|
ILO/SMC MISA Workshop |
ILO/SMC Workshop on Building a Comparable, Up-to-date and Sustainable Database on
Labor Migration in
Pasig City, Philippines
21-22 January 2009
The workshop
was envisaged as the culminating activity of the Migration Information
System in Asia (MISA) Project, which was aimed at reviewing and
assessing MISA processes and outcomes, and for formulating
recommendations and a plan of action concerning the project’s future.
The
workshop was initially limited to the MISA coordinators, International
Labor Organization-Regional Office for Asia and Pacific (ILO-RO Bangkok)
and the Scalabrini Migration Center (SMC). Based on the value added
contributions of involving an external reviewer and special issue editor
for the publication of the country papers in the
Asian and
Pacific Migration Journal, the workshop
also invited resource persons from the United Nations Economic and
Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, ILO Subregional Office for
South Asia, and relevant government agencies in the Philippines.
Participants
from
Workshop
The discussions on Day 1 tackled the following:
1. Motivation for undertaking the MISA
Project
-
Labor migration is likely to continue even if the trend will be interrupted by the current crisis.
-
It is crucial to get right the concepts and measures to enable the proper evaluation of what is going on and how societies, the economy, and people are affected by international migration. In other words, clear definitions and measures are needed in order to shape responsive policies.
-
The MISA Project aspires to develop a migration database for
-
There have been many failed efforts to put together international migration data. The challenge is: how to avoid the same fate for MISA?
-
Recently, too much focus seems to be placed on properly measuring remittances, but not enough attention has been given to properly counting inflows, outflows, returnees, and stocks of migrants
2. Migration data collected by the
MISA Project; strengths and weaknesses
-
In terms of operation, MISA relies on a network of cooperators, similar to SOPEMI.
-
The MISA website contains links to the original sources of data. Sometimes the original sources are in the national language, with no English translation, hence they are not accessible to other audiences/users. The language barrier implies investments in translating materials into English and/or other languages that will enhance accessibility.
Based on the
survey of available international migration data across the MISA
participating countries and territories, the following were identified
as strengths of migration data in
-
In general, data on labor deployment are widely available.
-
The inclusion of questions on migration (place of birth, citizenship, and residence 5 years ago) in the censuses of some countries (
The following
were identified as weaknesses or limitations of migration data in
-
Poor data on the number of foreign workers, particularly in mainly sending countries (e.g.,
-
Poor estimates of irregular migrants (
-
No good measures of number of returnees (
-
No clear and widely accepted definition of the overseas population or the diaspora (although estimates are available and are often quoted)
-
In some cases, administrative data maybe available but are not made accessible to the public, such as the case sometimes in
-
Inconsistency in the migration data collected by different government agencies
-
Inconsistency in the manner of collecting census data over time, as in the case of
-
Exclusion of sub-group of migrants from data collection, as in Nepalese who go to
-
Gender-disaggregated data are not collected or if they are collected, the data are not presented by gender
3.
Suggestions for improving MISA and/or
similar migration data projects
-
Strengthen and link national websites
-
Promote initiatives towards harmonizing migration definitions in regional organizations such as the ASEAN and SAARC
-
Improve within-country inter-agency cooperation (also, broaden the cooperation to include other stakeholders, such as the academic community)
-
Improve the use of censuses and surveys
-
Emphasize gender dimensions
-
Ensure that the 2010 round of censuses captures the foreign born/foreign population
-
Demand the proper description of data
-
Capacity-building of concerned officials in relevant government agencies
-
Bring officers together at the working level in regional meetings (in this regard, the role of international agencies such as the ILO or UNESCAP is critical in promoting such discussions)
4. Censuses and household surveys
Censuses and household surveys are potential sources of labor migration data, each of which has its share of strengths and weaknesses.
-
Both are very useful because of the wealth of information that can be linked to migration, including the possibility to collect data on irregular migration.
