Evaluation of Canada’s membership in the International Organization for Migration

3. Findings

3.1 Relevance

Findings:

  • Given Canada’s status as one of the world’s major refugee-receiving countries, and the mandate of IOM, all respondents cited a strong need to continue membership.
  • CIC’s membership in the IOM is aligned with governmental and departmental strategic objectives.
  • The services that CIC receives from IOM directly support the activities of the department.

Recommendation: In its position as a global leader in managed migration, and considering the benefits obtained from participation, Canada should maintain its membership in the IOM.

The IOM is the only organization whose sole mandate relates to global migration; its members include the major immigrant producing and receiving countries. Canada is one of the world’s leaders in managed migration. There are about 10.5 million refugees in the world today and every year approximately 25 countries resettle about 100,000 refugees. From that number, Canada annually resettles 11,000-14,000, or one out of every 10 refugees resettled globally (CIC website). Among other things, the IOM is the key international organization for any discussion on migration and the development of international strategies and approaches to migration, thus, as a recognized leader in the domain of international migration, there is a clear need for Canada to participate in the IOM. CIC officials interviewed felt strongly that Canada needs to remain engaged, if for no other reason than to be proactive in defending Canada’s interests in policy discussions, specifically as they relate to the sovereign right of nations to manage their own migration.

The document review confirmed that refugees are a priority for both the Canadian government and CIC, as documented in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, CIC’s Strategic Plan, PAA, and Speeches from the Throne. The 2010 Speech From The Throne reaffirmed Canada’s commitment to refugees and noted that Canada is a country of refuge for those victimized by disaster in their homeland or facing persecution by their own governments. Additionally, extending Canada’s protection to those in need and reuniting families are central objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Membership in the IOM is also aligned with Government of Canada strategic objectives, namely a safe and secure world through international engagement, which aims, in part, to provide Canadian representation abroad and contribute to international diplomacyFootnote 5.

In terms of CIC’s PAA, membership in IOM is aligned with the strategic objective of Managed migration that promotes Canadian interests and protects the health, safety and security of Canadians. Membership in the IOM is also aligned with CIC’s Strategic Plan for 2010-2015. CIC’s Strategic Plan establishes six key strategic goals for 2010-2015, one of which includes a renewed tradition of refugee protection and support for families which was noted to be central to our identity and place in the world. According to the Strategic Plan, despite its smaller size relative to key industrialized partners, Canada is one of the top three recipients of asylum claimants and resettled refugees in the developed world (with the U.S. and Australia). The Strategic Plan also states that CIC continues to shape the global dialogue on migration and to share good practices in immigration, citizenship and diversity in support of its international mandate – membership in IOM contributes to this.

As noted previously, the IOM is delivering almost US$30 million in Canadian services and projects, which represents approximately 3.6% of all IOM-delivered services, ranking Canada as the 7th highest contributor to the IOM operational budget. Given that the Government of Canada engages the IOM for a significant amount of services (through financial contributions), many respondents felt that an oversight role for overall management and approach of the IOM was appropriate. Interviewees noted that Canada’s membership in IOM allows ready access to the IOM program managers, and opportunities to influence the governance and management of the organization. Most CIC respondents felt that a membership cost of approximately US$1.2 million to have direct and responsive access to all levels of an organization that is currently delivering such a sizeable amount of projects and services was a worthwhile investment.

Key informants supported the notion of the importance of the federal role and Canada’s participation at the IOM. Some of the most cited comments were:

  • Need for Canada to be at the management table of IOM when Canada is financing almost US$30 million of projects and services through IOM;
  • Need for Canada to retain a voice on the international dialogue on migration;
  • While Canada is involved in numerous migration-related regional forums, many countries are not, but membership in the IOM gives access to 132 member states in one forum;
  • Any withdrawal could send a strange signal and could impact the effectiveness of Canada in other forums;
  • Canada’s withdrawal would deprive others of an experienced voice on managed migration.

