Mixed Migration Platform http://mixedmigrationplatform.org Information and analysis on migration to, from and within the Middle East Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:28:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.8 Unaccompanied and Separated Children http://mixedmigrationplatform.org/review/unaccompanied-and-separated-children-perceptions-in-greece/ Tue, 18 Jul 2017 15:05:16 +0000 http://mixedmigrationplatform.org/?post_type=review&p=1280 Overall satisfaction with the support and services
provided at shelters

Good relationship with shelter staff

Split access to care plan development

Desire for more school and language lessons

better.
Satisfaction with legal services

Strong feelings of safety and acceptance in host
community

community.
Trust in information

]]>
Refugee Perceptions in Lebanon http://mixedmigrationplatform.org/review/refugee-perceptions-in-lebanon-2/ Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:47:37 +0000 http://mixedmigrationplatform.org/?post_type=review&p=1279 This report summarises the findings of eight focus group
discussions conducted with Syrian refugees, Palestine
refugees from Syria (PRS), and Palestine refugees from
Lebanon (PRL) in four different governorates in Lebanon.
This is the second in a series of three data-collection
rounds looking at refugee perceptions of humanitarian
assistance in Lebanon under the Mixed Migration Platform
(MMP). The discussion topics were designed by Ground
Truth Solutions based on the findings of perceptual
quantitative surveys conducted in March 2017.1
The aim
is to delve deeper into the issues that surfaced in the
survey. More background and information about the
methodology can be found on page 8 of this report.

]]>
Summary of Focus Group Discussions in Northern Iraq http://mixedmigrationplatform.org/review/summary-of-focus-group-discussions-in-northern-iraq/ Wed, 05 Jul 2017 12:01:36 +0000 http://www.mixedmigrationplatform.org/?post_type=review&p=1251 Summary of Focus Group Discussions in Northern Iraq

Qualitative Round 1 – July 2017

This report summarizes the findings of 10 focus group
discussions conducted with internally displaced persons
(IDPs) and Syrian refugees at six different sites – in camps
and urban settings – in northern Iraq. This is the second
in a series of data-collection rounds looking at IDP
and refugee perceptions of humanitarian assistance in
northern Iraq under the Mixed Migration Platform (MMP).

This report covers four broad themes – changes over six
months; the relevance and quality of assistance; access to
information and complaints mechanisms; and fairness and
discrimination. First, the report details key concerns that
surfaced from the discussions.

]]>
Refugee, Asylum Seeker & Migrant Perceptions in Austria http://mixedmigrationplatform.org/review/refugee-asylum-seeker-migrant-perceptions-in-austria/ Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:25:42 +0000 http://www.mixedmigrationplatform.org/?post_type=review&p=1235 Ground Truth Solutions analyses data collected from refugees and
asylum seekers currently living in Vienna. It is the first
in a series of quantitative and qualitative data collection
rounds under the Mixed Migration Platform looking at
refugee, asylum seeker and migrant perceptions of the
services provided in Austria. Interviews for the survey
were conducted face-to-face with 376 refugees, asylum
seekers and migrants at institutions
that counsel, support and provide accommodation for
asylum seekers in Vienna. While respondents were
approached at these facilities, they were not necessarily
making use of the counselling services on offer.
Respondents may have made use of other available
services such as language courses, registering for asylum
procedures and housing. The goal of this survey is to
provide insight into the experiences and perceptions of
refugees, asylum seekers and migrants to (i) better inform
the overall response in Austria, (ii) to enable NGOs to
provide more effective programmes, and (iii) to encourage
governmental agencies to adopt data driven policy
responses. Respondents were asked to score each closed
question on a scale of 1 to 5, with open-ended questions
included to provide deeper insights. A qualitative round
of data investigation and validation by Ground Truth
Solutions in the next few months will delve deeper into
some of the issues that surfaced in this quantitative
survey. More background and information on the
methodology can be found at the end of this report.