-
One limitation of censuses is timeliness; censuses are conducted ever a fairly long interval, which can pose problems for policy formulation needs. Censuses are also subject to non-sampling error. In the case of
-
Household surveys, if originally intended for some other objective, might be using inappropriate sampling frame and weighting. Also, migration data are collected from left-behind family members; as such, they fail to capture migrants who did not leave any family behind.
-
A baseline survey dedicated solely to migration might be necessary.
5. Migration data initiatives by the
UN
The UN – the Population Division in New York and the ESCAP in Bangkok – has also launched initiatives on international migration data:
-
Global Migration Research Database by the UN Population Division (
-
Asian Labor Migration Database – the UN ESCAP has 40 data sets from 9 countries from 1975 to 2008, containing information on country of destination, sex, skill, and occupation. The data are sourced from official overseas labor administration statistics.
he first item on the agenda of Day 2 was the summary of discussions on Day 1 which was prepared and presented by Geoffrey Ducanes of the ILO-RO (Mr. Ducanes also documented and summarized the proceedings of Day 2). The summary served as an important point of reference for the two subsequent sessions, the assessment of MISA outcomes and processes, which was moderated by Fabio Baggio of the Scalabrini Migration Center, and addressing comparability issues, which was chaired by Jerrold Huguet. Both sessions had an open forum format, which were aimed at maximizing the sharing of experiences and views of the MISA coordinators. The morning of Day 2 was focused on MISA-related issues.
Concerning MISA processes and outcomes, the MISA coordinators shared the following observations:
Government agencies and policymakers in different countries appear to have a different appreciation of migration data.
-
In India, there is not enough interest among policymakers about labor migration data (there is interest in who is coming to India, but not those leaving the country). Perhaps international agencies can influence governments to give greater attention to collecting migration data.
-
In
-
In
-
In
Several participants commented on the need to lobby with governments – to advocate for the importance of collecting migration data (also, to convince governments why migrants are an important group) and to create a culture of sharing information willingly. Part of the reason why governments are reluctant to share information is due to the negative view of migration. The active sharing of best practices among countries can be one strategy. The coordinators should take a pro-active role in advocating with government agencies; this will entail meeting with government officials, linking with the Immigration Office, and checking for inconsistencies.
To enhance the usefulness of census data, the census should be comparable to other countries. On the other hand, a cautionary note about census and labor force surveys as a source of labor migration data was also offered.
MISA can learn from the experiences of similar exercises undertaken by SOPEMI, the UN, and ILO. Coordination is critical. Related to this, it was suggested that MISA explore how it can interface with other UN agencies. International agencies may have a better change of approaching and convincing governments. It was suggested that international agencies conduct consultation with the Immigration Office in each country to convince them about the merits of publishing migration data; Immigration Offices may also be strengthened to collect labor migration data.
Manolo Abella remarked that the realization of governments about the importance of the project will contribute to the project’s sustainability. To date, there is still a great need for outside intervention to develop and sustain a support mechanism for MISA. Many donor countries not very keen in supporting on database projects; long-term commitment is very difficult to obtain. The analytical work done by scholars may trigger institutional support. Little things that can be done like developing software or simplifying skill categories can contribute towards fostering institutional support.
From the standpoint of coordinating MISA, Marla Asis explained that the project started out with a mapping exercise (surveying the migration data activities of government agencies, identifying websites, etc.), a strategy that was also intended to sustain the project over the long-term. The template attempted to cover both outflows and inflows, but since countries of origin and countries of destination tend to emphasize data collection on outflows and inflows, respectively. The template was an attempt to come up with a comparable format of reporting; it was recognized, however, that it was difficult to achieve comparability because the different definitions and formats used by countries. As a result, the tables include detailed notes about the data.
On the technical aspect, Fabio Baggio discussed the problems encountered in the construction of the tables. The blank cells are indicative of data needs that have yet to be met. There is much room for improvement. It is important to increase the resources allocated to cooperators, and to involve other agencies.
