Statements

December 6, 2017
Follow-up and Implementation Session for the Preparatory process towards the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration

Statement of H.E. Archbishop Bernardito Auza
Head of the Delegation of the Holy See to the Stocktaking meeting of the
Preparatory process towards the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration

“Follow-up and Implementation Session —
Towards a Coherent Institutional Architecture and Effective Partnerships”

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, 6 December 2017
 
 
Distinguished Moderator and Panelists,

The success of the implementation of the Global Compact for safe, orderly and regular Migration will depend on the creation of a robust framework for the follow-up and review of the commitments made, which will be incorporated within the Global Compact itself.

My Delegation believes that the framework should include the following three elements.

First, the framework should take advantage of already existing participatory mechanisms at the national, bilateral, and regional levels to monitor the achievement of commitments made within the Global Compact.

As noted in the Sutherland report,[1] the most logical mechanism in this respect — and a good starting mechanism, my Delegation believes  — would be the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), which would be open to adjustments to respond fully to the framework for the follow-up and review that will be established in the Global Compact.  As the main United Nations platform on sustainable development responsible for the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the global level, the HLPF already has a mandate for following up and reviewing international migration and States committed to the various migration-related SDGs and Targets already present their reports to the Forum. National periodic review of achievements and challenges of States’ specific commitments made in the Global Compact could form part of the basis for consistent State reporting on these goals and targets within the HLPF, with timely and reliable disaggregated data on migration. Creating completely new mechanisms could increase the burden and worsen the lack of capacities of many States.

In addition, the Global Forum for Migration and Development (GFMD) should continue to serve in building consensus among States around the commitments made within the Global Compact and to advance these commitments in line with those made in the 2030 Agenda. The GFMD has also the added benefit of providing civil society and other stakeholders with the platform needed to build private and public partnerships to deliver on these commitments. The GFMD has already proven its capacity to encourage national, regional and international coherence in the implementation of migration policy and could continue to do so.

Second, implementation of the framework requires accessible, timely and reliable disaggregated data on migration. The Global Compact must thus commit to the collection of these data and to support States as they build the capacity of their national statistical offices to gather and analyze them. Similarly, data and information from existing reporting mechanisms used by International Organization for Migration (IOM) as well as other international organizations and UN agencies should be used wherever possible and appropriate.

Third, the framework needs a dedicated financing mechanism for host countries and States that have the political will but lack the resources needed to fulfill the commitments they made in the Global Compact. This financing mechanism would rely on assistance from States, international financial institutions, development banks, and the private sector to ensure that all States are able to fulfill the commitments made in the Global Compact.

Distinguished Moderator and Panelists,

Whatever the details of the framework to be agreed upon for the follow-up and review of the Global Compact, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities must be applied. While all States share a common responsibility for the management of migration, not every State has the same capacity to respond, and its situation may vary too depending on whether a State is the country of origin, transit, or destination. For this reason, each State should be given the adequate support and policy space needed to respond adequately to their migration experience and commitments, in full respect for international humanitarian and human rights law.

Thank you.

 
1. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Migration, 2017 (A/71/728).