Migratory Regimes in South America:

An Analysis of the South American Conference on Migration1

Cristián 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 Migraciones”2 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 IOM’s 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.

1 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

1

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

2

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 Martínez,

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, today’s 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

3

their concern on this topic, these countries gave international migration a relevant place in

the agenda of 1991’s 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.

Cairo’s 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).

5 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.

4

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,

IOM’s 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

6 “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 “IOM’s 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/#).

5

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 Alberdi’s 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.

6

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 (Balán, 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 IMF’s structural adjustment programs, and civil wars in Central

7

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.

8

N % N % N % N %

1970 580,100 26.45 0 0.00 580,100 26.45 2,193,330 100.00

1980 734,099 39.52 12,038 0.65 746,137 40.16 1,857,703 100.00

1991 780,278 48.59 21,524 1.34 801,802 49.93 1,605,871 100.00

2001 923,215 60.26 97,034 6.33 1,020,249 66.60 1,531,940 100.00

1976 36,371 62.63 932 1.60 37,303 64.24 58,070 100.00

1992 37,084 62.01 1,399 2.34 38,483 64.35 59,807 100.00

2001 61,015 63.71 3,133 3.27 64,148 66.99 95,764 100.00

1970 63,391 5.16 4,667 0.38 68,058 5.54 1,229,128 100.00

1980 81,163 7.31 22,377 2.01 103,540 9.32 1,110,910 100.00

1991 85,622 11.15 26,875 3.50 112,497 14.65 767,780 100.00

2000 107,802 15.76 29,133 4.26 136,935 20.02 683,830 100.00

1970 24,637 27.72 4,134 4.65 28,771 32.37 88,881 100.00

1982 30,339 35.97 6,575 7.80 36,914 43.77 84,345 100.00

1992 49,793 43.45 13,222 11.54 63,015 54.99 114,597 100.00

2002 101,181 51.80 29,903 15.31 131,084 67.11 195,320 100.00

Colombia 1993 56,890 53.59 4,292 4.04 61,182 57.63 106,162 100.00

1982 41,330 54.81 10,742 14.25 52,072 69.06 75,404 100.00

1990 39,949 54.59 10,708 14.63 50,657 69.22 73,179 100.00

2001 57,238 54.97 12,866 12.36 70,104 67.32 104,130 100.00

1972 62,029 77.84 1,122 1.41 63,151 79.25 79,686 100.00

1982 142,900 84.49 3,870 2.29 146,770 86.77 169,140 100.00

1992 156,064 81.83 7,077 3.71 163,141 85.55 190,706 100.00

2002 145,405 84.58 7,747 4.51 153,152 89.08 171,922 100.00

1972 18,644 27.75 4,286 6.38 22,930 34.13 67,186 100.00

1982 15,836 23.66 6,364 9.51 22,200 33.17 66,925 100.00

1993 14,566 27.63 6,247 11.85 20,813 39.47 52,725 100.00

1975 33,366 25.32 3,185 2.42 36,551 27.73 131,800 100.00

1985 32,001 31.07 4,105 3.99 36,106 35.05 103,002 100.00

1996 39,777 43.06 5,476 5.93 45,253 48.99 92,378 100.00

1971 180,318 30.95 17,085 2.93 197,403 33.89 582,560 100.00

1981 498,366 46.38 86,720 8.07 585,086 54.45 1,074,629 100.00

1990 533,116 52.06 88,859 8.68 621,975 60.73 1,024,121 100.00

2001 613,444 60.49 95,559 9.42 709,003 69.91 1,014,121 100.00

RC 70 962,485 96.54 34,479 3.46 996,964 100.00

RC 80 1,612,405 91.30 153,723 8.70 1,766,128 100.00

RC 90 1,793,139 90.62 185,679 9.38 1,978,818 100.00

RC 00 2,009,300 87.95 275,375 12.05 2,284,675 100.00

Table I

TotalTotal South America

Paraguay

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

South America: Non

bordering country

Country of

residence

Year of

Census

Country of Birth

Ecuador

Peru

Uruguay

South America: Bordering

country

Argentina

Bolivia

Brazil

Chile

Source: Based on IMILA Project, CELADE

Total South

America

Venezuela

9

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 actor’s 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

10

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 today’s 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

11

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

Mu

ltialteralism

Stro

ng

Refugees and political asylum

(UNHCR)

Interantional Finances

(IMF and World Bank)

Weak

International Labour Migration

(ILO and IOM)

Trade

(Gatt/WTO)

Source: Fuente: Hollifield, 2000: 99.