Concerning addressing comparability problems and the way to move forward, the following observations came up:
Sources of inconsistencies
Jerrold Huguet noted the different sources of inconsistencies: how to count cross-border commuters; the problem of double counting for those with dual nationality; different definitions of skill levels, occupations and industry; reasons or purposes of migration are sometimes collected, sometimes they are not; and different country groupings. Some countries have further distinctions, such as new hires vs. rehires in the Philippines.
Keiko Osaki commented on the stock vs. flow data; stock data are more standardized while flow data are more difficult and over time, they may not be consistent. Other sources of variation are different reference periods (the definition of fiscal year varies). She suggested that for comparison purposes, it may be necessary to aggregate. She cautioned about the bias that may be introduced if original data are reformatted as this may introduce bias. It is important to know for whom and for what purpose. Comparisons may require some aggregation; researchers or policymakers may be left to aggregate the data according to their purposes.
Some suggestions for improving
comparability
-
Comparison of definitional issues; comparison of migration surveys
-
The definition of migrants, outside of labor migrants, is highly problematic: what is the time
-
Working with data from the Ministry of Immigration; comparison of data from origin and receiving sides
-
Developing a model or framework of data collection
-
Adoption of ILO classification, e.g. for occupational classifications – a case in point is Thailand, which has confusing occupational classifications. According to Supang Chantavanich, for outgoing workers, the classification is fine, but for those coming into Thailand, the categories have grown into 50-54. The category “Others” has become very big. A related suggestion is to consider classification by industry.
According to Manolo Abella, classification is not an insurmountable problem. For him, education is easier to compare than occupations. The way forward is to decide on certain aggregations, then insist on years of schooling or perhaps years of experience.
-
A short term approach will involve producing a glossary of term, notes about the data and a table of comparison; a long term approach towards improving data collection is to involve international agencies, conducting the same meeting is different countries, and conducting joint meetings of National Statistics Office directors
Sustainability of MISA
The sustainability of MISA was brought up again during the session. The question came up on how to institutionalize MISA? In view of the different way in which the SOPEMI is organized, MISA may have to consider a different approach. Another question was the extent to which UNESCAP link with MISA?
According to Keiko Osaki, it would be good to involve government officials. In response to the question on how far can UNESCAP link with MISA, she said that the Statistics Division from HQ can request government officials to participate in meetings/fora, not ESCAP.
A contrary view was that bringing in government might be problematic. For example, government discussions about the problem of Bangladeshis in India are not likely to prosper.
Another suggestion to sustain MISA is to examine quality and consistency of data within country. International organizations such as World Bank, IOM and UNIFEM should be involved.
A two-track approach was suggested as a way forward. To address comparability over the short term, deal with national categories, but at the same time, ask countries providing data to re-aggregate data to a few categories. For migrants not in the labor force, 5 or 6 categories (students, dependents, working, retirees, refugees) may be sufficient. Over the long term, every four years, the Scalabrini Migration Center can think about a published report that relies on national data like the SOPEMI report.
The afternoon sessions were devoted to examining the impact of the crisis on labor migration in the region.
A. Two presentations preceded the country presentations, which were focused on the current financial crisis.
The first presentation, “Impact of Global Financial Crisis and its Impact on Developing East Asia,” was given by Josef Yap of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Compared with 2007, GDP growth rates for East Asian economies decelerated in 2008 and are likely to continue to slow down in 2009 (with the exception of Vietnam). The onset of reduced growth rates is due to higher inflation brought about by a rise in food and fuel prices, the recession in the US in December 2007 and the global credit crunch in the last quarter of 2008. The immediate impact of the global financial crisis of 2008 was the freeze in interbank and credit markets. He saw a limited impact on the financial sectors in East Asia. The relative resilience of regional banking and financial systems in the region reflects a number of factors, including: (i) the very limited direct exposure of the region to subprime and other related securitized products; (ii) relatively strong bank balance sheets with a return to profitability—as impaired loans from the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis have been worked off; (iii) improvements in risk and liquidity management; (iv) strengthening of supervisory and regulatory systems; and (v) moves by banks into new and profitable domestic business lines such as consumer lending (Asian Development Bank, 2008). The crisis may also impact on output and employment. As to whether these factors will cause a further slowdown in 2009 will depend on the country situation. The Philippines, for example, is not as dependent on exports and FDI. Remittances are expected to be sustained in 2009, although they are expected to grow at a slower pace (6-10 percent). As a global policy response, there is a need to inject liquidity and confidence into the financial system, mainly involving deposit guarantees and government bailouts. Thus far, there is no joint action in response to the crisis in ASEAN+3.