]]>
Underage, undocumented and alone http://mixedmigrationplatform.org/review/underage-undocumented-and-alone/ Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:39:37 +0000 http://www.mixedmigrationplatform.org/?post_type=review&p=1160 Underage, undocumented and alone
A gap analysis of undocumented unaccompanied and separated children on the move in Jordan, Lebanon and Greece
This briefing paper examines the state of, and existing protection gaps in, the asylum process for undocumented, unaccompanied and separated children (UASC) on the move in Jordan, Lebanon and Greece. The paper seeks to underscore protection challenges inherent to the age assessment process and surrounding asylum framework in Greece, alongside the asylum policy response to mixed flows of undocumented UASC entering, and within, Lebanon and Jordan. By comparing existing frameworks and corresponding barriers to protection status, shelter, legal protection, health, and education access, it seeks to inform a larger research study due in July on documentation
vulnerabilities of UASC in these countries by identifying gaps in available data.2 This will be further complemented by an upcoming Ground Truth study on unaccompanied minors’ perceptions of the support they receive in Greece. In addition, the paper will analyse the impact of a lack of documentation on the provision of rights for UASC, including due process when applying for asylum, freedom from arbitrary detention, guardianship and freedom from exploitation. The three countries were selected due to the availability of primary data sources through MMP’s implementing partner, INTERSOS, which has well-established operations in the field of child rights and protection in each country. Furthermore, and most significantly, there remains a gap in reporting on UASC on the move within the Middle East and Europe (and between both regions), particularly as regards legal barriers to protection incurred by missing documentation in the context of mass migration.

]]>
Beyond Europe http://mixedmigrationplatform.org/review/beyond-europe/ Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:16:39 +0000 http://www.mixedmigrationplatform.org/?post_type=review&p=1152 Beyond Europe
Routes, destinations, and challenges faced by Syrian refugees seeking asylum outside of Europe

Most Syrians seeking asylum in Europe arrived in 2015. Since then, increasingly restrictive policies have been put in
place in order to contain the movement of refugees and other migrants to Europe. However, the lack of regular and
safe migration pathways for Syrians leaves them exposed to life-threatening conditions from the very start of their
journey. Increasing costs, growing risks, and vulnerability to detention, are among the reasons why many Syrians
have left for other destinations beyond the Middle East and Europe. Only a few options remain available: Malaysia,
Sudan, and Haiti are the sole countries that do not require Syrian nationals to have an entry visa. In addition,
humanitarian visa schemes and other forms of temporary protection mean Syrian refugees are now displaced across
the world.

While the media coverage has focused on the challenges faced by Syrians in neighbouring Middle Eastern countries
and en route to Europe, the journeys and experiences of Syrians seeking asylum elsewhere remain poorly
documented. Syrians who take ‘unusual’ routes to different destinations experience similar challenges to those
seeking asylum in the EU and surrounding countries, but have received little attention and assistance. Even those who
were able to successfully receive some form of protected status elsewhere may have faced dangerous journeys to
reach their destination, often becoming vulnerable to abuse and detention. This feature article traces alternative paths
taken by Syrians to destinations outside of Europe and the Middle East, and examines the conditions they face
throughout their journey and upon arrival.

]]>
Sharing the responsibility and the information http://mixedmigrationplatform.org/sharing-the-responsibility-and-the-information/ Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:54:39 +0000 http://www.mixedmigrationplatform.org/?p=1097 Alex Odlum, ACAPS

Achieving better information and evidence for decision making is essential to improved international cooperation and governance of migration. The New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants recognises the importance of improved data collection, and calls for disaggregated data on topics such as: “regular and irregular flows, the economic impacts of migration and refugee movements, human trafficking, the needs of refugees, migrants and host communities and other issues.”

That there are gaps in the information landscape, particularly on irregular migration and smuggling, is clear. Too seldom are migration actors able to pin down the exact number of people on the move at a given time, clarify their current and future migration intentions, accurately break down demographics and highlight vulnerable groups, and identify gaps in critical service provision.

Generating new data, however, is not the only way to fill these gaps: a lot can be learned through better sharing and analysis of the information that already exists, albeit scattered across a range of actors. This blog post aims to generate further discussion on how data sharing can improve the collective understanding of migration, touching on some key issues including: the information sources available, the challenges inhibiting better analysis and some good practices.

 

Diversity of the information landscape on migration and displacement

The primary sources of data on admissions, readmissions, returns and reintegration are typically held within the domain of supra-national, national and sub-national authorities. Border, law enforcement and immigration agencies collect data on a wide range of metrics relating to in- and out-flows, and the legal status of those involved. Municipalities collect data on the need for health, education, transportation, sanitation, solid waste and other services. Sometimes voluntarily, and other times due to international obligations, states make some or all of these metrics public, either through their own national statistical offices, via international and regional organisations, such as the OECD and Eurostat, or through collaborative networks such as the European Migration Network.

