By: Sulayman Darboe, MA Transnational Governance, Florence School of Transnational Governance
Are circular migration agreements substitutes for the Gambia Government’s circular failure in youth empowerment? On August 28th, 2024, The Gambia Government signed a joint memorandum on Circular Migration with the Kingdom of Spain, which was ratified by the National Assembly on 19th October 2024, with the purpose of recruiting workers for the Spanish Labor Market on a seasonal basis, as reported by Kerr Fatou Media. Similarly, the same bilateral agreement has recently been arranged with Saudi Arabia to supply able-bodied men to the Saudi labor market. While many necessary elements for the two seemingly heaven sent agreements such as wage structure remained inconclusive, many among the targeted youthful population, including both the ‘wrappered’ and the trousered- the supposed cream and engine for the country’s present and future growth; have seen this as a probable life-time opportunity which is quite evident through the rush, hustle and bustle to win a golden spot with the Ministry of trade’s recruitment arm mandated to lead the process. Considering the grave loss of precious “youth labor” to many labor markets in the world and also through the insatiable stomach of the Mediterranean Sea which has consumed hundreds of youth on irregular migration crusades, are circular migration agreements with the purpose of ‘legally packaging’ and transporting young people to benefit other labor markets a sustainable youth empowerment strategy? Is this an act of honor or dishonor to the social contract? What are the intended and unintended consequences of this initiative? How can this impact the local labor market in The Gambia in the long run? Are these initiatives rich enough to discourage the seemingly unending irregular migration pattern to Spain- a country already tapped in the back by the famous “seven-days” journey? These questions will be opinionatedly discussed as I proceed.
IMPACT OF YOUTH MIGRATION ON GAMBIA LABOR FORCE
Undeniably, migration contributed immensely towards the economy of the Gambia. In fact, research reveals the great contribution of remittance to the economy of the country which increases on an annual basis. In 2024, Gambia’s remittances reached a staggering amount of $776 Million with 31% contribution to the GDP which shows a 4 percent increase to the 2023 contribution which according to World bank, was estimated at US$627.5 contributing 26.3% to the GDP. Without doubt, remittances have improved the lives and livelihood of many individuals and families alike. Aside from remittances, youth migration promotes skill and educational development of many Gambians. This is absolutely the healthy part of migration. Therefore, whether individuals on their own accord, took initiatives to migrate elsewhere for positive reasons, what cannot be deserted from Gambia’s sluggish economic growth is its continued reliance on remittance. But what is in the interest of Gambia? Does she want to be a remittance-dependent country or a country that will have its young people motivated to be involved in her labor market with a labor force that can produce, earn and spend with improved livelihood? What comes to your mind when the country hails remittances when our land and sea, with potential to produce more than what remittances contribute, continue to be idled and poorly exploited? What does the youth of the Gambia need: inward empowerment or outward empowerment? It is one thing for individuals to take self-initiatives to migrate and another thing for the government to officially venture into the migration business bilaterally with the intention of empowering their young people. As far as this write-up is concerned, the focus is on the Government of The Gambia who has tightened her belt, steered by President Barrow, and entered into bilateral circular migration agreements on a seasonal basis.
I am strongly of the view that many would agree with me that migration in The Gambia has not been an issue of the unemployed only. It has long been characterized by both those unemployed and those employed. Even though the larger percentage of irregular migrants are unemployed, the pattern also involves those within the employment bracket. This is an open truth. Can I count the number of friends I attended the Gambia College with who became teachers but subsequently embarked on the irregular migration journey? No, I cannot! If you are a Gambian reader, I know you are probably reflecting on your police friends, soldiers, carpenters, footballers and so on who have both deserted their professional works and taken to the sea. Why has this been the case year in year out? I cannot state all but the bulk of the issue is the feeling of being hopeless and the inability to meet one’s own needs even with employment status. Thanks to the big-headed but low wage earnings which finished a week after being paid, at least for low-ranked civil servants, young people become hopeless and thus embark on irregular journeys. Now, the big question is: Will the youth of The Gambia be risking their lives to Europe if everything is working well back home? Probably, some may say yes, and I can agree that curiosity could still drive some into migrating. However, improved livelihood, better wage-earning etc. could easily help in satisfying one’s curiosity. This is why tourism exists!