Marla Asis revisited the 1997 crisis and its impact on migration in the region (based on the conference held by SMC and supporting institutions in May 1998). The 1997 crisis was seen as a regional crisis, specifically, Asian (East). Origin and destination countries responded differently to the crisis. The reintegration of repatriated workers was a concern for origin countries (especially Indonesia). Thailand, which was badly hit by the crisis, had to resume labor deployment. Destination countries responded by introducing more border controls, more punitive measures against immigration violators, and carrying out the repatriation of migrant workers. The crisis urged South Korea to implement an amnesty program. Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea had to backtrack on their repatriation policy because of shortage of workers in the midst of domestic unemployment. Malaysia introduced the redeployment of retrenched migrant workers to the plantation sector, but this was not successful. Taiwan and Singapore were less affected by the crisis. The demand for domestic workers was less affected; there was no information on the working and living conditions of workers though. Among others, the crisis underscored that unauthorized migration was significant in the region, and that migrant workers occupied a different labor market from the local population. - migrant workers and local workers occupy different markets (Thailand, Malaysia, Korea had to backtrack on repatriation).
B. The Impact of the Crisis on Labor Migration and the Response of Governments: Country Reports
The two sessions on the country presentations were combined into one, and a report for Thailand was added among the presentations.
Ø In South Korea (presented by Young-bum Park), the country experienced, for the time in five years, record high applicants for unemployment benefits. Although there was an increase in unemployment, it was much less than in the previous crisis. The government’s response consists of the following: suspension of the issuance of new E-9 visas to foreign workers; subsidies to small and medium-sized companies; crackdown vs. undocumented workers; and government assistance to help local companies to find local workers. The crisis may have an impact in reducing reliance on foreign workers. Massive repatriation of foreign workers is unlikely.
Ø In Malaysia (reported by Vijayakumari Kanapathy), the real economy has been affected. In 2009, growth is expected to register 1.3 percent. In 2008, unemployment was t 3.3 percent, and is expected to climb to 4 percent in 2009. Retrenchment as of September 2008 stood at 11,561; in 2009, it is expected to reach 400,000. The stimulus package of RM7 billion is directed at “high impact” projects. The government’s response consists of setting up the National Level Committee to Monitor Retrenchment; reduction of the EPF from 11 percent to 8 percent; and training of retrenched workers. As regards, foreign workers, retrenchment operates by non-renewal of contracts. The government’s policy responses concerning migrant workers include the following: policy to terminate foreign workers first, freeze on the intake of foreign workers, fast-track deportation of undocumented migrants, regularizing undocumented workers, and the longer-term plan to reduce dependence on foreign workers. Malaysia has about 2.2 million foreign workers with work permits and some one million undocumented migrant workers. As of September 2008, some 5,587 were retrenched, about a third of whom are migrants. Most of the retrenched workers were from manufacturing, construction and agriculture. Malaysia also has to address the issue of Malaysians working abroad. Some 300,000 Malaysians are working in Singapore – some 35,000-50,000 are projected to be retrenched.
