Research on ISCMs

Research on ISCMs

The phenomenon of inter-State consultations and policy dialogue on migration has been studied by different institutions or scholars. 
The Online Repository of ISCM Materials contains some of these studies. 

IOM has conducted research on ISCMs including reviews / assessments of ISCMs' work and significance to migration governance. 
These reviews / assessments include 4 main exercises.

  1. MRS 3: The Role of Regional Consultative Process in Managing International Migration (2001). Studied the main characteristic of RCPs. Analyzed some ISCMs (RCM, Budapest Process, Manilla Process, CIS Conference).

  1. MRS 38: Assessment of Principal Regional Consultative Processes on migration (2010). Suggested a definition of migration governance and some characteristic of ISCMs / RCPs. Studied 14 ISCMs (5 + 5 Dialogue on migration; Abu Dhabi Dialogue; APC; Bali Process; Budapest Process; Colombo Process; IGAD RCP (MID-IGAD); IGC; MIDSA; MISWA; MTM; RCM; SACM; Soderkoping Process).

  1. MRS 45: Regional Inter-State Consultation Mechanisms on Migration: Approaches, Recent Activities and Implications for Global Governance of Migration (2013). Introduced ISCM taxonomy. Studied 25 ISCMs (5 + 5 Dialogue on migration; ACP-EU Dialogue on Migration; Abu Dhabi Dialogue; AFML; Almaty Process; APC; ASEM Migration Conference; Bali Process; Budapest Process; Colombo Process; MIDCOM / COMESA RCP; EaPPMA (Soderkoping Process successor); EU-CELAC MD; EuroMed; FIBEMYD; MID-IGAD / IGAD-RCP; IGC; MIDSA; MIDWA; MTM; Prague Process; Rabat Process; RCM; SACM; Tripoli Process).

  1. Advancing a common understanding of migration governance across regions. ISCM Assessment Report (2019). The assessment examined the contribution that ISCMs make to migration governance at the national, regional and international levels. It reviewed ISCMs' achievements, thematic focus, structures and partnership models, and assesses their continued relevance and sustainability. The Assessment methodology included not only desktop research, survey, telephone interviews, but also a discussion of the assessment topics at the 8th Global ISCM Meeting
    The assessment led to some conclusions.
  •  ISCMs continue to play a unique role in facilitating informal, non-binding policy dialogue among and across regions.
  • They contribute to the national, (inter) regional and global levels of migration governance and are valued by States due to their informality and ability to provide a “policy incubator” on migration issues. Their informal nature however makes it difficult to actually track and acknowledge ISCMs' contribution to migration governance. 
  • While each ISCM is unique, there are some common elements among the different ISCM structures , eg State as Chair, Secretariat, Ministerial and technical levels of work, thematic working groups. Other features such as national focal points are considered useful in ensuring a point of contact with national administrations and a bridge between a given ISCM and national governments.
  • Regarding sustainability , regularly revisiting and updating the aims and workplan of each ISCM can help ensure the continued relevance of their work vis-à-vis the priorities of respective Member States. Most ISCMs also seek more predictable funding support, including from non-traditional sources. Available and predictable funding on the other hand is also an indicator of ISCMs continued relevance, and the added value of these discussion fora and potential partnerships for respective member states.
  • Due to their often informa l nature and modalities, the ISCMs often need to partner with more formal bodies for translating their positions into policies or to monitor the implementation of regional- or global- level commitments. More and more ISCMs are opening to cooperation with IGOs, academia, NGOs or private sector companies. Targeted partnerships can prove beneficial for ISCMs in enhancing their contribution to migration governance at the regional, interregional or global levels.
  • At the same time, given their expansion in scope, thematic and geographical, as well as and membership, there is a space for increased synergies among ISCMs , especially in the case of overlapping geographic coverage and / or thematic area. Such increased synergies could enhance ISCMS 'collective impact in migration governance and at global forums.

22 ISCMs contributed to the assessment survey (Almaty Process; ARCP; CMC; OCAM; Eastern Partnership Panel on Migration, Mobility and Integrated Border Management (Soderkoping Process and EAPPMA successor); MID-IGAD; MIDSA; MIDWA; MIDCOM; PIDC; Prague Process ; RCM; Colombo Process; SACM; ACP-EU Dialogue on Migration; Bali Process; Budapest Process; Khartoum Process; Rabat Process; EU-CELAC MD; IGC; GFMD). Another 6 ISCMs contributed to the assessment through their participating in GRCP 8 (5 + 5 Dialogue on migration; AU HOAI; Abu Dhabi Dialogue; COMMIT Process; RIAM; PAFOM). 
2019 assessment exercise resulted in the following publications: Assessment Report and GRCP 8 Summary Report .
In addition, individual survey summarieswere prepared for each of the participating ISCMs. These summaries are available below. 

IOM has developed guidance for ISCMs on various issues, eg the global compact for migration or coronavirus pandemic.