In the context of large-scale migration and displacement flows, such as those seen from the Middle East to Europe in 2015-16, states may also delegate emergency response roles to the international community, comprised of UN agencies, the Red Cross/Red Crescent, and international NGOs. These bodies collect, organise and often disseminate vast quantities of data on arrivals and registrations, flows, people in need of assistance, and other indicators. Local civil society groups and smaller NGOs generate still more data from their own programmes, which they then use to improve their own efforts, or to lobby other actors, including local and national governments as well as INGOs.

Academics, think tanks, investigative journalists and other researchers not only analyse the above data sources, but often generate their own quantitative and qualitative datasets, both on a micro-level and on a larger scale. Furthermore, researchers often benefit from a level of neutrality and trust that allows them access to certain key stakeholders, such as smugglers and irregular migrants, that may be hesitant to interact with other, mandated, actors.

In addition, a growing body of practically focused studies aim to enrich understandings of migration and displacement, by analysing the thought processes and perspectives of people on the move, or considering moving, such as Ground Truth Solutions’ perception studies and IOM’s flows analysis. Big data analysis taps into information refugees and other migrants generate by their actions and communications, for example on social media. Used appropriately, big data can serve as a rich source of information on the movement patterns, needs and access to services of refugees and other migrants, while engaging with social media enhances two-way communication with communities.

The range of actors generating data on migration raises the question of how information can be shared in a way that enrichens our collective understanding and ability to respond, without jeopardising the safety and privacy of those involved. However, to grasp the potential for more collaborative approaches to data sharing between actors with such diverse mandates and motives, we must first recognise the challenges to deeper cooperation that need to be overcome.

 

What are the challenges to better data sharing?

One challenge is the lack of cooperation between states, particularly along key migration routes. While destination countries benefit from knowing more about migration flows, origin and transit countries do not always have the capacity or interest in providing more information on outflows and throughflows. For example, a lack of information sharing had inhibited earlier efforts to analyse and respond to the needs of people on the move from Turkey to Greece in 2015, although an agreement was eventually reached in early 2016 on a joint EU-Turkey data collection process. Even when destination countries invest in data capacities in transit and origin countries, they are often interested in asking questions to inform their own policies, and not necessarily those of transit countries.

Even within multinational blocs, such as the EU, data sharing on migration is far from a given. In October 2015, the European Council managed to establish an Integrated Political Crisis Response mechanism for data sharing but only after serious mistakes had been made, such as Frontex’s double counting some 710,000 migrants who entered the EU, first via Greece, and then EU countries north of the Balkans some days or weeks later.

A related challenge to more open data sharing on migration is the political sensitivity of the data. Large numbers of arrivals, for example, can be interpreted as a reason to limit further immigration. Small numbers can be cited to deprioritise assistance. The political temptation to manipulate such data is rife. Italian authorities were accused of withholding data on the number of people it rescued at sea in the months leading up to the 2016 referendum. Similarly, the Greek government has consistently maintained that around 62,000 refugees are present in Greece, in order to justify continued emergency funding from the EU, despite the humanitarian community, including UNHCR, counting some 13,000 less.

Security interests also limit data sharing, at times detrimentally. Law enforcement agencies operating within a security focused framework are not inclined to share their data to avoid jeopardising operations, which leaves potentially useful information out of reach of protection actors.

Divergent definitions and a lack of comparability further constrain the potential for more open data sharing. The parameters of blurred concepts like smuggling and trafficking can vary between countries and organisations. Even key terms, such as the definition of a migrant, is measured in multiple ways, such as country of birth, nationality, or length of stay. Although guidance is slowly emerging, a lack and capacity on what to collect, how to analyse it, and how to translate findings into useful material for decision making, leads to overlap and gaps in actionable evidence for response.

 

Good practices and ways forward

Despite the multiple challenges, there are also opportunities to improve data sharing and cooperation, and a growing set of good practices on which to build. International organisations and NGOs have been leading in this field, establishing spaces to facilitate data sharing and analysis. IOM, for example, has established the Global Migration Data Analysis Centre, which is compiling a global migration data portal, and providing guidance on innovative migration data analysis approaches. Humanitarian agencies are increasingly maintaining data portals, needs assessment registries and common datasets. A good example is the Humanitarian Data Exchange, which aims to build up a common repository of information available for deeper analysis of displacement and other humanitarian crises.