3.2 Performance

3.2.1 Participation and influence

Findings:

  • Canada is an active and influential member of the IOM, particularly in the areas of governance and budget matters.
  • Canada is recognized by IOM representatives and fellow member states as a credible and meaningful contributor to migration discussions.
  • Some concerns exist related to mandate expansion and alignment of projects to the strategic direction as well as potential impacts on core migration services as the IOM continues to grow.
  • There is also a perceived need for better coordination among other government departments in dealing with the IOM.

Recommendation: Canada (CIC) should continue to actively monitor the governance and strategic direction of the IOM, paying particular attention to mandate issues so that potential impacts on core services can be highlighted and minimized.

Recommendation: As the lead, CIC should consider the appropriateness of ensuring a sufficient level of coordination between Canadian government departments that use IOM services, to maintain alignment of projects with Canada’s position in relation to the IOM.

The evaluation assessed the level of Canada’s participation and influence in IOM governance bodies, namely the IOM Council and the IOM SCPF, as well as in IOM programs, budgets and strategic directions.

Participation

All groups of interviewees reported that Canada is very active in the IOM governing bodies, the IOM Council and the IOM SCPF, as well as in informal meetings and activities. With respect to participation, all categories of informants – CIC officials, IOM officials, and representatives of IOM member states – stated that Canada is very active in all formal governance bodies, and Canada is often proactive in calling informal meetings either with Member States or IOM officials to discuss issues. For example, Canada has been recognized with respect to its participation in budget matters and the debate around zero-nominal growth to the IOM budget which will be discussed in additional detail later in the report.

The document review supports the findings from the key informant interviews that Canada is very active. The volume and quality of the summaries that are sent from Canada’s representative in Geneva to NHQ are high, with detailed and informative content. They clearly demonstrate Canada’s participation around events such as meetings of the SCPF and Council as well as informal meetings held to form positions with other like-minded or opposing member states.

Influence

Notwithstanding that the IOM is an international organization that currently has 132 member states, it would appear that Canada’s active participation is providing results in terms of its ability to influence IOM governance and management. Several key CIC informants stated that Canada is very active and influential; this opinion was echoed by IOM officials and representatives of member states. The document review also supports this position.

A review of correspondence exchanged during the IOM strategy discussions noted that during the negotiations with other member states, Canada was able to successfully lobby for its position in terms of the reform of IOM governing bodies and the budget process. Corroborating this, several informants each from CIC, the IOM and member states identified Canada as active in budget discussions over the years (especially the zero-nominal-growth debate) and particularly influential in relation to the governance of the IOM. One example of the latter was Canada pushing for governance changes that included the establishment of the Standing Committee on Programs and Finance (SCPF) in 2007. The key informants acknowledged the credibility that Canada has as a country with rich experience in managed migration that it is willing to share. Some IOM respondents noted that Canada is always represented, well-prepared and very credible. Two CIC and IOM representatives specifically attributed the credibility and strength of Canada’s participation to the fact that the Immigration Counsellor is posted full-time in Geneva, with subject matter expertise that many other IOM representatives may not have when it comes to discussing migration issues.

Zero nominal growth debate at the IOM

Concerns exist amongst some members regarding potential growth in the Administrative Budget of IOM. Discussions have occurred regarding the feasibility of maintaining zero nominal growth (ZNG) in the Administrative Budget. CIC, on behalf of the Government of Canada, is viewed as leader on this item.

One interviewee noted that the degree of influence can be affected by the CIC NHQ perception of IOM, how well the Geneva representative is supported, and how active NHQ is in providing positions and support to the representative. The Geneva representative has oversight of several files in addition to the IOM such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), World Health Organization (WHO), International Labour Organization (ILO), and the Global Forum for Migration and Development (GFMD). There can therefore be competing demands on the representative’s time.

An area for improvement identified by one CIC interviewee was internal communication between the branches that utilize IOM services (e.g., Refugees, Integration, and Health Management Branch) and the CIC lead for IOM (IIR). Any decisions regarding IOM and Canada’s involvement or utilization of services may impact the branches benefiting from the services, making consultation important.

