Manufacturing collaboration in the deportation field: intermediation and the institutionalisation of the International Organisation for Migration’s ‘voluntary return’ programmes in Morocco

Abstract

In Morocco, the implementation of the 'Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration' programmes (AVRR) run by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) counts on the widespread collaboration of governmental and humanitarian migration practitioners and of migrants themselves. How come that actors occupying such heterogeneous positions in the migration field ultimately agree on their daily participation to IOM's AVRR programmes? What power rationales structure this collaborative network on return? The article draws on documentary sources and fieldwork conducted between 2016 and 2018 in Morocco. It adopts a socio-historical perspective that denaturalises the institutionalisation of AVRR programmes and combines the relevant empirical data with a theoretical discussion on collaboration in the deportation field. It argues that the institutionalisation of AVRR programmes in Morocco results from power rationales of intermediation and collaboration amongst different actorsboth at an institutional level and on the ground. This gives rise to non-homogenous and sometimes seemingly contradictory forms of appropriation of voluntary return by third actors within the migration field.

Can Migrants do the (Border)Work? Conflicting Dynamics and Effects of “Peer-to-peer” Intermediation in North and West Africa

“…In recent years, scholars have increasingly scrutinized so-called "migration information campaigns" (MICs) and "assisted voluntary return" programmes (AVR) as bordering practices concerned with the dissemination of specific information towards migrants (Maâ 2021;Van Neste-Gottignies and Mistiaen 2019;Van Dessel 2021;Williams 2020). MICs have mainly been conceptualized as a "soft" tool of border enforcement (FitzGerald 2019) or a "symbolic bordering practice" (Musarò 2019) aimed at shaping migrants' perceptions and aspirations (Heller 2014;Carling and Collins 2018).…”

“…Yet, insofar as the African continent has been the main target of these initiatives, their ambition collides with the socio-cultural factors that have historically made mobility, both internal and international, a survival strategy and a most desirable option in the context of what has been termed a "culture of migration" (Hahn and Klute 2007;Degli Uberti and Riccio 2017). Moreover, while these measures are mainly associated with institutional actors such as the European Union (EU) and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) 1 , their local implementation increasingly relies on the involvement of humanitarian actors (Van Dessel and Pécoud 2020) and "community-based" agents, including "former" or return migrants (Maâ 2021;Vammen 2021). These intermediation practices have also seen the growing emergence of actors labeled as "peers" with (potential) migrants in transit and/or origin countries because of their prior experience of migration.…”

“…That being said, in the context of border control, "peer" intermediaries are distinct from other local brokers in at least one respect: it is first and foremost as a result of their presumed shared migration experience that they are called upon to play the role of intermediaries. In order to stress the "insider" position of these peculiar intermediaries with regard to migrant communities, Maâ has defined Sub-Saharan agents involved in the implementation of AVR as "indigenous intermediaries" (Maâ 2021). Drawing on the case of Morocco, the author has revealed the racial dynamics underlying this specific form of intermediation in the migration industry, and has also highlighted both the room for maneuver from which intermediaries benefit on the ground and the consequently contrasted effects of their involvement on border control.…”

“…Officially, they are labelled as "peer educators" by the IOM. Others are employed by humanitarian or charity organizations or by local associations that contribute to the everyday implementation of AVR, be it through official partnerships with the IOM or spontaneous initiatives (Maâ 2021). Very often, "community leaders" simultaneously work for the IOM and other organizations involved in the migration industry, meaning they combine or move in and out of differently labelled functions (Ibidem).…”

Disciplining migration aspirations through migration‐information campaigns: A systematic review of the literature

“…These are developed on the premise that potential migrants are lacking information on migration, or that the information available prior to the campaign is incomplete or inaccurate, or that the new information is trusted and will alter knowledge, perceptions and aspirations, which would then lead to behavior change, that is, not migrating (Carling & Hernández-Carretero, 2011;Nieuwenhuys & Pécoud, 2007). In addition to formal information campaigns targeting potential irregular migrants in transit and sending countries, there are also informal methods and channels of information dissemination, such as the cooperation between the IOM with humanitarian and community-based intermediaries (see Maâ, 2020) and campaigns implemented in receiving countries to encourage so called "voluntary returns" (see Cleton & Chauvin, 2020;Van Neste-Gottignies, 2018). Both aspects are not in the scope of this review.…”