The chapter Return and reintegration of migrants focuses on return and reintegration as part of migration management. This interlinkage addresses return and reintegration of migrants in complex environments. It does not cover return and reintegration associated with displacements (for this, see Solutions and recovery).

For the purposes of this section, a complex environment could refer to a fragile or post-crisis situation, or a situation where multiple mobility issues are being addressed in the same area that could impact or be impacted by the return and reintegration of migrants.

There are no agreed mechanisms for determining minimum conditions required in the country of origin for return and reintegration of migrants, particularly in complex environments such as in fragile or post-crisis recovery settings. While the legal principle of non-refoulement prohibits the return of persons who may face persecution or threat to life (see more on Protection against refoulement, a civil and political right, in Human rights of migrants: an Overview's discussion of Specific rights in the migration context), it may not always account for other forms of fragility or for broader risks to a returning migrant’s well-being and sustainable reintegration. These may include the root causes of the irregular movement in the first place and the impacts that large-scale returns have on the receiving community.

When migrants return to countries that are experiencing or recovering from conflict, violence or other crisis-related or fragility impacts, they are returning to environments that may face ongoing material, physical or legal challenges. These challenges can include:

  • A lack of infrastructure or weak national or municipal capacity to provide protection or basic services;
  • Unpredictable outbreaks or pockets of insecurity;
  • Limited prospects for self-reliance.

Overall, failing to account for broader peace, security and recovery considerations in these complex environments heightens the risk of returning populations:

  • Later becoming concentrated in slums or poverty-ridden areas;
  • Becoming internally displaced, confronted with other vulnerabilities to their security and well-being, lacking recourses to later address issues (such as land or property dispossession, or compensation and the like, that are part of broader crisis recovery);
  • Being more prone to attempt (potentially dangerous) migration again if the root causes for their initial departure remain or they are unable to secure a viable livelihood. If returnees are forced to move again, return may give way to secondary displacement;
  • If caught in an environment unable to effectively absorb the returns, facing new vulnerabilities or hardships, and even posing new economic and social challenges for a recovering community, affecting longer term development.
Return, including large-scale returns, to complex environments

While large-scale returns pose challenges to any given community (further details in Return and reintegration of migrants), in fragile, crisis and post-crisis settings these can be more acute, especially where there is ongoing insecurity, but also in areas affected by widespread poverty, economic instability, and climatic hazards. These challenges include:

  • Competition for resources and jobs, as the returning populations gravitate to urban centres, overwhelming local capacity to absorb the influx of returning populations. For instance, migrants and refugee returnees in Somalia found themselves in or adjacent to areas hosting internally displaced persons (IDPs) in order to access much needed humanitarian assistance.
  • Disputes over land and property between the returnee and occupying resident.
  • Perceived or real imbalances of support structures in place for the returnees.
  • Broader social dimensions that arise from returnees’ post-traumatic stress disorder.
  • The “culture shock” from years abroad in returning home, stigmas and tensions with social reintegration (for instance, if the returning populations acquired skills or sociocultural norms that are not needed or welcome in the local environment).
  • Humiliation or desperation of returning to unemployment and dependency.
Example
Challenges returns can pose in complex environments

One in four Afghans have been displaced internally or abroad during the last four decades due to conflict, natural hazards, disasters and the resulting socioeconomic challenges and a lack of basic services in most parts of the country (IOM and UNHCR, 2018). Despite this and a limited capacity to absorb returning Afghans, political pressure and changed policies abroad has meant that the country has been reintegrating unprecedented numbers of returnees: since 2016, around 2.5 million documented and undocumented Afghans have returned from Iran and Pakistan spontaneously, through assisted programmes or deportation (IOM Afghanistan field experience 2016–2018). As well as the challenges of ongoing insecurity and displacements, reports reveal disputes between returnees and current occupants over housing, land, and property; rises in social divisions between returnees and other vulnerable community members; and a decreased likelihood that returnee children attend school in comparison with their peers. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that returnees may be at greater risk of radicalization and recruitment into criminal and violent extremist groups (Ahmadi and Lakhani, 2017). Afghan cities swelled as the returnees pursued the urban skills and lifestyles they lived abroad. Culturally, with possibly decades abroad, some feel little connection to their homeland and lack local social networks.

Source

IOM and UNHCR, 2018; IOM Afghanistan field experience 2016-2018; Ahmadi and Lakhani, 2017.

Policy Approaches
Key considerations for addressing returns in complex environments
  • Allocate resources in careful consideration of fragility and State capacity for returns as well as of the direct or secondary impacts on communities.
  • In assessing the conditions for return for an individual case, consider the individual’s capacities to reintegrate; in assessing the conditions for return in large-scale return contexts, consider the capacity of the communities to receive the returnees.
  • When there may be too many challenges to reintegrate sustainably into local communities, consider temporary measures or alternatives to return for those who do not qualify for refugee status but who are unable to return home owing to conditions in their countries (New York Declaration, paragraph 53, 2016). These could include other forms of humanitarian visas or private sponsorships, opening up legal pathways for migration.