Some concerns exist around IOM mandate expansion and the alignment to the strategic direction of projects taken on by the IOM, as well as potential impacts on core migration services as the IOM continues to grow. With certain projects only tenuously related to the mandate (i.e., elections monitoring), this ‘mandate creep’ was cited by both CIC and IOM informants as a potential issue moving forward.

There is also a perceived need by several CIC informants for better coordination among other government departments, provinces and industries that use IOM services, to represent Canadian interests in a consistent manner. There have been cases where other government departments have approached IOM to undertake the type of project that Canada has previously criticised it for undertaking. This may indicate a need for a more formal approach to coordination and consultation in order to ensure alignment of Canada’s position with respect to IOM. None of the IOM representatives interviewed identified these concerns, however, making it difficult to assess the degree of the issue.

One ongoing area of discussion is the transparency of the budgetary process. This has been noted by both IOM country representatives and CIC officials. There is a general sense that IOM could improve the transparency of its budgetary processes and better explain its cost structure for services. Presently Canada is leading a call for a budgetary reform process at IOM to bring more clarity and transparency to the IOM budgetary process. Other areas of Canada’s participation are well documented, including Canada’s role in the IOM strategic review which took place between 2005 and 2007.

3.2.2 Research and dialogue

Findings – research:

  • Canada does not generally fund IOM research directly and therefore neither influences nor benefits from IOM research activities.
  • There are other organizations that are more experienced and better suited to undertaking research on migration issues for CIC (e.g., Metropolis, OECD).
  • CIC derives greater benefit from the research emanating from regional migration processes (such as RCM), which have fewer participating countries, allowing them to more readily identify common issues and interests.

The evaluation was intended to assess Canada’s use of and influence over IOM-sponsored research and conferences. The vast majority of IOM research efforts are supported primarily through fees paid by countries or organizations interested in particular areas of research; the research undertaken reflects the interests of those who are paying for it.

Research

Canada appears to see little need to use IOM to conduct research and therefore neither influences the research agenda in any meaningful way nor directly benefits from the research. The IOM member states and CIC officials interviewed were almost unanimous in their opinions that they were either unaware that IOM did research or were not impressed with either the quality or utility of the research. The CIC research community has commented that the research seems to be of quality, just not pertinent to Canada in all instances. This is may be a natural reflection of the fact that much of the research is projectized, and reflects only the interests of those who are funding it. From CIC’s perspective, the common position was that the Department has a sizable research capacity that is able to produce or commission research of interest to the department and therefore has less of a need for IOM research. CIC also has a domestic focus and much of the research conducted by IOM is concerned with broader migration and settlement issues. If CIC requires information from an international perspective (e.g., statistics) it generally accesses that information from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

There are a few, limited examples where Canada has tangentially supported IOM research. In one case it provided additional financing to the Global Migration Report to cover the costs of translation of the report into French. This decision was based on the fact that the report itself was addressing a topic of some interest to Canada – labour migration. A second key instance is more related to an area that Canada would like to see the IOM focus on more – capacity building – than it is related to research. Canada provided financing for the development of a guide on “Essentials of Migration Management”. This has proven to be a very popular resource tool for developing countries and the basis for capacity building events held in those countries. The guide itself continues to be modified and updated.

Findings – dialogue:

  • The dialogue on migration at the international level is fragmented, with several similar forums in existence.
  • The IOM is well-placed to provide the forum for , regular discussion on migration, but the current format of the International Dialogue on Migration will have to evolve to fulfill that purpose.

Conferences and regional processes

The number of international and regional discussions and debates on migration and related issues has grown in the last decadeFootnote 6 Notwithstanding the large number of potential forums for immigration related discussions, key informants broadly supported the notion that an international dialogue on migration is well-placed at the IOM. However, informants reported that the current forums for dialogue are not productive or highly valued, as there are many disparate positions and competing interests, further commenting that in order for it to provide a dialogue on migration, the format of the IDM would have to evolve in terms of its structure and process.

