Migratory Regimes in South America: An Analysis of the South American Conference on Migration1 Cristin Dona-Reveco Michigan State University

Abstract The South American Conference on Migration (SACM) was established on 2001 following, and as a reflection of, the conformation of the Regional Conference on Migration also known as the Puebla process and the conformation of several regional consultative processes on international migration. Its first meeting took place in Buenos Aires, Argentina that year as was defined in the agreements reached by the governments of the region in the Encuentro sobre Migraciones2 that took place in Lima, Peru in the year 1999. Hence the fact that this regional process is also known as Lima Process, in direct reference to its simile the Puebla process. The SACM, that takes place under the auspices of the International organization for Migration (IOM), has not achieved a comparable development to its Northern Hemisphere counterpart. After seven years of implementation has gone through stages of high and low relevant to its members, having different difficulties to have its meeting and lacking a clear financing, among other problems. Also has not yet achieved a permanent work structure for the periods that go between two conferences. The objective of this paper is to analyze the emergence and development of the SACM using two main sources. On the one hand, the analysis of official documents related to the conference available from the webpage of IOMs Southern Cones Regional Office and on the other, an interview with one of the observers to this conference and my own experience as a consultant in IOM Chile for the II and IV Conferences.

Presented at the Conference Understanding Immigration and the Changing Communities of the Americas: Lessons from New Destinations across the Globe, University of Nebraska-Omaha, April 26th to 29th, 2007 2 Meeting on Migrations

Migratory Regimes in South America: An Analysis of the South American Conference on Migration I. Introduction The global changes on international relations brought forth by the end of the Cold War affected directly the way of conceiving international migration from both a disciplinary and a foreign policy perspective. Before the socio political and economic changes of the late 1980s and early 1990s the governmental responses to changes on migration flows and processes had been absolutely ad hoc, mainly through the signature of bilateral labor and retirement agreements, remittances management and border control, to name a few concerns. These agreements always dealt with specific situations and without considering their possible national, regional and even global effects (IOM, 2004: 123). The growing interdependence between states a process that had begun in the early 1970s, the increase in the absolute number of migrants and refugees, the globalization of migration3, the growth of irregular or undocumented migration; among other changes, created the need to hold intergovernmental discussion fora on migration topics; presently known as Regional Consultative Processes. These spaces derive theoretically from the concept of international regimes and have been constituted and developed during the last fifteen years. Having reached different levels of advances and success this processes are present in about every region of the World. Using this as a starting point in this paper, I intend to present an answer to how do states cooperatively debate or discuss about international migration in a multilateral framework. As a follow-up to the previous question I also intend to present which are the states objectives on taking this discussion to an international arena. It is my objective here to analysis the surgence and development of one of this Regional Consultative Processes: the South American Conference on Migration (SACM) as an example that provides us with an opportunity to understand the characteristics and functions of this Regional Consultative Processes, as well as their shortcomings. The SACM was formed by the South American countries in 1999, will be described and analyzed from the perspective of international regimes and its application the Regional

Consultative Processes as developed by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Two main sources will be used to analyze the SACM. First I will rely on the official documents of this Conference made public at website of the Technical Secretariat of the Conference4. Second, I have applied a short structured interview Jorge Martnez, international migration specialist from the Latin American and Caribbean Demographic Center (CELADE) Population Division of the Economic Commission of Latin American and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and observer to the Conference on behalf of this organization. I will use both these sources through the lens of my own experience as observer to the Second Conference and as Consultant of the Mission in Chile of IOM between 2003 and 2004. This paper is comprised of three main sections. First, I present a historical description of international migration within South America using census data and other studies with the objective of showing the relevance of discussing international migration in a regional setting and the relative significance of population exchanges in this region. Second, I develop a brief presentation of the theory of international regimes and how the Regional Consultative Processes are an application of this theory is developed. Finally, I describe, comment and analyze the SACM using the sources mentioned before. I conclude this paper concludes with some comments on the future challenges of the SACM; at the same time I and propose here that there is a need to expand this Regional Consultative Process, as well as to motivate the realization of more applied research on the process nature, issues and problems. Comments on multinational approaches to international migration since 1990 Although the first international regimes related to international migration date from end of World War II, with the treaty that gave birth to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and with the conformation of the Intergovernmental Committee for the European Migrations (ICEM, todays OIM); it is only since the 1990s that this issue becomes a real concern for the developed countries governments. Due to
3

As defined by the idea that currently every country in the world is a country of origin, transit or reception of migration. 4 http://www.oimconosur.org/banners_htm/index.php?url=conferencia

their concern on this topic, these countries gave international migration a relevant place in the agenda of 1991s G7 annual meeting, thus defining it as an important international issue (Miller & Denemark; 1993: 1). On a different venue, in 1993, United Nations adopted a resolution calling for an international conference on migration and development; this, however, did not have a positive answer, particularly from the developed countries. Nevertheless, this issue had a relevant place in the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) of Cairo in 1995. Cairos ICPD represented substantial progress with relation to previous meetings and conferences under the auspices of United Nations on international migration related matters. The states representatives present at this Conference discussed among many other topics a set of strategies that would reduce the need to migrate at the time that induced states to produce research with the objective of learning the real characteristics and consequences of migration; as a way of understanding this phenomenon and to prepare adequate public policies to resolve them. Also, proposed the ratification of The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, which covered most of the agreements reached in the Plan of Action of the Conference. Finally, the representatives encouraged the protection of the rights of migrant women and children, as well as proposed to combat the trafficking of undocumented migrants within a protection of human rights framework (ONU 2000; 1995; Singh, 1998). Despite these advances, the developed countries objected a Philippine proposal of having a specific International Conference on Migration5; most likely due to the need to avoid reaching more precise agreements on migration issues. The argument presented by the developed countries was that there was a conference fatigue within United Nations and they proposed to have a technical conference that took place in The Hague in 1998 (Singh, 1998: 176).

It is common for countries to propose the realization of specific conferences after a general one within United Nations. The International Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995) derives and was proposed by the governments during Cairo 1994.