Information Note on Inter-State Consultation Mechanisms on Migration and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
Potential formats of engagement by interested ISCMs in the regional reviews of the GCM
ISCMs and reversing the negative impact of coronavirus pandemic

Several thematic surveys were conducted among ISCMs. They include:

  • 2020: survey questions on ISCM plans to contribute to GCM regional reviews. 22 ISCMs replied to these questions (Almaty Process; ARCP; AU-HOAI; Bali Process; Budapest Process; CMC; Colombo Process; IGC; Khartoum Process; MID-IGAD; MiDIOCC; MIDCOM; MIDWA; Nairobi Process on LM; OCAM; PAFOM ; Prague Process; Rabat Process; RCM; RIAM; Quito Process, SACM). This small survey informed the High-level webinars on ISCMs and the GCM regional review
  • 2019: ISCM Assessment survey. Assessment survey was conducted among ISCMs; as well as States and IGOs ​​engaged with ISCMs. 46 States have provided their feedback to the survey (Albania; Armenia; Belarus; Belgium; Benin; Bulgaria; Canada; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Egypt; Estonia; Ethiopia; the Gambia; Georgia; Guinea; Honduras; Hungary; Jamaica; Korea; Latvia; Lithuania; North Macedonia; Mauritius; Mexico; Morocco; the Netherlands, Norway; Panama; Peru; Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Serbia; Spain; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Sweden; Switzerland ; Turkey; Ukraine; Suriname). 3 IGOs ​​completed the survey questionnaire, too (IOM, ICMPD and UNHCR).22 ISCMs contributed to the assessment survey (Almaty Process; ARCP; CMC; OCAM; Eastern Partnership Panel on Migration; MID-IGAD; MIDSA; MIDWA; MIDCOM; PIDC; Prague Process; RCM; Colombo Process; SACM; ACP-EU Dialogue on Migration; Bali Process; Budapest Process; Khartoum Process; Rabat Process; EU-CELAC MD; IGC; GFMD). Another 6 ISCMs contributed to the assessment through their participating in GRCP 8 (5 + 5 Dialogue on migration; AU HOAI; Abu Dhabi Dialogue; COMMIT Process; RIAM; PAFOM)]. Resulted in Assessment Report ; GRCP 8 Summary Report and individual ISCM summaries.
  • 2018: Survey among ISCMs on their role in the Global compact for migration. 7 ISCMs contributed to the survey (ARCP; Abu Dhabi Dialogue; MID-IGAD; PAFOM; Rabat Process; RCM; SACM). Survey results informed the study on The Role of inter-State consultation mechanisms on migration in the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
    2017: Survey of ISCMs 'and their partners' inputs to the Global Compact for Migration. Compiled effective practices and other inputs from 20 ISCM (5 + 5 Dialogue on migration; ACP-EU MD; Abu Dhabi Dialogue; Almaty Process; ARCP; Budapest Process; CMC; Colombo Process; EaPPMA; IGC; Khartoum Process; MID-IGAD; MIDCAS; MIDWA; MIDCOM; PAFOM; Prague Process; Rabat Process; RCM; GFMD);4 UN Regional Commissions (UNESCAP; UNECE; UNESCAP; UNECLAC); and 3 IGOs ​​(East African Community; Eurasian Economic Commission; Mercosur. Another 5 IGOs ​​submitted their inputs through ISCMs they are associated with: AU, COMESA, ECCAS; ECOWAS, IGAD). The results of the survey ( Summary of the Results of the Survey on ISCMs 'and partners' contribution to the global compact for migration ) were submitted to the GCM Co-facilitator and the UN SRSG on international migration as the collective ISCM inputs to the GCM stocktaking. The survey informed also the GRCP 7 Highlights and the Summary Report of the Seventh Global RCP Meeting .
  • 2017: Survey of effective practices of ISCMs in the area of ​​voluntary return and reintegration (for the period of 2012-2016). 12 ISCMs contributed (Almaty Process, ACP-EU MD, Bali Process, Budapest Process, IGC, Prague Process, Rabat Process, MIDCAS, MIDSA, MIDWA, Rabat Process, RCM). The survey informed the discussions on the role of policy dialogue on migration in effective governance of migration with a focus on assisted voluntary return and reintegration at the 21st meeting of the Standing Committee on Programs and Finance (SCPF) operating under the IOM Council.
  • 2016: survey of ISCMs annual updates including their engagement in thematic areas and the migration-related SDGs. 14 ISCMs contributed (5 + 5 Dialogue on Migration in the Western Mediterranean; Almaty Process; ARCP; Bali Process; Budapest Process; IGC; MIDCOM / COMESA RCP; PAFOM; MIDSA; MIDWA; Colombo Process; Prague Process; RCM; SACM). Resulted in 2016 Compendium of RCP / IRF Updates and informed the 6th Global ISCM meeting and 2016 ISCM Highlights
  • 2016: Survey among ISCMs on their involvement in migration-related targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 9 ISCMs contributed (Almaty Process, ARCP, Bali Process, Budapest Process, IGC, MIDCAS, MIDSA, MTM, RCM). The survey informed IOM guidance to ISCMs on migration-related SDG targets and the 6th Global ISCM meeting