With respect to conferences, Canada participates in the IDM and the inter-sessional workshops. The IDM is generally organized as part of the Annual Council Meeting. As many countries send their senior migration officials to the Council meetings, holding the IDM during the Council meetings facilitates the participation of migration experts/officials from around the globe. Generally Canada’s Geneva representative participates in the IDM. On occasion senior CIC officials from NHQ may also attend either to present during the Conference or to otherwise participate.

3.2.3 Relationship between membership and services

Findings:

  • Membership in the IOM gives Canada the benefits of IOM service and project delivery on a priority basis that might not be obtained if Canada were to withdraw from the organization. Additional benefits include timely access to IOM management, and decision-making influence on IOM governance bodies and issues.

As discussed previously, CIC and other government departments use IOM fee-for-services (see section 1.3). In 2009 the value of these core migration paid-for-services in the fields of transportation, medical examinations, and orientation used by CIC amounted to approximately US$16.0 million. In addition, the Government of Canada at large and provinces utilize IOM services for specific projects. In 2009 this amounted to an additional amount of US$12 million. Combined the IOM is delivering almost US$30 million in Canadian government services and projects.

It is not a requirement that a country be an IOM member in order to access these paid-for-services. While, strictly speaking, Canada does not need to be a member of IOM to access its services, nor does membership result in lower costs for services, informants at CIC and within the IOM noted that membership may contribute to the priority with which services are provided and to the attention paid to these services.

All respondent groups stated that IOM services are generally viewed as high quality and cost-effective. They are also consistently considered high quality and cost-effective by the program branches at CIC, for whom the IOM delivers transportation, orientation information, and health services. CIC respondents noted a wide range of additional benefits of IOM as a delivery agent, including responsiveness and a world-wide reach.

Within the scope of this study, it was not possible to definitively determine the impact on the delivery of these services and projects if Canada was not a member of the IOM. However, several CIC interviewees believed that discontinuing membership would impact the quality of services received, insofar as members are given priority for requests and concerns relating to issues requiring fee-for-service. Respondents also felt that access to IOM management would not be as easy or timely. One IOM respondent also cited similar potential effects of withdrawal from the organization.

The most compelling argument in support of maintaining membership is that a number of CIC interviewees felt that Canada’s investment is low when considered against the value of being able to potentially influence a significant amount of important services. Further, Canada’s membership in IOM allows ready access to the IOM program managers, and opportunities to influence the governance and management of the organization, both aspects considered a worthwhile investment by respondents.

3.2.4 Additional benefits of membership

One major benefit of employing IOM services is in transportation: it has existing agreements with many airlines worldwide, which results in significant cost savings when making travel arrangements for migrants destined to Canada. According to 2010 comparative information, the difference between the market fares and the IOM discount fare for the most important ports of departure to Canada ranges from 10% to 70%Footnote 7.

Key informants also identified a range of less concrete benefits to Canada from membership in the IOM. For instance, Canada is well-respected at the IOM (confirmed by both IOM and member state informants) – its expertise brings credibility and its pragmatic approach to the sometimes political debate on migration is welcomed. This type of international engagement can provide political and diplomatic benefits beyond the IOM forum.

A few respondent comments regarding the benefits of participation at IOM that are worth noting are as follow:

  • IOM “speaks the immigration language”; they understand Canada’s concerns and the limitations within which it works. IOM strives to understand the requirements of each country for which they provide services by adapting processes to optimize each countries’ client service provisions while maintaining program integrity.
  • IOM is a valuable source of information and field intelligence thanks to their extended network worldwide; for example, IOM has front-line workers who inform Canada of disease outbreaks in the field. This type of knowledge allows for the development of policies aimed at mitigating public health risks to Canadians while processing immigration demands.
  • As a result of the reach of IOM, it has the increased ability to deploy quickly to difficult environments, in some cases, reaching countries that other international organizations (UN, Red Cross) cannot due to political or other reasons.