Ø Singapore (reported by Mui-teng Yap) experienced a sharp downturn in the last quarter of 2008. The forecast of 2009 growth has been revised to -2 percent and -5 percent; forecasts by private sector economists range from -1 percent to -2.8 percent. The crisis is the most severe recession in country’s history. Unemployment is expected to go up, but lower than peak of 6.5 percent in 2003. More retrenchments are expected in 2009. The responses by the government and the National Trade Unions Congress include the following: cutting costs, avoiding job losses, retrenching Singaporeans last, retraining workers, increased public sector hiring, bringing forward construction project that have been deferred. In the face of the crisis, the government recognizes that foreign workers are still needed. Before the crisis, there were about 900,000 foreigners in Singapore - 143,000 are employment pass holders, and the rest are less skilled workers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that more expatriates have left. More foreign workers complain about being owed salaries, having no work and no pay, poor treatment by employers, and repatriation. There are also accounts of contracts terminated prematurely. Forecasts suggest that some 50,000 jobs will be lost by foreigners and a further 50,000 in 2010 in the services sector. The manufacturing is projected to lose 50,000 jobs in 2009 and 20,000 in 2010; in construction, some 30,000 jobs are precarious. To assist foreign workers, the Ministry of Manpower Ministry of Manpower is working on dispute settlement, enforcement and the blacklisting of errant employers. Other stakeholders are also contributing to support foreign workers. The trade union movement – Migrant Workers Forum – raises foreign workers awareness. NGOs help provide/find food and shelter for abandoned foreign workers. The embassies of origin countries are working with local authorities and NGOs.
Ø In Thailand (reported by Supang Chantavanich), the policy on migrant workers by the new government will be crucial. To date, the Ministry of Labor announced the following measures concerning migrant workers: no extension of work permits of some 500,000 documented workers (whose permit will expire in 2010), a freeze on the hiring of new migrant workers and the deportation of undocumented workers. NGOs and academics question how the government will handle the employment of migrant workers during the time of crisis; the campaign for the protection of labor rights during the time of crisis. According to the Thailand Development Research Institute, of the five sectors employing migrant workers, construction and domestic work will not be affected. Most likely, the former may be filled by local workers while domestic work will continue to rely on migrant workers.
Ø In the Philippines (reported by Stella Go), international labor migration has been affected yet. From January to November 2008, deployment increased by 24.4 percent; remittances increased by 15.4 percent for the same period. Displaced migrant workers totaled 4,042 (3,500 displaced from Taiwan, 297 from the UAE, and 69 Brunei); the reasons are due to bankruptcy, retrenchment and redundancy. Meanwhile, the demand for certain skills continues (production workers, domestic workers, caregivers, professionals). The job orders are mainly from the Middle East (mainly, Saudi Arabia and Qatar; construction, service workers and professionals) and Asia (mainly, Hong Kong and Taiwan, for domestic workers and construction workers; South Korea, entertainers). The government’s response consists of the following: finding other destination countries; establishment of the Filipino Expat Livelihood Support Fund (also, the establishment of provincial help desks); reintegration services for overseas Filipino workers through the National Reintegration Center for OFWs (including the setting up of the inter-agency OFW Assistance Center at the airport); sending advanced reintegration teams abroad (e.g., Taiwan and the UAE); legal assistance to 587 displaced OFWs; and livelihood projects and interest-free loans to OFWs and their families through OWWA. The crisis may mean increased vulnerability of OFWs. The planned repatriation by receiving countries highlights reintegration challenges for the Philippines. Victor Fernandez, president of the Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc., commented that health care workers will continue to be in high demand in Saudi Arabia. He shared that recruiters cannot find good construction workers and good engineers
Ø In Sri Lanka (reported by L.K. Ruhunage), there has been a decline in deployment in November and December (deployment to South Korea is on a downward trend) as well as declining job demands for garment workers, babysitters and domestic workers. Remittances have also registered a decline.
Ø In Bangladesh (reported by M. Jalal Uddin Sikder), deployment increased from 2007 to 2008. There are more contracts from abroad; among others, Libya has more demand for Bangladeshi workers. The impact on the crisis on migration may not be known until March 2009. The government has formed a task force to study the impacts of the crisis. Another approach is to explore other markets such as East Europe.