Other agencies are making use of their unique access to people on the move to create new, more targeted information and share it publically. 4Mi not only collect data on migration flows in hard to reach areas, but also make that data available in user-friendly platforms to encourage deeper research and analysis. IOM’s Displacement Tracking Matrix captures, processes and disseminates information about displacement and population mobility.

In addition to collecting, compiling and sharing useful data, more initiatives are prioritising analysis of the information that is already available, including ACAPS, whose analytical tools and products help make sense of information in emergencies for decision makers. Some NGOs are also combining analytical capacities to avoid duplication and fill information gaps: The Mixed Migration Platform itself is an example of NGOs combining their skills to help bridge humanitarian operations with academia and policy makers concerned about complex migration dynamics and the protection of people on the move.

Even states and their law enforcement agencies are opening up in the face of significant pressure for more transparency on migration-related data, as evidenced by Frontex making some its datasets available for public analysis. Social media companies are finding new ways to make use of their immense data to map disaster-induced displacement and migration patterns, as demonstrated by Facebook’s latest collaboration with UNICEF, IFRC, and WFP.

 

What are the boundaries?

The general trend towards data sharing, while necessary, does not come without risks. Some of the same challenges that hamper deeper coordination between actors with divergent interests, also explain the reluctance to cooperate more openly. Law enforcement agencies are primarily concerned with preventing and stopping irregular migration. But humanitarian organisations often see these objectives as contrary to their own goals of protecting and assisting people on the move.

While there is room for more trust between partners, particularly since states have committed to principles of data protection and privacy in the Global Compact on Migration, deeper cooperation and sharing ought to nonetheless be approached with caution. As outlined by data ethicist, Linnet Taylor, rather than producing knowledge for knowledge’s sake, knowledge production should be clearly tied to a theory of change that connects the data activity to the ultimate goal of refugee and migrant protection. So long as we bear this sage advice in mind, further steps towards data sharing and analysis should be explored, before diving into new forms of data collection.

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, data sharing and more collaborative analysis is only an initial step towards evidence-based migration policy making. There is an onus on all those producing and analysing data to ensure findings are adequately communicated to policy makers. In turn, policy makers should do more to ensure they use findings that result from improved data sharing and analysis efforts, particularly to inform policies at the national, regional and global level.

]]>
From the Bottom Up http://mixedmigrationplatform.org/from-the-bottom-up/ Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:15:35 +0000 http://www.mixedmigrationplatform.org/?p=1043 Nick Van Praag, Ground Truth Solutions

The second of six informal thematic consultations took place in New York under the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) from 22-23 May. The central focus of this thematic session was a discussion of drivers behind migration, including the adverse effects of climate change, natural disasters and human-made crises, as well as protection and assistance, sustainable development, poverty eradication, conflict prevention and resolution at all stages of migration. In this second blog post in a series focused on the informal thematic sessions under the GCM, MMP partner, Ground Truth Solutions (GTS), draws on recent research conducted in Lebanon, Northern Iraq and Austria to discuss some of the drivers behind recent movement to Europe.

Many Europeans were taken by surprise in the spring of 2015 when the number of refugees and other migrants arriving at European borders suddenly accelerated. The majority came from the Middle East, but a large number were from South and Central Asia and Africa. That so many people decided to take matters into their own hands to escape conflict and precariousness left politicians, humanitarian agencies and members of the public scrambling for solutions and explanations.

Two years later, the push factors behind this movement remain acute. Meanwhile, the welcome is less fulsome as even the most generous European countries rethink the implications of their earlier open-door policies and focus on integrating those people already inside their borders. Meanwhile, countries bordering the Syrian conflict—Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey—continue to host a large number of refugees living in challenging conditions.

Through a series of surveys conducted in countries along the migration route, Ground Truth Solution’s role within the MMP consortium is to provide both a voice to those on the move—by proactively probing, analysing and presenting their views—and input to policy-makers as they respond to this large-scale displacement. What, then, can we learn about the drivers of migration from the most recent surveys in Lebanon, Northern Iraq and Austria?

