-
Migrant Vulnerabilities and Integration Needs in CA: “Root Causes, Social and Economic
Impact of Return Migration” Regional Field Assessment 2016Regional Conference on “Preventing Violent Extremism in CA – Challenges and Responses at Community Level”
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan – November 10 & 11 2016
Mrs Tatiana Hadjiemmanuel, Deputy Coordinator for Central Asia/Senior Program Coordinator
IOM Sub-regional Coordination office for Central Asia, Kazakhstan
-
4 Migration Pathways – TOP Migration Corridors:
NORTH-NORTH : Germany to USA, UK to Australia and Canada,
Republic of Korea and UK to USA
SOUTH-SOUTH: Ukraine to Russia, Russia to Ukraine,
Bangladesh to Bhutan, Kazakhstan to Russia ,
Afghanistan to Pakistan
SOUTH-NORTH: Mexico to USA, Turkey to Germany,
China /Philippines/India to USA
NORTH-SOUTH USA to Mexico/South Africa , Germany to Turkey,
Portugal to Brazil, Italy to Argentina
Source: IOM calculations, based on UN DESA, 2012b, 2013 IOM World Migration Report
-
Migration Trends in CA
-
Overarching Issueswww.iom.kz/publicationswww.iom.kz/publicationswww.iom.kz/publicationswww.iom.kz/publications
• Sociological Findings - Vulnerabilities• Radicalization, PVE and CVE• Migration trends and impact of re-entry bans• Integration of Returning CA migrants (integration and
re-integration)
-
IOM CENTRAL ASIA Trends 2014 to today….
USAID DAR Field Regional Assessment Central Asia 2016 - Migrant vulnerabilities and Integration Needs in Central Asia Root Causes, Social and Economic Impact of Return Migration”
Key issues addressed:
• Accessing migrant vulnerabilities, migrants rights and Identifying root causes of radicalization
• Vulnerabilities of TJ, KRG and UZB re-entry banned migrants to RF
• Women either joining or replacing men in migration
• Migrants and communities increased insecurity and poverty, anxiety and instability of migrants , families and communities due to sharp decline of remittances
• Re-entry banned migrants remain “invisible” to state structures -pushed to seek informal aid
• Barriers to reintegration and negative effects (isolation, alienation)
• Effect according to duration of the ban: shock, anxiety, limbo
• Theory of change
• Roots of radicalization
• Stages of radicalization
• Migrants and communities vulnerability to radicalization in CA
• CA governments approaches to prevent/combat radicalization
IOM DEVELOPMENT FUND
(IDF)Mapping on Irregular
Migration in Central Asia 2014
Key issues addressed:
• Socioeconomic factors will continue to stimulate labor
migration
• Central Asian migrants have accounted for the
overwhelming majority of
foreigners subject to re-entry
bans from Russia.
• CA countries need for increased foreign labor
• Regulate foreigners’ access to labour markets so as to
balance the protection of
domestic labour force, the
need to attract migrants with
required skills and security
considerations
• Volume, directions and composition of irregular
migration cannot be fully
ascertained due to the
limitations of existing national
systems of data collection,
exchange and analysis
BPRM - Rapid Field Assessment on Returning
Central Asian Migrants: Between
radicalization and re-integration 2015
Key issues addressed:
• Migrant workers from Central Asia have not been found to be more
vulnerable to radicalization as a
group.
• Migration may provide an environment in which socio-economic
factors may act as triggers for
radicalization when coupled with the
sense of discrimination and exposure
to radical ideas
• The numbers of foreign fighters originating from Central Asia have
risen but are still relatively lower than
those from other regions of the world
• Central Asian governments have come to acknowledge the issue of
radicalization domestically, but
limited attention has been given to
the risks to migrant diasporas.
• Rootedness in home and migrant communities, adherence to
traditional sets of values and
adequate religious knowledge are all
important barriers to radicalization.
-
Field Interviews in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan
January to June 2016
TOTAL: 305 INTERVIEWSInterviews w migrants: 113
Focus Groups and Group Interviews: 21 (101 persons)
Officials/Experts: 91
-
Vulnerabilities of migrants and effects of Vulnerabilities of migrants and effects of Vulnerabilities of migrants and effects of Vulnerabilities of migrants and effects of rererere----entry bansentry bansentry bansentry bans
Vulnerable before the ban
Low legal knowledge/Irregular abroad
Irregular and/or low income/unofficial jobs
Preponderant use of networks
High risks of exploitation, trafficking, harassment
Bans affect migrants’ ability to build strategies
Unaware of reasons/length of ban
Stranded in transit/Unemployed back home
Gradually stop using networks
High risks of exploitation, trafficking, harassment
Source: Findings from the interviews and focus groups
-
Characteristics of Most vulnerable migrants
-
Categorizing the most vulnerable groups of Categorizing the most vulnerable groups of Categorizing the most vulnerable groups of Categorizing the most vulnerable groups of migrant workersmigrant workersmigrant workersmigrant workers
Mo
stvu
lne
rab
leg
rou
ps
Imp
act
of
ba
na
fte
rre
turn
Co
mm
on
ch
ara
cte
rist
ics
Limited/no awareness of own rights
Limited/weak networks
High number of dependents
Exploited or with unstable jobs abroad
Unemployment
Dispossession
Reduced/extinguished savings
Loss of property
Abandonment from enlarged families
Limited awareness of available State services
Mistrust of State
WITH FAMILY - more than one member with ban
LOW EDUCATED AND YOUNG
LIVING IN RURAL CONTEXTS
Source: Findings from the interviews and focus groups
-
Gender as a vulnerability factorGender as a vulnerability factorGender as a vulnerability factorGender as a vulnerability factor
-
Characteristics of vulnerable women in Characteristics of vulnerable women in Characteristics of vulnerable women in Characteristics of vulnerable women in conditions of longconditions of longconditions of longconditions of long----term unemployment term unemployment term unemployment term unemployment upon returnupon returnupon returnupon return
Married(women and
men)