During the open forum, Jerrold Huguet inquired into bridging MISA and the assessment of the impact of the crisis. Manolo Abella remarked that the crisis provides an opportunity to show the importance of good data. Rajan mentioned that the Centre for Development Studies in Kerala will have a meeting on the impact of the crisis – Dilip Ratha of the World Bank will participate in the said meeting. Yu Zhu noted that internal migrants are also affected by the crisis – some one million rural migrants are returning home for the Lunar New Year, and may be unable to return to their jobs in the cities. Internal migration is also important for India. Fabio Baggio commented that it would be difficult to predict the overall impact of the crisis. While receiving countries are closing their doors to temporary migrants, sending countries are aggressively finding new destinations. These two trends
In the concluding session,
Marla Asis presented the plan
of action culled from the workshop discussions. It is important to
recognize that the
aspiration of MISA as an Asian SOPEMI must consider the more modest
coverage and resources of the MISA Project:
-
MISA’s geographical coverage is limited to 13 countries and territories in East, South and Southeast Asia
-
Unlike SOPEMI, the cooperators or coordinators are mostly academics; unlike SOPEMI correspondents are vetted by participating governments; MISA, thus, has to exert more efforts to have an interface with government agencies
-
MISA is supported by ILO-RO for 18 months while SOPEMI is supported by OECD; hence, the sustainability of the MISA initiative beyond the project’s lifetime is uncertain
The
question of resources was raised in the earlier discussions. SMC
operated on a limited budget to realize MISA. As the coordinating
institution, SMC is grateful to the country coordinators for their
cooperation, commitment and good will.
Following are among the follow-up actions over the short- and long-term:
1.
Aside from mapping existing efforts at
collating migration data at regional and international levels, the
comparison of arrival/departure cards is one concrete activity that MISA
can undertake in the future; this activity can aid in defining the
comparability of measuring migration in the region.
2.
The MISA workshop emphasized the necessity
to advocate with governments to create a culture of data appreciation
and data sharing by governments. International agencies, e.g., ILO and
UNESCAP, have an important role in advocating for data-related issues
with government agencies. The following issues can serve as focal points
of advocacy:
-
The inclusion of data discussions may be included in regional organizations such as the ASEAN and SAARC; also, migration data can be proposed in conferences of census directors in the region.
-
The processing of data that are collected
-
The 2010 round of censuses presents an opportunity to foster cooperation and cooperation among governments
-
The current crisis presents an opportunity to advocate for improving data
-
Possibility for MISA cooperators to collect data and prepare reports that can serve as an early warning device?
-
3.
Comparability issues were discussed and
possible courses of action to enhance the comparability of migration
data were proposed. Resources are needed to carry out the action points.
A.
Issues
-
Stock data, mainly from census data are , relatively standardized; flow statistics present more challenges for comparability
-
Varying periods of reference, classification (e.g., occupational categories and skill levels), and definitions are sources of variability across countries
-
The “template” tables are difficult to fill; MISA may have to review and reexamine the template
B.
Action points
-
Short-term:
-
Production of a glossary of terms, definitions, classifications; construction of a table of comparisons of categories used by participating countries
-
-
Long-term:
-
Advocacy with governments, role of international agencies – e.g., workshops on data issues (see also earlier discussion on advocacy)
-
Coordination between sending and receiving countries
-
Agreement on basic statistics to coordinate/harmonize
-
-
Developing modules/guidelines on data collection (e.g., the joint committee formed by Sri Lanka and the Philippines is one structure that can work on this issue)
-
On the issue of occupational categories, simple aggregations, such as years of schooling or years of experience, may
-
Improving consistency and the quality of data within countries
-
Involving other international agencies in MISA, e.g., involving UNIFEM for gender disaggregated data or involving the Statistics Department of ESCAP to request data from member states
-
4.
One proposal to continue MISA is to publish
a regular report – e.g., every five years – which will update migration
data and to include an analytical or thematic report.