The distinguishing feature of IRFs is that these types of inter-State dialogues connect two or more regions. Like RCPs, IRFs share information and experiences and seek to find common solutions in the areas of migration governance and management. However, unlike RCPs:
- IRFs may have a more varied constituency, with their member States representing different regions and at times representing different ends of a migration corridor (country of destination and country of origin).
- Due to this lack of homogeneity, member States in an IRF may have different, at times conflicting policy interests. The larger and varied membership, substantive differences in terms of migration dynamics, interests and desired outcomes make it more difficult to reach consensus. IRF discussion and documents may be even more informal and non-binding than those of RCPs comprised of countries in regions with high regional integration.
- IRFs may be created by bringing together member countries of concrete political and economic unions and therefore involve in their dialogue these formal entities as well.
For example, the European Union–Latin America and the Caribbean Structured and Comprehensive Bi-regional Dialogue on Migration (EU–CELAC Migration Dialogue) brings together European Union Member States and CELAC Member States. When the United Kingdom left the European Union or when Brazil left the CELAC, these countries ceased to be members of the EU–CELAC Migration Dialogue. - In IRFs which include as members political and economic organizations, inter-State discourse goes together with inter-institutional discourse on migration.
For example, the Euro-African Dialogue on Migration and Development (Rabat Process) facilitates dialogue among its 56 Member States but also between the European Union and the Commission of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Similarly, the European Union–Horn of Africa Migration Route Initiative (Khartoum Process) is a dialogue of 40 States but it also facilitates European Union–African Union policy dialogue. This has allowed the Rabat Process and the Khartoum Process to be chosen to do the monitoring of the Joint Valletta Action Plan (JVAP) to strengthen cooperation between the European Union and the African Union. - Given that IRFs consist of States in different geographic regions, the scope of their impact is significantly increased. IRFs are instrumental in shaping convergent approaches to the same migration issue across the regions. Their discussions benefit from the sharing of good practices from different regions and they facilitate discourse aimed towards interregional problem solving.
IRFs can be designed to bring together States along a “migration corridor”, such as the 5 + 5 Dialogue on Migration in the Western Mediterranean which comprises ten countries, five on each side of the Mediterranean. Alternatively, they may bring together groups of countries. The Intergovernmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees (IGC), for example, is comprised of the “traditional destination” countries.
IRFs addressing a concrete area of migration management include the Bali Process (with 45 Member States from Europe, Asia, Americas and the Middle East), dedicated to countering migrant smuggling, human trafficking and related transnational crime, and the Abu Dhabi Dialogue, focused on addressing labour mobility in 18 countries across Asia and the Middle East.
Other IRFs – like the Budapest Process (bridging Europe and Asia), the Rabat Process (Europe and Africa) or the Pan-African Forum on Migration – have a quite wide thematic focus.
While it may be difficult to directly link IRFs to formal agreements at either regional or global levels, IRFs play a significant role in enhancing policy coherence between participating States. They also improve policy coherence at a broader global level, which often paves the way for subsequent formal agreements.