Potentialconflicts in
the household
Indebtmentand selling of
property
Mere survival with occasional, informal jobs
mostly from the male side and household agricultural
small production
Divorced/ abandoned
(women)
No/limited supportfrom
family/community
No property
Limited possibilityof obtaining loans
Extreme poverty
Additionalfactors of
vulnerabilities (for both
groups)
Living in remote rural
areas
Presence of dependents
No/Llmitednumber of
breadwinners
Lack of remittancesfrom the RF
Source: Findings from the interviews and focus groups
-
Progressive scale toward possible alienation of Progressive scale toward possible alienation of Progressive scale toward possible alienation of Progressive scale toward possible alienation of rererere----entry banned migrantsentry banned migrantsentry banned migrantsentry banned migrants
LimboCompromised resilience
Need to rebuild networks, regain social value, reconnect with
communities and families
AnxietyCoping mechanisms:
debts (43%), low-paid, low- skilled jobs (22%),
sale of own goods (28%), addressing NGOs (about 20%)
ShockForced return
Lack of strategies to
cope with new
situation (about 70%
of respondents)
Source: IOM CA Findings from the interviews and focus groups
-
Migrants’ low awareness of state services as Migrants’ low awareness of state services as Migrants’ low awareness of state services as Migrants’ low awareness of state services as rererere----integration barrierintegration barrierintegration barrierintegration barrier
Government officials generally do not consider re-entry banned migrants and returned migrants a separate vulnerable population with their own specific needs
Re-entry banned migrants in KZ hide their status for fear of ramifications in their search for employment
Supply barrier
Officials lack
information
about this group
and experience
assisting them
Demand barrier
Migrants mistrust
all official bodies
and do not seek
assistance, preferring
to use intermediaries
Source: Analysis of interviews with officials in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan
-
Long term grounds for radicalization in Central Asia
-
Hypothesis: linking migrants’ vulnerabilities and radicalization
-
Some migrants are radicalized gradually Some migrants are radicalized gradually Some migrants are radicalized gradually Some migrants are radicalized gradually with final stage abroad with final stage abroad with final stage abroad with final stage abroad
Mechanisms of recruitmentMigrant vulnerabilities at various stages: scenarios
At home/Abroad Male migrant, head of household, cannot perform his role of “breadwinner” and seeks ways out through an informal search of opportunities.
At home Returning migrant realizes that the opportunities for occupying the social and economic status he believes he deserves are limited or closed at home and seeks explanation.
Abroad The migrant seeks to understand his own situation in broader terms and searches for community support, but is not satisfied with what he receives from within migrant community
Source: Analysis of interviews with experts and officials, Kazakhstan/Kyrgyzstan/Tajikistan
At home/Abroad Intermediaries (often former migrants) act on migrants’ inability to earn sufficient funds and promise recruits financial aid and facilitate recruit’s trips to Syria/Iraq
At home Activating sense of socio-economic and political injustice and interpreting religious texts to challenge authorities
Abroad Vulnerable migrants are being tracked by radical groups and are given the ideological “final push”, are contacted by intermediaries
-
Are migrant workers and their communities Are migrant workers and their communities Are migrant workers and their communities Are migrant workers and their communities more vulnerable to radicalization?more vulnerable to radicalization?more vulnerable to radicalization?more vulnerable to radicalization?
Deterrents
• Focus on supporting household:• Tajik/Uzbek migrants with large
families
• Long working hours
• Family at home and integrated work community expecting migrant to deliver
• Fear of non-performing• Accountability to the significant
ones
Catalysts
• Social contacts limited to own ethnic or religious group
• Hostility or sense of discrimination from the non-Muslim host society
• Hitting the “glass ceiling”:• Frustration at limited personal
advancement
• Uncertain legal status
Source: National experts’ analysis and interviews with experts/officials
-
CA governments’ approaches to preventing/combating CA governments’ approaches to preventing/combating CA governments’ approaches to preventing/combating CA governments’ approaches to preventing/combating radicalizationradicalizationradicalizationradicalization
Security Integration
Proponents Law enforcement Agencies on religious issues,
labor bodies
Main objective Eliminating extremist groups Reducing vulnerabilities
Main factors Ideological, recruitment Economic need, frustration
Target group Agents, intermediaries Adherents, communities
Re-integration
chances
Low High
Religious leaders Part of a problem Part of a solution
Cooperation with
non-state actors
Limited Welcomed
Source: National experts’ reports; interviews with officials/experts on religious
issues: KZ/KG/TJ
Conclusion: Effective PVE/CVE work requires going beyond the security
approach and raising the importance of the integration approach
-
To be effective, CVE work needs to be To be effective, CVE work needs to be To be effective, CVE work needs to be To be effective, CVE work needs to be complemented by longcomplemented by longcomplemented by longcomplemented by long----term PVE effortsterm PVE effortsterm PVE effortsterm PVE efforts
Approaches CVE: Security PVE: Integration
Key agencies Law enforcement Agencies on religious issues,
labor bodies
Main objective Combating extremist groups Reducing vulnerabilities
Main factors Ideological, recruitment Economic need, frustration
Target group Agents, intermediaries Adherents, communities
Re-integration
chances
Low High
Cooperation with
religious leaders
and NGOs
Limited involvement Crucial for long-term success
Source: National experts’ reports; interviews with officials/experts on religious
issues: Kazakhstan/Kyrgyzstan/Tajikistan