Bilateral and multilateral migration diplomacy instruments, from diplomatic talks to instruments such as special envoys, diplomatic representatives or migration partnerships, are essential to international cooperation on migration. They vary in form and may be formally or informally concluded, or legally binding. Migration diplomacy policy approaches include "coercive migration diplomacy", which uses negative conditionality/penalties, and "cooperative migration diplomacy", which is based on the positive conditionality of promises/rewards. Given the relevance of migration diplomacy, there is a need to better understand the conditions in which these policy approaches are more or less effective. 

This joint EMN-OECD Inform, which analyses good practices, challenges and impacts associated with migration diplomacy approaches and instruments, inter alia shows that:

• Seventeen EMN Member and Observer Countries integrate migration diplomacy into their migration affairs, whilst six others report limited engagement in migration diplomacy, largely due to their strategic alignment with the European Union’s initiatives, as well as limited national resources. For these countries, participating in EU-level migration diplomacy initiatives offers a more practical approach to international migration affairs than pursuing independent bilateral agreements.
   
• Specific instruments and tools commonly used in migration diplomacy approaches in EMN Member and Observer Countries include bilateral agreements, memoranda of understanding (MoUs), declarations of intent, and appointment of special envoys or diplomatic representatives. Bilateral agreements are among the most widely adopted instruments, addressing specific issues like readmission and visa facilitation or encompassing broader migration partnership agreements.
   
• Examples of migration diplomacy instruments in non-EU OECD countries include the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration (2022) which promotes cooperation across the Americas through four pillars – stability, migration pathways, humane management, and emergency response; Australia’s Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme that offers Pacific islanders employment opportunities; and Japan’s economic partnership agreements (EPAs) that enable nurses and care workers from Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam to work in Japan with a pathway to indefinite residency.
   
• Key success factors include political stability, coordination, leveraging support, and robust legal frameworks, all of which have led to effective migration agreements and partnerships in some countries. These efforts have tangible outcomes, such as improved cooperation on voluntary returns, expanded visa-free travel for citizens, and enhanced migration management systems.
   
• Challenges such as external crises, political instability in partner countries, and internal coordination complexities underscore the ongoing difficulties in implementing and sustaining these agreements.
   
• Developing more sophisticated methods to evaluate the impact of migration diplomacy instruments could help to refine strategies and ensure that diplomatic efforts are aligned with national interests and international cooperation objectives.

For further information, please read the Inform attached above.