12

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;

b. “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.);

c. The members meet more than once, although the processes might have been

initiated by a specific conference;

d. The central topics are flexible, depending on the changing needs of the

states; and

e. The process is informal and is defined by the absence of binding obligations.

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.

13

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. Promotion of exchange of information toward a common understanding of

migration issues,

2. Protecting the fundamental rights of migrants including the right to non-

discrimination,

3. Reinforcing efforts to prevent and combat undocumented or irregular

migration including smuggling and trafficking, and

4. Assisted voluntary return as strategy to reduce irregular migration.

14

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)

15

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 IOM’s 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 IOM’s 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 IOM’s Regional Office for the Southern Cone in

its website http://www.oimconosur.org/banners_htm/index.php?url=conferencia2 [Accessed March 23rd

,

2007]

16

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.).

17

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 region’s

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

18

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),

Gurrieri’s14

(Gurrieri, 2005), the interview to Jorge Martínez15

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 émigrés 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 as—at 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 conference’s 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

Gurrieri’s opinion is extraordinarily relevant because he has been a consultant for IOM’s Regional Office

for the Southern Cone and from there has worked directly helping to set the Conference process.

19

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 State’s

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

. Let’s 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 Martínez:

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 Latin-

American 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 IOM’s field mission in Chile.

20

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 conference’s dialogue with other

migration processes as the Berne Initiative and others; although this is something that is

just commencing, it seems, according to Jorge Martínez 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 Martínez 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

21

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). “Migración internacional y modelos de desarrollo en el contienente

americano”, en El poblamiento de las Américas, International Union for the Scientific

Study of Population, Veracruz.

Balán, 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.

Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) (2006), Migración

internacional, derechos humanos y desarrollo, LC/W.98, Santiago de Chile.

Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) / Centro Latinoamericano

y Caribeño de Demografía (CELADE) (2000). “Migración Internacional en América

Latina: IMILA”, Boletín Demográfico Nº 65, Serie LC/G. 2065 – P, CELADE,

Santiago de Chile.

______________ (1999). Migración internacional en América Latina y el Caribe: Algunos

antecedentes empíricos, LC/DEM/R. 296, CELADE, Santiago de Chile

Estrada, Baldomero (1994). Inmigración europea en Chile: Políticas 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 América del Sur: La Conferencia

Sudamericana sobre Migraciones, Expert Group Meeting on Inernational Migration

and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Population Division,

22

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,

IOM’s 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

23

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 (Organización de las Naciones Unidas) (2000), Examen y evaluación de los

progresos realizados en la consecución de los fines y objetivos del Programa de

Acción de la Conferencia Internacional sobre la Población y el Desarrollo. Informe

de 1999, Nueva York, Serie ST/ESA/SER.A/182, Departamento de Asuntos

Económicos y Sociales, División de Población.

__________________ (1995), Población y Desarrollo. Programa de Acción adoptado en

la Conferencia Internacional sobre la Población y el Desarrollo. El Cairo, 5 a 13 de

septiembre de 1994, Volumen I, Nueva York, Serie ST/ESA/SER.A/149,

Departamento de Información Económica y Social y de Análisis de Políticas.

Pellegrino, Adela (2000) Migrantes Latinoamericanos y Caribeños: Síntesis Histórica y

Tendencias Recientes, Documento de Referencia, Versión Preliminar,

CEPAL/CELADE, Santiago

________________ (1995). “La migración internacional en América Latina”, en Notas de

Población, Nº 62 y Pensamiento Iberoamericano, Nº 28, (publicación 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.

24

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

N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

1970 101,000 17.41 48,600 8.38 142,150 24.50 … … … … 230,050 39.66 … … 58,300 10.05 … … 580,100 26.45 2,193,330 100.00

1980 115,616 15.50 42,134 5.65 207,176 27.77 1,864 0.25 771 0.10 259,449 34.77 8,002 1.07 109,724 14.71 1,401 0.19 746,137 40.16 1,857,703 100.00

1991 143,735 17.93 33,543 4.18 218,217 27.22 2,638 0.33 975 0.12 251,130 31.32 15,977 1.99 133,653 16.67 1,934 0.24 801,802 49.93 1,605,871 100.00

2001 233,464 22.88 34,712 3.40 212,429 20.82 3,876 0.38 2,124 0.21 325,046 31.86 88,260 8.65 117,564 11.52 2,774 0.27 1,020,249 66.60 1,531,940 100.00

1976 14,669 39.32 8,492 22.76 7,508 20.13 412 1.10 183 0.49 972 2.61 4,730 12.68 193 0.52 144 0.39 37,303 64.24 58,070 100.00

1992 17,829 46.33 8,586 22.31 3,909 10.16 529 1.37 243 0.63 955 2.48 5,805 15.08 327 0.85 300 0.78 38,483 64.35 59,807 100.00

2001 28,615 44.61 15,075 23.50 4,469 6.97 1,367 2.13 752 1.17 3,297 5.14 9,559 14.90 461 0.72 553 0.86 64,148 66.99 95,764 100.00

1970 17,213 25.29 10,712 15.74 1,900 2.79 870 1.28 357 0.52 20,025 29.42 2,410 3.54 13,582 19.96 989 1.45 68,058 5.54 1,229,128 100.00

1980 26,633 25.72 12,980 12.54 17,830 17.22 1,490 1.44 758 0.73 17,560 16.96 3,789 3.66 21,238 20.51 1,262 1.22 103,540 9.32 1,110,910 100.00

1991 25,468 22.64 15,691 13.95 20,437 18.17 2,076 1.85 605 0.54 19,018 16.91 5,833 5.19 22,143 19.68 1,226 1.09 112,497 14.65 767,780 100.00

2000 27,531 20.11 20,388 14.89 17,131 12.51 4,159 3.04 1,188 0.87 28,822 21.05 10,814 7.90 24,740 18.07 2,162 1.58 136,935 20.02 683,830 100.00

1970 13,270 46.12 7,563 26.29 930 3.23 800 2.78 967 3.36 290 1.01 3,804 13.22 759 2.64 388 1.35 28,771 32.37 88,881 100.00

1982 19,733 53.46 6,298 17.06 2,076 5.62 1,069 2.90 1,215 3.29 284 0.77 4,308 11.67 989 2.68 942 2.55 36,914 43.77 84,345 100.00

1992 34,415 54.61 7,729 12.27 4,610 7.32 1,666 2.64 2,267 3.60 683 1.08 7,649 12.14 1,599 2.54 2,397 3.80 63,015 54.99 114,597 100.00

2002 50,448 38.49 11,649 8.89 7,589 5.79 4,312 3.29 9,762 7.45 1,321 1.01 39,084 29.82 2,467 1.88 4,452 3.40 131,084 67.11 195,320 100.00

Colombia 1993 1,953 3.19 390 0.64 1,383 2.26 1,496 2.45 9,040 14.78 137 0.22 3,182 5.20 316 0.52 43,285 70.75 61,182 57.63 106,162 100.00

1982 1,691 3.25 381 0.73 726 1.39 5,747 11.04 39,443 75.75 85 0.16 1,887 3.62 458 0.88 1,654 3.18 52,072 69.06 75,404 100.00

1990 1,558 3.08 424 0.84 903 1.78 4,948 9.77 37,553 74.13 90 0.18 2,396 4.73 406 0.80 2,379 4.70 50,657 69.22 73,179 100.00

2001 2,239 3.19 634 0.90 1,101 1.57 4,702 6.71 51,556 73.54 101 0.14 5,682 8.11 398 0.57 3,691 5.27 70,104 67.32 104,130 100.00

1972 27,389 43.37 364 0.58 34,276 54.28 359 0.57 … … … … … … 763 1.21 … … 63,151 79.25 79,686 100.00

1982 43,670 29.75 500 0.34 98,730 67.27 1,560 1.06 … … 0.00 0.00 2,310 1.57 … … 146,770 86.77 169,140 100.00

1992 47,846 29.33 766 0.47 107,452 65.86 2,264 1.39 189 0.12 72 0.04 1,432 0.88 3,029 1.86 91 0.06 163,141 85.55 190,706 100.00

2002 63,006 41.14 1,062 0.69 81,337 53.11 2,336 1.53 317 0.21 91 0.06 1,621 1.06 3,239 2.11 143 0.09 153,152 89.08 171,922 100.00

1972 4,286 18.69 4,115 17.95 3,077 13.42 7,525 32.82 1,528 6.66 2,399 10.46 … … 0.00 0.00 22,930 34.13 67,186 100.00

1982 5,025 22.64 3,210 14.46 2,926 13.18 5,976 26.92 1,985 8.94 1,739 7.83 … … 527 2.37 812 3.66 22,200 33.17 66,925 100.00

1993 4,165 20.01 3,216 15.45 2,523 12.12 4,652 22.35 2,374 11.41 1,801 8.65 194 0.93 399 1.92 1,489 7.15 20,813 39.47 52,725 100.00

1975 19,051 52.12 247 0.68 14,315 39.16 1,006 2.75 133 0.36 106 0.29 1,593 4.36 … … 100 0.27 36,551 27.73 131,800 100.00

1985 19,669 54.48 211 0.58 12,332 34.15 1,439 3.99 227 0.63 199 0.55 1,424 3.94 241 0.67 364 1.01 36,106 35.05 103,002 100.00

1996 26,256 58.02 376 0.83 13,521 29.88 1,726 3.81 362 0.80 235 0.52 1,512 3.34 528 1.17 737 1.63 45,253 48.99 92,378 100.00

1971 4,481 2.27 1,166 0.59 2,345 1.19 2,999 1.52 177,973 90.16 5,292 2.68 186 0.09 2,168 1.10 793 0.40 197,403 33.89 582,560 100.00

1981 11,371 1.94 2,253 0.39 3,872 0.66 24,703 4.22 494,494 84.52 21,091 3.60 448 0.08 19,956 3.41 6,898 1.18 585,086 54.45 1,074,629 100.00

1990 9,070 1.46 1,936 0.31 4,223 0.68 20,787 3.34 528,893 85.03 23,370 3.76 494 0.08 27,748 4.46 5,454 0.88 621,975 60.73 1,024,121 100.00

2001 8,592 1.21 1,810 0.26 4,753 0.67 15,520 2.19 608,691 85.85 28,606 4.03 942 0.13 35,823 5.05 4,266 0.60 709,003 69.91 1,014,121 100.00

RC 70 85,690 8.60 125,167 12.55 103,543 10.39 155,939 15.64 181,304 18.19 9,121 0.91 252,144 25.29 8,382 0.84 74,197 7.44 1,477 0.15 996,964 100.00

RC 80 142,461 8.07 141,449 8.01 171,288 9.70 271,939 15.40 540,984 30.63 25,956 1.47 280,222 15.87 42,913 2.43 142,337 8.06 6,579 0.37 1,766,128 100.00

RC 90 168,560 8.52 174,263 8.81 176,744 8.93 278,436 14.07 576,280 29.12 38,608 1.95 274,213 13.86 70,550 3.57 167,326 8.46 53,838 2.72 1,978,818 100.00

RC 00 180,431 7.90 269,007 11.77 144,567 6.33 256,587 11.23 674,278 29.51 42,523 1.86 359,529 15.74 190,843 8.35 153,135 6.70 13,775 0.60 2,284,675 100.00

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

Total South

America

Venezuela

Argentina

Bolivia

Brazil

Chile

Ecuador

Paraguay

Peru

Uruguay

UruguayArgentina Bolivia Brazil ChileCountry of

Residence

Year of

Census

Table

… No data

Source: IMILA Proyect, CELADE

Venezuela Total South America TotalColombia Ecuador Paraguay Peru