Beginning the 21th century, the international organizations that deal with the issue of international migration, together with a few governments of the developed world have been able to establish three initiatives to multilateraly discuss matters related to international migration. These are the Berne Initiative6, under the auspices of the Swiss Federation, IOMs International Dialogue on Migration7, United Nations High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development8; and the Global Commission on International Migration9, independent commission launched by the General Secreatary of United Nations that presented its extraordinarily relevant and final report in October, 2005 after two years of work. Comments on international migration and international relations An analysis of the state-of-art of migration related topics, norms and international rules allows us to accurately describe which international relations paradigm has a stronger explanatory capability concerning international migration. Of the four most commonly accepted paradigms in Inernational Relations realism, liberalism, interdependence and World-systems, is through incorporating the notion of interdependence that international migration will be better understood. Until recently, however, international migration has been for scholars of international relations more a thematic area than a function of the global structure. Although migration can and is usually explained through the structural

The Berne Initiative represents a states-owned consultative process, which aims at achieving a better management of migration at regional and global level through enhanced inter-state cooperation. It assists governments in identifying their different policy priorities and offers the opportunity to develop a common orientation to migration management, based on notions of cooperation, comprehensiveness, balance and predictability. It does not aim at developing new legally binding norms and explicitly recognizes the sovereignty of states in the field of migration management (http://www.bfm.admin.ch/index.php?id=226&L=3). 7 IOMs International Dialogue on Migration (IDM) is an opportunity for governments, inter -governmental and non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders to discuss migration policy issues, in order to explore and study policy issues of common interest and cooperate in addressing them (http://www.iom.int/jahia/page385.html) . 8 The purpose of the high-level dialogue is to discuss the multidimensional aspects of international migration and development in order to identify appropriate ways and means to maximize its development benefits and minimize its negative impacts. Additionally, the high-level dialogue should have a strong focus on policy issues, including the challenge of achieving the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (http://www.un.org/esa/population/hldmigration/). 9 The Global Commission on International Migration was launched by the United Nations Secretary-General and a number of governments on December 9, 2003 in Geneva. It is comprised of 19 Commissioners, is independent and was given the mandate to provide the framework for the formulation of a coherent, comprehensive and global response to the issue of international migration (http://www.gcim.org/en/#).

inequalities produced by the relative location countries in a core-periphery system; the particular and nation-based manner in which migration policies are defined should incorporate an interdependence analytical model. The conformation of international migration regimes, a crucial part of this model, is more adequate to understand the changes in migratory patterns and the behaviors states adopt to face these changes (Miller and Denemark, 1993: 32). The usefulness behind the concept of international regime is that allows us to understand the states limitations and prerogatives with relation to international migration. According to Bimal Ghosh (2000: 4), international migration is essentially a multidimensional phenomenon. Recent studies have shown that beyond the particular characteristics of each migration flow, these are intrinsically related to other flows in their origin, effects and subsequent changes. This complicates the design of policies based on individual analysis of each flow. Thus, the solution is to discuss and analyze international migration multilaterally. II. Brief notes on international migration in South America International migration in the Americas, and particularly in the Southern Cone, was defined by the nascent nations as a way to populate the vast and empty10 domains. It is in this context that these countries promoted several policies with the objective of encouraging immigration. Argentine intellectual and politician Alberdis epitomizes this development strategy through his presidential race and government motto to govern is to populate. Greater populations would mean a thorough control of the newly defined national borders, a greater army, more production and definitely a national identity defined in opposition to those of the Spanish and the Native. This mixture was seen as the reason for the lack of development of these countries (Pellegrino, 2000). Then, public policies that were meant to populate the empty lands of the new countries were directed not only to attract immigrants; but to bring the precise human resource. This meant free north European immigrants that would increase population, increase technological, economical and, most
10

Empty is how the American governments saw their lands; which were, however, populated by natives. Their populations were that in most cases were finally decimated by the government or by the immigrants themselves.

important, cultural development (Alba, 1992). Of the more than 12 million immigrants that arrived to Latin America between 1821 and 1932, about half of them stayed in Argentina, a third in Brazil, and close to 800,000 in Cuba and Uruguay, with the remaining immigrants going to other countries of the region (Pellegrino, 1995). This migration had an enormous impact on the receiving societies; they helped form labor movements, universities, increased commercial ties with the countries of origin of immigrants and so on. These flows stopped right after the First World War, to briefly resume at the end of World War two, when close to two million people came to Latin America, mainly as refugees. After 1950 this mass migration from Europe stopped and a different process emerged as important: intraregional migration (Pellegrino, 1995 and 2000; Alba, 1992; CEPAL/CELADE, 1999). Migration within Latin America is not a new phenomenon. Geographic proximity, along with presence of a relatively close cultural background including language, having ethnic and historical connections; and in most cases belonging to the same administrative entities during the colonial period (Pellegrino, 1995) has made the current national borders permeable to intraregional migrants. These flows increased their participation share of the migration in Latin America as the flows from overseas started to decrease between the late 1930s and the 1960s. This migratory process is closely related to an increment in the economic growth, associated with changes in the development and demographic policies. Originally directed to those countries with a relatively higher development such as Venezuela or Argentina (Baln, 1992), Pellegrino (1995 and 2000) and Alba (1992) consider that these population movements are a continuation of internal migrations, closely related to the movements of seasonal workers than moved between different rural areas or towards industrial areas in a neighboring country closer to their places of origin. In the early 1960s this intraregional migration begins to decrease in importance mainly due to economic and political crises in the region; which, according to Pellegrino, (2000: 25) had a sort of paralyzing effect on intraregional migration. At the same time migration flows towards the United States start to increase, influenced in some cases by the rise of military governments in many Latin American countries in the 1970s. The external debt crisis in 1982, the IMFs structural adjustment programs, and civil wars in Central
6

America in the 1980s (Alba, 1992: 102) mark another inflexion moment in this migration process. The economic and political changes in the Southern Cone, which began in the mid 1980s but consolidated during the early 1990s, changed the migration patterns in the region. These new patterns included new countries of reception and new areas of origin. The Argentine crisis of 2001 produced a new wave of emigrants, but this time mainly to Western Europe. This region has become an extremely important destination for new migrants from the Southern Cone; although the United States remains the main receiving country. As can be observed in table 1, since the 1970s South America has experienced a constant raise in migration from within the region. In the main reception countries, Argentina and Venezuela, the share of immigrants from the region increased in 40 and 33 percentual points respectively; with a similar growth in the share of immigrants from bordering countries. Similar increments can be observed in every South American country, only with differences in the initial percentages. Except for Brazil, Uruguay and Peru in the census round of the 1990s and Brazil in the 2000s, the regional immigrants represent percentages above 50% of total immigrants in every country. This reaches a maximum of 90% in the case of Paraguay. It is important to note that in the last 35 years the majority of regional migrants are from bordering countries. The reduction of extra regional migration percentages has been associated to a higher mortality in the stocks of overseas migrants due to an aging process in this flow and to a return migration in some few cases.

