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