In the case of refugees, the Global Compact on Refugees calls on States to “support conditions in countries of origin for return in safety and dignity” (objective 4). The Global Compact for Migration puts forward the commitment to create a conducive environment for return and sustainable reintegration (see objective 21, to “Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration”). However, there is still no standardized approach or criteria for assessing when the minimum benchmarks have been met in order for returns and reintegration to take place sustainably in complex environments.

Reintagration in complex environments

Upon return, all returning populations – regardless of their previous status as migrant or refugee, and regardless of the nature of the return – are entitled to protection as citizens or permanent residents of their country of origin. As noted in Return and reintegration of migrants, the State has the responsibility to remove legal and administrative barriers to reintegration, thus ensuring that all returning individuals are able to exercise their basic civil, political and economic rights without prejudice.

Reintegration should be seen as a process that can take years to achieve (further details in Return and reintegration of migrants) and, particularly in complex environments, requires a combination of immediate and long-term reinsertion support.

The government, as well as the assistance community more broadly, should look for compatibility across reintegration programming. They should consider how such programming relates to other national programmes, social protections and access to public utilities and basic services. Tensions can arise, and can be particularly acute in situations of large-scale mixed returns, if:

  • Returning populations receive different types of reintegration assistance according to their previous migration status;
  • Members of the receiving community perceive the returning populations to be disproportionately privileged in the assistance they receive;
  • Communities receiving the returning migrants and refugees are also simultaneously hosting other displaced populations, including internally displaced persons or refugees from elsewhere.

Given the scale, nature and complexity of such returns, area-based approaches – which focus on identified needs of an area rather than a specific sector or target group – can be useful. Such approaches should link to wider city or regional plans and policies (Maynard et al., 2017), particularly with respect to development. Overall, area-based approaches need good quality data and evidence to identify:

  • Needs and capacities across the identified area, which relate to the social, economic and security situation for residents in different localities (Majidi, 2017) and should consider the skills and cultural norms that the returning populations may have acquired while abroad;
  • Particular vulnerabilities that might be more inherent to a particular segment of the population (for example, the needs of different returning populations), so as to account for those vulnerabilities.

Over time, data and evidence will be necessary to monitor developments after return. In fragile and post-crisis environments, this would be collected through regular assessments of, for instance, local contexts; vulnerabilities and broader local peacebuilding and stabilization programming; drivers of movements, including through monitoring movements in the context of displacement (flow monitoring).

Policy Approaches
Assistance to reintegration in large-scale returns to complex environments for countries of origin
  • Mandate a dedicated agency to support return and reintegration efforts;
  • Combine several services in comprehensive return and reintegration packages;
  • Create national and local reintegration centres to assist citizens to reintegrate;
  • Establish non-discriminatory and equitable access to services and sustainable livelihoods;
  • Align the reintegration with, as appropriate, post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding approaches, or stabilization efforts that aim to reduce the drivers of displacement and irregular migration and to foster peace, security and development;
  • Adopt a conflict-sensitive approach as well as programming to reduce unintentional harms and increase social cohesion.

In terms of specific programmes and activities:

  • In line with development plans, design stabilization programmes to address adverse drivers of displacement.
  • Mainstream migrant protection principles into the development of strategies as well as into the actual activities included in the reintegration programmes, given the potential long-term social impacts as well as the security issues involved (Naik, 2012).
  • Engage urban and rural planners, mental health and labour market specialists, and other local stakeholders and networks to plan responses (Majidi, 2017).
  • Include psychosocial support, given that returning populations – particularly those returning from crisis contexts – could have experienced traumas. For example, include trauma counselling, social counselling, family counselling, and individual counselling, to help the returnee adapt to their new reality, define their role in the community, or ensure psychosocial stability.
  • Design destigmatization and community reconciliation programmes. For instance, programmes identifying pressures on returnees, mitigating family conflicts, or information campaigns in communities to raise awareness of the difficulties faced by returned citizens (MICIC Initiative, 2016).

Where the returns increasingly involve children and families, provide greater emphasis on more holistic support, including access to services in the areas of education, health care and psychosocial assistance (Majidi, 2017).

To Go Further
  • Migrants in Countries in Crisis (MICIC) Initiative, Guidelines to protect migrants in countries experiencing conflict or natural disaster, 2016. For countries of origin receiving back nationals who were caught in a conflict or disaster situation, these guidelines advise a series of measures, namely with respect to:
    • Needs and skills assessments of returnees;
    • Reintegration support;
    • Access to social services and other return assistance;
    • Psychosocial counselling;
    • Destigmatization of returns;
    • Certification mechanisms for skills, education and training acquired abroad;
    • Income and employment regeneration.
PreviousEnvironment, climate change and reintegrationNextPrevention, Preparedness and Reducing Risk