Table I South America: Population born in countries of South American counted in a diferent country of South America. Census rounds of 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 Country of Birth Country of residence South America: Bordering country N % 580,100 26.45 1970 734,099 39.52 1980 Argentina 780,278 48.59 1991 923,215 60.26 2001 36,371 62.63 1976 37,084 62.01 Bolivia 1992 61,015 63.71 2001 63,391 5.16 1970 81,163 7.31 1980 Brazil 85,622 11.15 1991 107,802 15.76 2000 24,637 27.72 1970 30,339 35.97 1982 Chile 49,793 43.45 1992 101,181 51.80 2002 56,890 53.59 Colombia 1993 41,330 54.81 1982 39,949 54.59 Ecuador 1990 57,238 54.97 2001 62,029 77.84 1972 142,900 84.49 1982 Paraguay 156,064 81.83 1992 145,405 84.58 2002 18,644 27.75 1972 15,836 23.66 Peru 1982 14,566 27.63 1993 33,366 25.32 1975 32,001 31.07 Uruguay 1985 39,777 43.06 1996 180,318 30.95 1971 498,366 46.38 1981 Venezuela 533,116 52.06 1990 613,444 60.49 2001 RC 70 962,485 96.54 1,612,405 91.30 Total South RC 80 RC 90 1,793,139 90.62 America RC 00 2,009,300 87.95 Source: Based on IMILA Project, CELADE Year of Census South America: Non bordering country N % 0 0.00 12,038 0.65 21,524 1.34 97,034 6.33 932 1.60 1,399 2.34 3,133 3.27 4,667 0.38 22,377 2.01 26,875 3.50 29,133 4.26 4,134 4.65 6,575 7.80 13,222 11.54 29,903 15.31 4,292 4.04 10,742 14.25 10,708 14.63 12,866 12.36 1,122 1.41 3,870 2.29 7,077 3.71 7,747 4.51 4,286 6.38 6,364 9.51 6,247 11.85 3,185 2.42 4,105 3.99 5,476 5.93 17,085 2.93 86,720 8.07 88,859 8.68 95,559 9.42 34,479 3.46 153,723 8.70 185,679 9.38 275,375 12.05 Total South America N 580,100 746,137 801,802 1,020,249 37,303 38,483 64,148 68,058 103,540 112,497 136,935 28,771 36,914 63,015 131,084 61,182 52,072 50,657 70,104 63,151 146,770 163,141 153,152 22,930 22,200 20,813 36,551 36,106 45,253 197,403 585,086 621,975 709,003 996,964 1,766,128 1,978,818 2,284,675 % 26.45 40.16 49.93 66.60 64.24 64.35 66.99 5.54 9.32 14.65 20.02 32.37 43.77 54.99 67.11 57.63 69.06 69.22 67.32 79.25 86.77 85.55 89.08 34.13 33.17 39.47 27.73 35.05 48.99 33.89 54.45 60.73 69.91 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 N 2,193,330 1,857,703 1,605,871 1,531,940 58,070 59,807 95,764 1,229,128 1,110,910 767,780 683,830 88,881 84,345 114,597 195,320 106,162 75,404 73,179 104,130 79,686 169,140 190,706 171,922 67,186 66,925 52,725 131,800 103,002 92,378 582,560 1,074,629 1,024,121 1,014,121 Total % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

III.

International Regimes and Regional Consultative Processes: Definition and empirical Application of a concept.

The Theory of International Regimes As mentioned before, the changes that brought with it the end of the Cold War gave international migration a space in the international arena. The need, however, to make decisions on specific issues in a multilateral cooperation setting is not new. It has its origins in the 1970s, and has been traditionally associated with the changes in the international economic system produced first by the gold and dollar crisis and aler by the oil crisis. This gave way to scientific study of international regimes, defined as sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors expectations converge in a given area of international relations (Krasner, 1983: 2). The concern on the study of international regimes represented an effort to theorize about international governability; focusing on the rules and agreements that were thought to influence and define the behavior of governments (Simmons & Martin, 2002: 193). The development of a research program in this area defined regimes as interaction places on specific issues and were considered focal points around the expectations of international actors converge. Principles and norms provide the normative frameworks for regimes, while the rules and decision-making procedures give specific definitions on appropriate behaviors (Simmons & Martin, 2002: 193). International regimes are institutions in a wide sense of the concept: they are accepted patterns that define rules and manners of acting in the international system (Simmons & Martin, 2002: 193). In short, regimes facilitate cooperative agreements in relation to objectives set or defines by the governments that are members of the regime (Keohane & Nye, 2001: 290). Those regimes that succeed do so because they fulfill at least three functions (Keohane and Nye, 2001: 291-292). In the first place, in a regime, governments share the burdens of maintaining the regime, since every government will contribute to the common goal only if the other governments do so as well. In this sense, the standards and rules that are established by the regime can be applied to any states, big or small. Second, regimes provide information to the governments. This shared information is extremely relevant to
9

make decisions on issues beyond their borders. Information allows the states to act in cooperation on topics that are transnationally relevant, and that in any other case would act unilaterally. At the same time it allows them to discover shared interests and reach common agreements based on these interests. Third, regimes allow great powers to debate on a variety of interests without being influenced by the particularities of their everyday relations. Last, international regimes introduce discipline to the international system allowing continuity on policies related to the regime despite administration changes at home. In their book Theories of International Regimes (1997), Hasenclever et al. divide the theories that explain the birth and functioning of international regimes in three schools; each based on power, interest and knowledge. Theories based on power may be described as realist theories of cooperation. In this theories not only conflict, but also cooperation may be explained by analyzing power resources and its distribution among states. Interest based theories are the central concern of regime analysis. They focus on the role of international regimes as facilitators agreements based on shared interests among states; and center on situations where there is a great number of actors and interests which sole possibility of reaching results that benefit every state is to act on an institutionalized cooperative manner. Theories based on knowledge are based on the usage of ideas and knowledge as explanatory variables. They center on the way that normative and causal beliefs form perceived international problems and thus, demand cooperative solutions (Hasenclever, et al. 1997). Although currently, international migration, is the only component of the economic international system that is not coordinated by an international organization (Miller & Denemark, 1993: 41); three important pillars of a possible and future migratory regime have been in existence since the period between the two World Wars, and especially after World War II. These are the International Labor Organization (ILO); the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migrations (ICEM, predecessor of todays IOM), and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). According to Miller and Denemark (1993: 35), however, bilateral and multilateral cooperation on international migration related topics has been a characteristic of the post Cold War period. Against those that
10

believe that is illusory to believe in the governability of migration flows, it seems plausible to consider that through migratory regimes governments can reach agreements that will tend to govern or regulate migration flows. Most of the necessary elements to create a migratory regime are present today. This, however, should be constituted through numerous bilateral, regional and global diplomatic negotiations. The possibility of reaching such agreement has to consider a set of premises. First, it has to respect to state sovereignty, since they are the ones that have to legitimize and enforce the policies, rules and obligations that will define the core of a possible international regime for migration. Second, the content of these regimes has to agree with the universal principles of human rights and with the charters of key international organizations such as ILO and UNHCR. They, along with IOM should, beside the States, become the key components of this regime (Miller & Denemark, 1993: 35). It is not possible, however, to foresee yet the existence of a global international regime for migration. As it can be seen on figure 1, with relation to other existing international discussion fora, those organizations that should be the base for the construction of an international migratory regime are still weak. Here it seems more relevant to strengthen the functioning of those regional consultative processes on migration issues that already exist, since they can became fundamental foundational pieces on top of which a future international migration regime can be built (Klekowski von Koppenfels, 2001: 50). Figure 1 A typology of international regimes
Institutions Weak Strong Weak Multialteralism Refugees and political asylum (UNHCR) International Labour Migration (ILO and IOM) Strong Interantional Finances (IMF and World Bank) Trade (Gatt/WTO)

Source: Fuente: Hollifield, 2000: 99.

11

Regional Consultative Processes: Empirical definitions Governments are more frequently recognizing that international migration needs to be governed at the regional level. The conformation of regional consultative processes fosters the multilateralization of the discussion on policies and aproaches toward international migration. Regional Consultative Processes are informal non binding groups made up representatives of government, international organizations and, sometimes, civil society and NGOs. These regional processes are fora within which members exchange information and concerns with relation to international migration. In these loose fora, regional plans are develop with the objective of taking cooperative action on migration related issues, as well as, the groundwork for future mualtilaretal agreements is laid (Klekowski von Koppenfels, 2001: 7; IOM, 2000: 123). According to Klein Solomon (2005: 6), although every Regional Consultative Process is different, they share the following characteristics: a. The Regional Consultative Processes are a state-owned, state-designed and state-ruled process; whose participants include government officials11. Governments invite international organization and sometimes NGOS; The Regional Consultative Processes structure reflects either a common interest in a specific theme or themes, such as trafficking in persons, labor migration, etc. (i.e. thematically oriented), or the common geography shared by the participant States (i.e. geographically based) (loc. cit.); The members meet more than once, although the processes might have been initiated by a specific conference; The central topics are flexible, depending on the changing needs of the states; and The process is informal and is defined by the absence of binding obligations.

b.

c. d. e.

Albeit these processes do not have as an initial objective to become international organizations, Regional Consultative Processes constitute a basic structure that allows continuous work. In general they have a technical secretariat that coordinates the inter conference work. This technical secretariat is always in charge of an international

11

Depending on the specific Process the official are at the Minister, Vice-minister Level, or immigration service officials.

12

organization, which allows governments to avoid direct involvement on sensible issues. There are usually yearly conferences, however between each conference the members states have specialized workshops on topics such as international migration data, international laws with reference to migration, among others; as well preparatory meetings for the next conference. As mentioned, every process as a different government representation level (Klein Solomon, 2005; IOM, 2004; Klekowsi von Koppenfels, 2001). Regrettably, Regional Consultative Processes have weaknesses that are inherent to their definition. The fact that are non-binding fora produces that sometimes States do not assume the agreements reached at annual conferences or take too long implementing them Since there is no punishment, there is no need to quickly put into practice those agreements. Another weakness is the lack of financing, which dimishes the autonomy of the process. Usually financing for annual activities and other activities comes from the member Status themselves, from some international financing institution (World Bank, IADB, etc.), or other international donors. Another difficulty that these processes have is related to State sovereignty. Even though these are non-binding fora, it is expected that each country will follow the agreements reached. In some cases these agreements are later blocked at parliaments or at the executive branch itself, since once the conference is finish the issues discussed might not be a State priority anymore. These two last difficulties lead to a third one that relates to plans of action and priorities defined at meetings. Lack of financing and political will has sometimes lead to non compliance with the agreements reached and the defined plans of action (Klein Solomon, 2005; IOM, 2004: 132-133; Klekowsi von Koppenfels, 2001). Despite all these difficulties it is possible to present a series of topics that are common to every process and advances that they have reached. IOM (2004: 135) recognizes four common topics that after these years have gain space in all fora. They are: 1. 2. 3. 4. Promotion of exchange of information toward a common understanding of migration issues, Protecting the fundamental rights of migrants including the right to nondiscrimination, Reinforcing efforts to prevent and combat undocumented or irregular migration including smuggling and trafficking, and Assisted voluntary return as strategy to reduce irregular migration.

13

Despite the fact that these processes are not defined for immediate results, they have, however achieved some advances among which is possible to mention the recollection on migration statistics, the development of new migration policies in countries that had old policies or not at all, the development of new policies toward asylum, among others (Klein Solomon, 2005; IOM, 2004: 134; Klekowsi von Koppenfels, 2001: 30). Up to this moment there are twelve processes in existence. Their names and year of first meeting are the following: Inter-governmental Consultation on Asylum, Refugee and Migration Policies in Europe, North America and Australia (IGC, 1985), Budapest Process (1991), Conference of Uncontrolled Migration Across the Baltic Sea (1993), Regional Conference to Address the Problems of Refugees, Displaced Persons, Other Forms of Involuntary Displacement and Returnees in the Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent Status and Relevant Neighboring States and Follow-Up Process (CIS Conference, 1995), Regional Conference on Migration (Puebla Process, 1996), IOM Regional Seminar on Irregular Migration and Migrant Trafficking in East and South-East Asia (Manila Process, 1996), Inter-Governmental Asia-Pacific Consultations on Refugees and Displaced Persons (APC, 1996), South American Conference on Migration (Lima Process, 1999), Migration Dialogue for Southern Africa (MIDSA, 2000), Migration Dialogue for West Africa (MIDWA, 2001), Cluster Process (2001), Bali Ministerial Conference on People Smuggling Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime (Bali Conference, 2002), Conference on Western Mediterranean Cooperation (5 + 5, 2002), Ministerial Consultations on Overseas Employment and Contractual Labor (Colombo Process, 2003)12. In the following section I will focus on one of this processes, the South American Conference on Migration; analyzing its origins, developments and possible courses. This conference presents some interesting charateristics that make it a good case study. First, it gives a high importance to intra regional migration and the generation of linkages with migrants abroad as a tool for development. Second, it is formed entirely by developing
12

Although I could not find exact information about this, it seems that the Regional Consultation Processes which have the European Union and its Neighbors area of interest (Budapest Group, CIS Conference, Cluster Process, and 5 + 5)are being replaced since 2006 by The Pan-European Dialogue on Migration Development (http://www.belgium.iom.int/pan-europeandialogue/Index.asp)

14

countries, with no country being overwhemingly powerful in relation to other countries of the region. Third, the region is presently in a countinuos process of developing new integration frameworks that might include migration independently or within another structure. Some of this integration processes are the South American Community, the Andean Pact and Mercosur to name a few. IV. The South American Conference on Migration: Presentation, Analysis and Challenges Basically, the SACM has annual meetings coordinated by IOMs Souther Cone and Andean regional offices. This international organization servesas the technical secretariat of the Conference process. The conference has a Pro tempore presidency, who is held by the country that hosts the meeting. A brief history13 The SACM has its origins in the South American meeting on migrations, integration and development held in Lima, Peru in 1999. In this meeting the governments of the region highlighted the importance of the migratory movements within the region and the need of holding regular meetings. The governments agree on holding the next meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina the following year (2000). In this meeting the SACM was created as a coordination and consult forum for migration related topics in the South American region. Also in this meeting, the governments ask IOMs aide in developing the conference process. The next conference was held in Santiago, Chile the following year. The main subjects of this Conference were two: trafficking and migrants rights; and South American citizens residing abroad. These two subjects have become up to this day the central concern of the work of the Conference. During this meeting it was also decided to have

13

This section is a summary of the information presented by IOMs Re gional Office for the Southern Cone in its website http://www.oimconosur.org/banners_htm/index.php?url=conferencia2 [Accessed March 23 rd, 2007]

15

yearly Technical Consulting Meetings before each conference to prepare the discussion topics. The plan of action for the conference was defined in the first consulting meeting; this plan of action has been considered as a route sheet for the conference process. This plan was approved by the governmental representatives in the III Conference in Quito, 2002. The Plan of Action of the Conference has been developed along three main axes: i) Freedom of mobility and residence within the region; ii) linkages with nationals abroad; and iii) migration and development. A concept that crosses the Plan is that everyone of its components have to be defined in a framework of respect and protection of the fundamental rights of migrants (CEPAL, 2006: 54). The general and specific objectives of the Plan are the following: Definition and coordination of regional strategies and programs with relation to migration. Consolidation and development of the South American Migration Observatory. Harmonization and coordination of the migration information systems. Harmonization and coordination of migration related public services and administrations. Harmonization and coordination of South American migratory laws. Some of the specific purposes of the plan of action that the Technical Secretariat emphasizes in its webpage are: the promotion of the human rights of migrants and their families; strengthening of regional migration flows management; development of national and bi-national regularization programs for migrants and families; strengthening of linkages with nationals residing abroad, and support to their return decisions; promotion of migrant integration and adaptation in the receiving country; production of permanent strategic information to support the decision-making process on migration issues; to have an up-to-date and permanent knowledge of intra and extra regional migration processes; modernization of national administrative offices related to migration; to establish an permanent coordination system between the national administrative offices related to migration; coordinated actualization of national migration related legislations; and the development of bilateral and multilateral covenants on migration matters (loc. cit.).

16

The studies necessary to carry out the plan of action were design in the Second Technical Meeting and the Fourth Conference (Montevideo, 2003), as were discussed the needed efforts to comply with it. From this discussion, the plan of action was divided into three priority axis: a) To favor and develop every policy, program and action that ease the circulation, staying and residence of the nationals of the regions countries within countries of the region; b) To coordinate actions that allow assistance and protection of the human rights of migrants, especially South American; c) To promote including the migratory variable on every bilateral and multilateral negotiating process related to economic, commercial and environmental agreements that are developed by the governments of the region (loc. cit.). The plan of action was revised on the Third Technical Meeting and in the Fifth Conference, bringing up to date and doing the needed modification to the objectives. The institutionalization process and reorganization of the Conference was also discuss and was agreed to present the conclusions of the conference in the 2nd Meeting of South American Presidents. In this presidential meeting it was agreed to launch the Community of South American Nations. Finally, the three axis developed in Montevideo (2003) were reaffirmed in the Sixth Conference, that took place in Asuncion, Paraguay on 2006 and is the last one to date. In this conference the civil society was officially invited to be part of the development South American Conference on Migration. It is important to note that NGOs and other civil society organizations had been having parallel meeting to the conference since the first meeting in Buenos Aires in 2000. On a different note it also important to mention that the Ibero-American Secretariat took part of the meetings for first time, and used the opportunity to invite the governmental representatives to the Ibero-American Meeting on Migration that took place on July 2006. Commentaries and analysis The SACM has achieved so far some very important goals; however, it seems that its development has stagnated and apparently it would never be more than what is today; a discussion fora between governments that does not have any capacities to make real and

17

ground breaking proposals. Next I will present some of the most relevant advances of the Conference as well as it weaknesses, following the analysis of ECLAC (2006: 55), Gurrieris14 (Gurrieri, 2005), the interview to Jorge Martnez15 and my own experience. The greatest achievement of the SACM is to have become a legitimate forum for the exchange of opinions and information on the migratory processes that affect the countries of the region. Considering the existence of two traditional countries of reception in the region (Venezuela and Argentina) and the changes of the migration flows to new receiving countries in the region and out of it; the need to develop linkages with migrs as a source of development; the protection of citizens living abroad; and the facilitation of intra regional mobility, the process has accomplished to position itself as an important organization in the discussions over migration issues in the region. One of its achievements has been the signature of an agreement that allows citizens and residents of the member States to travel and reside in any country of the region with the national identification card for a maximum stay of ninety days 90. Another achievement is related to consular cooperation outside of the region; in this agreement countries share consular representations in areas of the world that only one country is represented. This allows a easier and expedite protection to the nationals of any South American Country residing abroad. These accomplishments, however, are at the same time part of the numerous difficulties that prevent a higher development of the Conference. It is important to note that the point of reference for the SACM is always the Regional Conference of Migration (cfr. CEPAL, 2006) that is always signed asat least institutionally the most advanced consultative process in existence (IOM, 2004). As I mentioned before, one of the weaknesses of the consultation processes is that since agreements are non-binding, government officials have different problems to put into action the conferences agreements. For example, the freedom of mobility mentioned above was agreed in 2004, but since to be approved in some countries must be seen by parliament

14

Gurrieris opinion is extraordinarily relevant because he has been a consultant for IOMs Regional Office for the Southern Cone and from there has worked directly helping to set the Conference process.

18

it has not yet been ratified by all member States. This can be explained in some cases for the concerns in several politicians on the influence that bordering migration on the States security and the States right to carry out an effective sovereignty of its territories. On the other hand, one of the strengths of this conference is at the same time one of its main problems. In general every country in the region is relatively similar or comparable in relevance, developments, size and number of migrants, etc.; no country stands out on resources or power as happens in the Puebla Process with Canada and the United States. Although this has allow to reach important agreements, the lack of a regional power that handle or controls the Conference; and in certain cases that pull the weight of the other countries, has limited its political and financing development. This has had as a side effect that the Conference has not achieved its institutionalization16. Lets remember that this topic was addressed in Montevideo (2003) and has been dropped without reaching any kind of consensus up to date. The lack of an institutional framework has impeded advances of the plan of action and the development of the process. As mentioned by Jorge Martnez: The main limitation is the other side of the coin of its main strength: being an intra regional consultation process between countries which socioeconomic and migratory specificities are not highly asymmetrical; that are part of a sub regional integration process17, and are inscribed in a region with a common historical past and a culture with many affinities. These characteristics are the ones, to my understanding, that have shaped to a certain place the failure of the SACM, that is the same destiny of many different regional and sub regional integration initiatives. It seems that the more symmetric, the more political integration speeches, the greater recognition although vague of a LatinAmerican identity, the greater indifference towards a regional migratory governability. An example of the advances and inertia of the conference is in the development of the South American Migration Observatory (OSUMI) 18. Defined in the plan of action as a space for the permanent production of strategic information to inform the decision-making processes on migratory issues; this observatory initially considered a regional information network, focal points in each government, and a state-of-the-art Web Portal for the public
15

International migration specialist of the Population Division of ECLAC. All his opinions presented here are personal and do not compromise ECLAC in any way. 16 These two ideas are part of the analysis that Jorge Martinez present on his interview. 17 It refers to the Andean Community, MERCOSUR and the new Community of Nations. 18 This is one of the areas that I had to work at during my consulting term at IOMs field mission in Chile.

19

and that would be at the same time a governmental meeting place for the period between conferences. Today only exists a Website (http://www.osumi-oim.org/) and not a portal, with less information that the one provided by the website of the Technical Secretariat. Lack of financing and political will have impeded the development of this observatory. In relation to the approaches to incorporate in the conferences dialogue with other migration processes as the Berne Initiative and others; although this is something that is just commencing, it seems, according to Jorge Martnez that there is no relation and support. It seems that in a not far future the participation of countries with more economic resources or of supra regional initiatives as the Ibero-American Secretariat could lead to the disappearance of the SACM and place the discussion on migration as a component of hemispheric discussion and not within the South American region. V. Concluding remarks The origins of Regional Consultative Processes on international migration is part of the development of international regimes and the multilateralization of issues usually considered to be part of internal politics that began during the 1970s. Within this framework is that in 1999 the South American Conference on Migration began as a space for information exchange on migration that originates and has as destinations countries of South America. The South American Conference is a highly relevant process for the development of shared policies and is tantamount for the improvement of the lives of migrants and of the countries of the region within the framework of three axes aforementioned. Political will must exist, however, to maintain this process or it will end up folding or disappearing in one of the many other existing organizations and regional integration processes. As Martnez mentions in its interview, it will be difficult for the SACM to position itself beyond what has achieved up today; unless a country arises that is willing to realistically and responsible change the course that is currently leading and that faces the limitations mentioned and identifies new ones. Both Gurrieri and CEPAL propose that the Conference should be given a political organization that will regulate and define the

20

discussions that arise. Also it should have a specific charter to continue working and to become the legitimate and representative voice of South America on international fora on migration. VI. References

Alba, Francisco (1992). Migracin internacional y modelos de desarrollo en el contienente americano, en El poblamiento de las Amricas, International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, Veracruz. Baln, Jorge (1992). The role of migration policies and social networks in the development of a migration system in the Southern Cone, en KRITZ, Mary et al. (eds.), International migration systems: A global approach, International Union for the Scientific Study of Population/Oxford University Press, New York. Comisin Econmica para Amrica Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) (2006), Migracin internacional, derechos humanos y desarrollo, LC/W.98, Santiago de Chile. Comisin Econmica para Amrica Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) / Centro Latinoamericano y Caribeo de Demografa (CELADE) (2000). Migracin Internacional en Amrica Latina: IMILA, Boletn Demogrfico N 65, Serie LC/G. 2065 P, CELADE, Santiago de Chile. ______________ (1999). Migracin internacional en Amrica Latina y el Caribe: Algunos antecedentes empricos, LC/DEM/R. 296, CELADE, Santiago de Chile Estrada, Baldomero (1994). Inmigracin europea en Chile: Polticas y resultados, parte del Proyecto FONDECYT 1200 1994. Ghosh, Bimal (2000), Introduction, en Ghosh, Bimal ed. (2000), Managing Migration: Time for a new International Regime?, Oxford University Press, Oxford Gurrieri, Jorge (2005), El proceso consultivo en Amrica del Sur: La Conferencia Sudamericana sobre Migraciones, Expert Group Meeting on Inernational Migration and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Population Division,

21

Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat (UN/POP/EGM-MIG/2005/06), Mexico City. Hasenclever, Andreas, Mater, Peter and Rittberger, Volker (1997) Theories of International Regimes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hollifield, James, F. (2000), Migration and the New International Order: The Missing Regime, en Ghosh, Bimal ed. (2000), Managing Migration: Time for a new International Regime?, Oxford University Press, Oxford International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2004), World Migration 2003. Managing migration. Challenges and Response for People on the Move, IOM, Geneva ______________________________________ (2000), World Migration Report 2000, New York. Keohane, Robert O. & Nye, Joseph S. (2001), Power and Interdependence, 3rd edition, Longman, New York Klekowski von Koppenfels, Amanda (2001), The Role of Regional Consultative Processes in Managing International Migration, IOM Migration Research Series No. 3 IOM, Geneva. Klein Solomon, Michele (2005), Focus on Regional Consultative Processes on Migration, IOMs International Dialogue on Migraiton and the Berne Initiative, Expert Group Meeting on Inernational Migration and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat (UN/POP/EGM-MIG/2005/06), Mexico City. Krasner, Stephen D. (1983), Structural causes and regime consequences: Regiems as intevening variables, en Krasner, Stephen D. ed. (1983), International Regimes, Cornell University Press, Ithaca

22

Miller, Mark J. (2000), International Migration in Post-Cold War International Relations, en Ghosh, Bimal ed. (2000), Managing Migration: Time for a new International Regime?, Oxford University Press, Oxford Miller, Mark & Denemark, Robert A. (1993), Migration and World Politics; A Critical Case for Theory and Policy, Occasional Paper No. 8, The Center for Migration Studies of New york, New York. ONU (Organizacin de las Naciones Unidas) (2000), Examen y evaluacin de los progresos realizados en la consecucin de los fines y objetivos del Programa de Accin de la Conferencia Internacional sobre la Poblacin y el Desarrollo. Informe de 1999, Nueva York, Serie ST/ESA/SER.A/182, Departamento de Asuntos Econmicos y Sociales, Divisin de Poblacin. __________________ (1995), Poblacin y Desarrollo. Programa de Accin adoptado en la Conferencia Internacional sobre la Poblacin y el Desarrollo. El Cairo, 5 a 13 de septiembre de 1994, Volumen I, Nueva York, Serie ST/ESA/SER.A/149, Departamento de Informacin Econmica y Social y de Anlisis de Polticas. Pellegrino, Adela (2000) Migrantes Latinoamericanos y Caribeos: Sntesis Histrica y Tendencias Recientes, Documento de Referencia, Versin Preliminar,

CEPAL/CELADE, Santiago ________________ (1995). La migracin internacional en Amrica Latina, en Notas de Poblacin, N 62 y Pensamiento Iberoamericano, N 28, (publicacin conjunta), CELADE, Santiago de Chile. Simmons, Beth A. & Martin, Lisa L (2002), International Organizations and Institutions, en Carlsnaes, Walter; Risse, Thomas & Simmons, Beth A. (eds.) (2002), Handbook of International Relations, Sage Publications, London. Singh, Jyoti Shankar (1998), Creating a new consensus on population, London, Earthscan Publications.

23

Other Sources: The Cairo Conference Home Page: http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/cairo.html Interview to Jorge Martinez, international migration specialist, Latin American and Caribbean Demographic Center (CELADE), Population Division, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). South American Observatory on Migration: http://www.osumi-oim.org/ International Organization for Migration, Regional Office for the Southern Cone of Latin America, website of the South American Conference on Migration:

http://www.oimconosur.org/banners_htm/index.php?url=conferencia

24

Table South America: Population born in countries of South American counted in a diferent country of South America. Census rounds of 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 Country of Birth Country of Year of Residence Census N 1970 1980 Argentina 1991 2001 14,669 1976 17,829 Bolivia 1992 28,615 2001 17,213 1970 26,633 1980 Brazil 25,468 1991 27,531 2000 13,270 1970 19,733 1982 Chile 34,415 1992 50,448 2002 1,953 Colombia 1993 1,691 1982 1,558 Ecuador 1990 2,239 2001 27,389 1972 43,670 1982 Paraguay 47,846 1992 63,006 2002 4,286 1972 5,025 Peru 1982 4,165 1993 19,051 1975 19,669 Uruguay 1985 26,256 1996 4,481 1971 11,371 1981 Venezuela 9,070 1990 8,592 2001 RC 70 85,690 142,461 Total South RC 80 168,560 America RC 90 RC 00 180,431 No data Source: IMILA Proyect, CELADE Argentina % N 101,000 115,616 143,735 233,464 Bolivia % 17.41 15.50 17.93 22.88 N 48,600 42,134 33,543 34,712 8,492 8,586 15,075 Brazil % 8.38 5.65 4.18 3.40 22.76 22.31 23.50 N 142,150 207,176 218,217 212,429 7,508 3,909 4,469 1,900 17,830 20,437 17,131 Chile % 24.50 27.77 27.22 20.82 20.13 10.16 6.97 2.79 17.22 18.17 12.51 N 1,864 2,638 3,876 412 529 1,367 870 1,490 2,076 4,159 800 1,069 1,666 4,312 39,443 37,553 51,556 189 317 1,528 1,985 2,374 133 227 362 177,973 494,494 528,893 608,691 181,304 540,984 576,280 674,278 Colombia % 0.25 0.33 0.38 1.10 1.37 2.13 1.28 1.44 1.85 3.04 2.78 2.90 2.64 3.29 75.75 74.13 73.54 0.12 0.21 6.66 8.94 11.41 0.36 0.63 0.80 90.16 84.52 85.03 85.85 18.19 30.63 29.12 29.51 N 771 975 2,124 183 243 752 357 758 605 1,188 967 1,215 2,267 9,762 9,040 Ecuador % 0.10 0.12 0.21 0.49 0.63 1.17 0.52 0.73 0.54 0.87 3.36 3.29 3.60 7.45 14.78 N 230,050 259,449 251,130 325,046 972 955 3,297 20,025 17,560 19,018 28,822 290 284 683 1,321 137 85 90 101 Paraguay % 39.66 34.77 31.32 31.86 2.61 2.48 5.14 29.42 16.96 16.91 21.05 1.01 0.77 1.08 1.01 0.22 0.16 0.18 0.14 N 8,002 15,977 88,260 4,730 5,805 9,559 2,410 3,789 5,833 10,814 3,804 4,308 7,649 39,084 3,182 1,887 2,396 5,682 1,432 1,621 194 1,593 1,424 1,512 186 448 494 942 252,144 280,222 274,213 359,529 0.93 4.36 3.94 3.34 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.13 25.29 15.87 13.86 15.74 Peru % 1.07 1.99 8.65 12.68 15.08 14.90 3.54 3.66 5.19 7.90 13.22 11.67 12.14 29.82 5.20 3.62 4.73 8.11 0.00 0.88 1.06 N 58,300 109,724 133,653 117,564 193 327 461 13,582 21,238 22,143 24,740 759 989 1,599 2,467 316 458 406 398 763 2,310 3,029 3,239 527 399 241 528 2,168 19,956 27,748 35,823 8,382 42,913 70,550 190,843 0.67 1.17 1.10 3.41 4.46 5.05 0.84 2.43 3.57 8.35 Uruguay % 10.05 14.71 16.67 11.52 0.52 0.85 0.72 19.96 20.51 19.68 18.07 2.64 2.68 2.54 1.88 0.52 0.88 0.80 0.57 1.21 1.57 1.86 2.11 0.00 2.37 1.92 Venezuela N 1,401 1,934 2,774 144 300 553 989 1,262 1,226 2,162 388 942 2,397 4,452 43,285 1,654 2,379 3,691 91 143 812 1,489 100 364 737 % 0.19 0.24 0.27 0.39 0.78 0.86 1.45 1.22 1.09 1.58 1.35 2.55 3.80 3.40 70.75 3.18 4.70 5.27 0.06 0.09 0.00 3.66 7.15 0.27 1.01 1.63 Total South America N 580,100 746,137 801,802 1,020,249 37,303 38,483 64,148 68,058 103,540 112,497 136,935 28,771 36,914 63,015 131,084 61,182 52,072 50,657 70,104 63,151 146,770 163,141 153,152 22,930 22,200 20,813 36,551 36,106 45,253 197,403 585,086 621,975 709,003 996,964 1,766,128 1,978,818 2,284,675 % 26.45 40.16 49.93 66.60 64.24 64.35 66.99 5.54 9.32 14.65 20.02 32.37 43.77 54.99 67.11 57.63 69.06 69.22 67.32 79.25 86.77 85.55 89.08 34.13 33.17 39.47 27.73 35.05 48.99 33.89 54.45 60.73 69.91 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 N 2,193,330 1,857,703 1,605,871 1,531,940 58,070 59,807 95,764 1,229,128 1,110,910 767,780 683,830 88,881 84,345 114,597 195,320 106,162 75,404 73,179 104,130 79,686 169,140 190,706 171,922 67,186 66,925 52,725 131,800 103,002 92,378 582,560 1,074,629 1,024,121 1,014,121 Total % 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

39.32 46.33 44.61 25.29 25.72 22.64 20.11 46.12 53.46 54.61 38.49 3.19 3.25 3.08 3.19 43.37 29.75 29.33 41.14 18.69 22.64 20.01 52.12 54.48 58.02 2.27 1.94 1.46 1.21 8.60 8.07 8.52 7.90

10,712 12,980 15,691 20,388 7,563 6,298 7,729 11,649 390 381 424 634 364 500 766 1,062 4,115 3,210 3,216 247 211 376 1,166 2,253 1,936 1,810 125,167 141,449 174,263 269,007

15.74 12.54 13.95 14.89 26.29 17.06 12.27 8.89 0.64 0.73 0.84 0.90 0.58 0.34 0.47 0.69 17.95 14.46 15.45 0.68 0.58 0.83 0.59 0.39 0.31 0.26 12.55 8.01 8.81 11.77

930 2,076 4,610 7,589 1,383 726 903 1,101 34,276 98,730 107,452 81,337 3,077 2,926 2,523 14,315 12,332 13,521 2,345 3,872 4,223 4,753 103,543 171,288 176,744 144,567

3.23 5.62 7.32 5.79 2.26 1.39 1.78 1.57 54.28 67.27 65.86 53.11 13.42 13.18 12.12 39.16 34.15 29.88 1.19 0.66 0.68 0.67 10.39 9.70 8.93 6.33

1,496 5,747 4,948 4,702 359 1,560 2,264 2,336 7,525 5,976 4,652 1,006 1,439 1,726 2,999 24,703 20,787 15,520 155,939 271,939 278,436 256,587

2.45 11.04 9.77 6.71 0.57 1.06 1.39 1.53 32.82 26.92 22.35 2.75 3.99 3.81 1.52 4.22 3.34 2.19 15.64 15.40 14.07 11.23

72 91 2,399 1,739 1,801 106 199 235 5,292 21,091 23,370 28,606 9,121 25,956 38,608 42,523

0.00 0.04 0.06 10.46 7.83 8.65 0.29 0.55 0.52 2.68 3.60 3.76 4.03 0.91 1.47 1.95 1.86

793 6,898 5,454 4,266 74,197 142,337 167,326 153,135

0.40 1.18 0.88 0.60 7.44 8.06 8.46 6.70

1,477 6,579 53,838 13,775

0.15 0.37 2.72 0.60