 

Meeting needs

In Lebanon, most respondents say they lack a range of basics—from food, medicine and educational opportunities to financial aid and housing. Refugees and other displaced persons in Northern Iraq feel the same way, pointing to cash, healthcare and food as major gaps. According to the survey findings, many of the Syrians and Iraqis who have settled in Austria are quite satisfied with the services they receive. They see themselves benefiting from things that will improve their self-reliance and integration, such as learning German, finding housing, getting a job and pursuing educational opportunities.

In seeking to understand needs, the question we ask in the survey is not whether refugees and other migrants have everything they want, but if they have the essentials to survive. Overall, the survey data suggests people’s basic needs are better covered in Austria than in the countries bordering Syria. This points to the importance of ensuring aid agencies and donors implement long-term strategies in neighbouring countries, going beyond emergency support to opportunities to earn a living. The surveys also suggest that if people’s needs are not met in neighbouring countries, such as Lebanon, people may try and move elsewhere in search of better services, protection and livelihood opportunities.

 

Equity of aid provision

Compounding concerns about the inadequacy of aid provision in neighbouring countries is the sense that what is provided does not necessarily go to those who need it most. This sentiment prevails among both Palestine and Syrian refugees in Lebanon. In Northern Iraq, refugee perceptions differ on this ‘fairness’ issue, with children and youth seen by some respondents as not being treated as equally as adults. Mukhtars—the local chiefs—are singled out for criticism by some respondents who say they channel support according to their own agendas. In both Lebanon and Northern Iraq, there is no difference between respondents’ views on the fairness and transparency of cash transfers as compared to other aid forms.

 

Opportunity

An important take-away from the data in Lebanon and Northern Iraq is a general sense that the refugee and displaced populations are in a state of limbo, with few of them positive about their situation. Obstacles to becoming more self-reliant cited by refugees in Lebanon include access to the job market, education and professional training. Refugees and displaced people in Northern Iraq are also pessimistic, pointing to lack of job opportunities and the general challenge of providing for their families.

Although some mention security concerns, the majority of refugees in Austria see their prospects as promising. Most say they engage in activities they regard as useful, typically learning the language, caring for their families and playing sports. Unemployment and language barriers are the main challenges for those who would like to improve their sense of purpose and self-reliance.

The very different experiences—and associated frustrations—surfaced by recent surveys underline that the push factors behind the movement of migrants to Europe in 2015 and 2016 remain unresolved. In addition to enhancing understanding of the complex drivers of migration, the survey data illustrates that continuing power of pull factors. Providing evidence of the challenges faced by uprooted people is one thing; taking decisive action to resolve them is another.

]]>
Rejected but remaining http://mixedmigrationplatform.org/review/rejected-but-remaining/ Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:59:47 +0000 http://www.mixedmigrationplatform.org/?post_type=review&p=1146 Rejected but remaining: Analysis of the protection challenges that confront rejected asylum seekers remaining in Europe

Following the 2015 peak in arrivals of refugees and other migrants to Europe, the number of overall asylum applications doubled. While the number of positive decisions gradually increased in line with the rise in applications, the increase in the number of negative decisions was significant. Although the total number of people returned did increase substantially in 2016, a large number of rejected asylum seekers remain in Europe. Less attention is paid to what happens to asylum seekers once rejected, despite the fact that these individuals face similar vulnerabilities to those still claiming asylum. The objective of this briefing paper is to draw attention to the protection challenges that rejected asylum seekers are confronted with. It will also provide an indication of the number of rejected asylum seekers who remain in Europe by looking at Eurostat data, whilst also highlighting thelimitations and discrepancies within this data.
The objective of this briefing paper is to draw attention to the protection challenges that rejected asylum seekers are confronted with. It will also provide an indication of the number of rejected asylum seekers who remain in Europe by looking at Eurostat data, whilst also highlighting the limitations and discrepancies within this data.

]]>
Mixed meaning http://mixedmigrationplatform.org/mixed-meaning/ Sun, 04 Jun 2017 21:22:44 +0000 http://jmagz.jegtheme.com/?p=401 Complexity, in matters of mixed migration in the Middle East, is not the sole preserve of the conflict situations that act as a key driver of movement. The language of migration, for example, and the implications it can have for the protection of people on the move, cannot be underestimated. If someone has been displaced, can we say they are migrating? Should a trafficked person be afforded the same protection as a refugee fleeing conflict? Does the moral argument for assisting someone stand up to an argument based on structural issues (which could, for example, affect an individual’s livelihood or income) within a country?