3.2.5 Alternatives

Findings:

  • There are few alternatives that provide the reach, quality of service or cost-effectiveness that IOM does for CIC’s core migration services – transportation, health and orientation services. The ability to access these services from a single organization solely on migration has led to efficiencies, according to respondents.
  • From a service and project-delivery perspective, there may be potential alternatives to IOM in some cases.

This evaluation sought to determine whether there were alternatives to IOM services; assessing the quality, value or cost-effectiveness of either these services or possible alternatives was not within the scope of this evaluation.

In general there are no alternatives to IOM – it is the only international organization solely dedicated to migration, which is central to its mandate. At a service-by-service level, there may indeed be some form of alternative but IOM has demonstrated itself to be well-placed and competitive for many of the services.

The IOM programs are divided into eight components. As the following table illustrates, there may be potential alternatives for some services. However, these alternatives need to be considered against the context of IOM’s existing infrastructure, its existing presence in many countries, and its ability to respond relatively quickly to requests.

IOM Service Expenditures 2009 (US$M) Alternatives
Administration (CORE) US$36.0 N/A
Movement, emergency and post-crisis migration management US$527.8 Yes. There are some areas that overlap with traditional NGOs, development work and other humanitarian organizations such as Red Cross, UN organizations (UNHCR, UNICEF), and international NGOs such as CARE, World Vision, Oxfam etc.
Migration health US$56.1

Partial. There are three areas included under migration health 

  1. Migration Health Assessments
  2. Health Promotion
  3. Health Assistance in Crisis

Migration Health Assessments seems a natural place for IOM – all other areas could have overlap with other NGOs and humanitarian organizations such as UN organizations, and development organizations such as CARE, World Vision, Oxfam etc. It is only the target group, and not the service itself, that distinguishes IOM in this case.

Migration and development US$103.0 Partial. Community development and help for return of nationals.
 
The return of nationals is a natural role for IOM and it has a long history operating in this field. The community development aspects however could be provided by a wide range of development organizations as noted above.
Regulating migration US$239.8 No. As discussed previously, CIC and other government departments IOM is well-positioned to be a leader in this area – for example, Assisted Voluntary Returns, Counter-Trafficking, and Technical Cooperation and Capacity Building on Migration.
Facilitating migration US$40.2 No. As discussed previously, CIC and other government departments . The areas of Labour Migration, Migration Processing are very pertinent to the IOM.
Migration policy, research and communications US$3.6 Yes. Outside of a few IOM specific publications (World Migration Report), other organizations can do research and policy on migration – e.g. OECD, Metropolis, MPI.
Reparation programmes US$5.6 No. This is very relevant to IOM and it has a long history.
General programme support US$15.2 N/A
Total Services US$1,027.3  

As described earlier, there are three services that CIC primarily accesses through IOM in order to deliver on its departmental mandate: transportation, health and orientation services. Both CIC and IOM informants reported that there are no alternatives that can currently provide the reach, quality and cost-effectiveness of IOM for these services through a single organization. The IOM being a comprehensive single point of contact means administrative and operational efficiencies are gained as the various services and resources can accessed through one agreement and one provider.

None were able to readily identify alternatives to the breadth and quality of the services provided. Of note, two of the member state representatives also considered the IOM the provider of choice for similar migration services, noting a lack of better alternatives.

CIC Core Migration Services Expenditures 2009 Alternatives available
Transportation US$16,356,640
(budget not separated between transportation and health)
No. No other organization has standing negotiated agreements with airlines that provide the savings realized by the IOM
Health Partially. CIC could expand its network of independent Designated Medical Practitioners (DMPs) for immigrant related health services however this would be less efficient.
Canada orientation abroad US$1,553,520 Partially. The Canada Orientation Abroad program recently conducted a Call-for-Proposals for its program and IOM was awarded the contract. Two other organizations, both Canadian, also won portions of the COA program for delivery in selected countries.
Total core CIC services US$17,910,160  

Page details

Date modified: