressing the drivers of migration can destabilize populations. Cutting foreign assistance removes a critical tool for building resilience and opportunity, which are essential for achieving the SDGs.

• Undermining Stability: Reducing aid can worsen the conditions that compel people to migrate, creating a cycle of instability that runs counter to SDG 16.
• Ignoring Root Causes: A failure to invest in origin countries ignores the fundamental drivers of migration, such as poverty (SDG 1), lack of economic opportunity (SDG 8), and conflict.
• Counterproductive Outcomes: The IOM warns that premature repatriation of populations, such as Syrians, to unstable environments could backfire, leading to further displacement and conflict.

The Role of Foreign Assistance in Achieving Global Goals

Strategic investment in development is presented as the most effective long-term migration management tool. By supporting stability and growth in origin countries, nations can make progress on multiple SDGs simultaneously.

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Development aid can stabilize populations by addressing food insecurity and extreme poverty.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Investing in local economies creates jobs and opportunities, reducing the “pull factors” of irregular migration.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): Foreign assistance is crucial for rebuilding post-conflict societies and strengthening the institutions necessary for lasting peace.

Regional Case Studies and Policy Implications

European and U.S. Policy Shifts

Current policy trends in Europe and the United States highlight a move toward stricter enforcement. Greece’s proposal to halt asylum applications from certain sea arrivals and tougher U.S. border policies are creating ripple effects. These unilateral actions can strain regional partnerships, undermining SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), and create new pressures on transit countries in Latin America, exacerbating challenges related to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Italy’s Integrated Approach: A Potential Model

The IOM has highlighted Italy’s strategy as a noteworthy “experiment” that attempts to align migration management with economic needs, reflecting a more holistic approach consistent with the SDGs. This model combines enforcement with the creation of legal pathways.

1. It combines strict border measures with expanded legal migration channels.
2. It plans to provide nearly 500,000 work permits for non-EU workers over three years, addressing labor shortages.
3. This approach directly supports SDG 8 by matching migrant labor with economic needs and SDG 10 by providing safe and regular migration routes.

Conclusion: A Call for a Paradigm Shift

The IOM’s analysis concludes that effective and humane migration management cannot be separated from the broader 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A paradigm shift is required, moving away from short-term enforcement measures toward long-term, cooperative strategies. Achieving the SDGs, particularly goals related to poverty, economic growth, and peace, is inextricably linked to creating conditions where migration is a choice, not a necessity. This requires robust international partnerships (SDG 17) and a commitment to investing in global stability and shared prosperity.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article’s central theme is migration, which is a key component of SDG 10. It discusses irregular migration, border enforcement, and the need for well-managed migration policies, all of which fall under the goal of reducing inequalities between and within countries.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article connects migration to instability and conflict in origin countries. The warning about repatriating Syrians to a situation of “further destabilization, further conflict” and ensuring children are safe directly relates to promoting peaceful and inclusive societies.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article emphasizes the need for international cooperation on migration. It critiques the unilateral approach of tightening borders while cutting development aid, highlighting the interconnectedness of national policies and global stability. The role of the IOM and the discussion of different national approaches (U.S., Greece, Italy) underscore the importance of global partnerships.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The discussion of Italy’s approach, which involves providing work permits to non-EU workers to meet labor needs, connects the issue of migration to economic factors and the promotion of safe and secure working environments for migrant workers.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.

  This target is the core of the article. The IOM Director General’s critique of policies focused solely on border enforcement and her praise for Italy’s “experiment” combining enforcement with legal channels are direct discussions about the need for “planned and well-managed migration policies” to avoid the chaos of “irregular migration.”

• Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments.

  The article explicitly warns against the trend of Western nations “reducing development aid.” The statement, “It is short-sighted to cut foreign assistance without identifying alternatives to make sure that populations are not on the move,” directly addresses the importance of Official Development Assistance (ODA) in stabilizing populations and addressing the root causes of migration.

• Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

  This is identified in the discussion about Syria. The concern that repatriating Syrians could lead to “further destabilization, further conflict” points directly to the goal of reducing violence and conflict in origin countries to create conditions for safe return.

• Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers.

  This target is relevant to Italy’s plan to “provide nearly 500,000 permits for non-EU workers” over three years. This policy is an example of creating legal and safe pathways for migrant workers to fill labor shortages, which is a key aspect of protecting their rights and promoting secure work environments.

• Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.

  This target is implied in the warning about repatriating Syrians. The specific concern that “if their children aren’t safe” upon return highlights the need to protect children from violence and ensure their safety, a core component of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Number and type of migration policies implemented.

  The article contrasts different policy approaches: “stricter migration policies,” “expanded deportation efforts” (Greece), “tougher U.S. border policies,” and Italy’s dual approach of enforcement plus “expanded legal migration channels.” The existence and nature of these policies serve as a direct indicator for Target 10.7.

• Volume of Official Development Assistance (ODA).

  The article’s warning about “reducing development aid” and cutting “foreign assistance” directly points to the volume of ODA as a critical indicator for Target 17.2. A decrease in this funding is presented as a negative outcome.

• Number of legal work permits issued to migrants.

  The article provides a specific figure for Italy’s plan: “nearly 500,000 permits for non-EU workers.” This quantifiable number is a direct indicator for measuring the implementation of policies under Target 8.8, which aims to create safe and legal work opportunities for migrants.

• Number of migrants and refugees.

  The article mentions “a spike in arrivals” in Greece and “fewer people coming to the United States and Mexico border.” These flows of people are an implicit indicator of the effectiveness (or consequences) of migration policies and the stability in origin countries, relevant to Target 10.7.

• Level of conflict and stability in origin countries.

  The reference to “further destabilization, further conflict” in Syria implies that the level of peace and stability is a key indicator. While not quantified in the article, it is presented as a crucial factor for determining the safety of repatriation and is relevant to Target 16.1.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: apnews.com