This article looks at the importance of, and debate around, language, definitions and categorisations within mixed migration narratives.

The New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants marks a significant step forward for such matters of language. One of the declaration’s less-heralded achievements is its omission of the language of ‘crisis’, preferring to refer to “the growing global phenomenon of large movements of refugees and migrants”. Whether or not these movements are ‘unprecedented’, as the declaration also states, is moot (large-scale movement of people has always occurred); what matters is that migration is not framed as something that is new, nor something that is a threat.

As experts like Professor Heaven Crawley have argued, the numbers of people who arrived in Europe over the course of 2014-16 do not constitute a ‘crisis’, and the framing of this migration situation in such a way has changed how people in Europe see migrants and refugees – in an overwhelmingly negative way (and this narrative is then amplified by various populist and racist media outlets in many European countries). The misappropriation of the word ‘crisis’ – which would be better applied to a country such as Lebanon where approximately one in four individuals is a refugee and public services are under enormous strain – and how it has resultantly empowered voices that are less empathetic, shows the importance of language in such politically sensitive matters.

Difficulties of definition permeate all aspects of mixed migration, including the term itself. Even the verb ‘migrate’ can be seen as problematic – if we are to say that refugees and asylum seekers form part of mixed migration flows, can we say that they ‘migrate’? A dictionary definition of the word speaks of moving to “a new area or country in order to find work or better living conditions”, a broad definition that could encompass any individual on the move. In specific situations (emergency response, for example), however, many would find this definition inadequate and sweeping. On the other hand, using this definition one could say that a refugee is both displaced (moved from their habitual location) and migrating (moving to a new location to seek better living conditions, where their life is not under threat). There are other considerations when applying such definitions but a simple semantic discussion highlights the foundational difficulties of the language of mixed migration (and is dealt with much more rigorously by people like Jørgen Carling, using his inclusivist/residualist argument). At a global level, the lines have been drawn – the two separate compacts (1,2) that came about as a result of the New York Declaration cement the distinction between refugees and migrants.

The Mixed Migration Platform (MMP) regularly encounters such challenges when discussing people on the move. A forthcoming piece, for instance, looks at the implications associated with defining persons who move as a result of climate and environmental factors. MMP is explicit about how it describes those who move in mixed migration flows – the term it uses, ‘refugees and other migrants’, includes refugees, asylum seekers, economic migrants, trafficked and smuggled persons and so on. It furthermore stresses that the journeys of people on the move can be non-linear, spatially and temporally. What of people who are first displaced, then settle in a different country, but later choose to move of their own volition for economic reasons? Are there time limits to our definitions? Should political factors in a person’s country of origin ultimately dictate their status? What of people who choose to move for both economic and security reasons?

The implications of such linguistic ambiguity for a humanitarian and developmental system that uses categorisations in structuring itself are clear. What then is the entry point for the work of humanitarian and development actors in this regard (and indeed for their government and private sector counterparts) when designing response programmes for a target population? With funding for such work consistently under pressure, how do these organisations best utilise their resources to identify potential vulnerabilities of people on the move and respond accordingly? If structural conditions in a person’s country of origin hasten their individual-level poverty and drive them to move, for example, one might argue that this person should receive support. MMP argues that a solid evidence base will improve humanitarian and developmental decision-making. The platform champions a need for better clarity of mixed migration information (1, 2) and for consideration of those that fall outside of typical protection responses (for example, those on alternative routes and those who stay behind).

Mixed migration is an emotive and politically charged subject but it should not be seen as a new ‘phenomenon’ nor necessarily, by the same measure, a group of individuals moving en masse. We speak of people moving in mixed migration flows but mixed migration is also a lens of analysis – the term is too frequently restricted to a literal interpretation and not an analytical one. This lens helps generate an evidence base that provides balanced information on derivable benefits, and constructive suggestions for challenges, that people on the move can bring. In spite of some of the difficulties of definition outlined above, these should not take primacy in discussions of mixed migration. Actors involved in mixed migration need to work to ensure the rights of all people on the move are upheld, while highlighting the positive contributions that refugees and other migrants make to societies, cultures and economies in transit and destination countries, both on an individual and collective level.

This post was originally published as an article on the SDC Migration Network Newsletter in April.

]]>