Often overlooked and inculcated in our policies and decisions, especially at government level, for each time a young person migrates skilled or unskilled and educated or uneducated; there is a strain on the labor force which may probably never be compensated. As they migrate, they go with their labor which will be used perfectly well somewhere. Already, more than 35,000 Gambians have migrated. The point of emphasis here is: migration whether regular or irregular, circular or rectangular; if it involves abled-bodied men, it has the potential of resulting in labor shortages both in sectors that require skilled workers and those that do not. This can result in gaps in the workforce, reduced productivity, and challenges for businesses and industries in The Gambia. The Gambia is not an exception to this reality.
INTENDED AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF CIRCULAR MIGRATION AGREEMENTS WITH SPAIN AND SAUDI
Without doubt, even the pessimists will agree with me that The Government of The Gambia’s motive of entering into such bilateral agreements could be fueled by positive intentions. This could include her moral and constitutional mandate to improve the welfare of her people of which the youth group is sacrosanct. The agreements, if properly managed, could serve the intended purposes perfectly well such as employment opportunities for selected youth which in turn come with high wages- at least better than Gambia’s. Since the country is increasingly relying on remittances aside from tourism, taxation and agriculture, this will be an opportunity for a swift increase in the annual contribution of remittances to the GDP, which according to many commentators, is speedily and furiously rivalling main sectors of the economy contributing to the GDP. In addition, it’s important to emphasize that labor movements can equally provide opportunities for skills acquisition. The Gambia’s circular migration agreements, if properly pursued moving forward, could allow skills development of young people who may probably be motivated to put their skills to work once the seasonal calendar elapses. There will be less strains on the country’s seemingly limited job space at least with departure of the selected ones.
However, despite the positive utilities (intended consequences) that would certainly be guaranteed if the ‘infrastructure’ of the agreement’ is effectively pursued, the unintended consequences must not be overlooked. First, I want to stress that migration of any kind is treated as a security issue throughout the world. This is not an issue of Europe, The Americas or Africa. In fact, the potential and benefits both intrinsically and extrinsically associated with migration are often overlooked. In simple terms, the focus has always been on the “negatives” while the “positives” with respect to migration is limitedly spoken of. These dynamics must be understood as the government pursues her intended interests in these agreements. With the country already losing its young people to other markets and the stomach of the Mediterranean, these circular migration agreements have the potential to affect labor supply in the country’s development sectors. This is consequential to the growth of the country as far as development is concerned. But is labor shortage the only foreseen unintended consequence? How about the most feared exploitation of these migrants? Since the beginning of negotiations over these agreements, especially after the Prime Minister of Spain’s visit, there has been growing public outcry by Gambians with many describing the move as an “institutionalized slavery”. This is simply a result of fear of exploitation. Already, Saudi Arabia has a reputation of being a ‘read spot’ in terms of domestic violence of young Gambians particularly women who are being trafficked for domestic work. The horrible accounts of returnees while narrating their experiences revealed heart-wrecking stories of gross domestic violations such as rape, physical assaults, verbal harassments etc. Should we care-less about these histories because The Government is the one involved this time around and that the agreements are pursued in a legal context? Also, since the youth migrants are expected to return home at the end of their ‘season-loan term’, what plans do the government have for them because most of these youth are largely unemployed? Will it be an ultimate return to hopelessness? Is there a reintegration plan?
RECOMMENDATION FOR ETHICAL AND BENEFICIAL CIRCULA MIGRATION MOVING FORWARD
While it could be argued that the youth as migration commodities’ road to Saudi and Spain is in the interest of both The Gambia and her bilateral partners, at least from a pro-government point of view; there is need for absolute courtesy. The welfare-maximization role of governments must include a security dimension. Like I earlier stated, migration is globally treated as a crucial security issue. But quite unfairly discussed, it has always been the security of the receiving country. Security of the migrant person is given marginal attention. Even international laws are not doing enough in this regard. This is why as a government, security of migrants whether irregular or regular, should be a concern. But what should even be of greater concern is the security of migrants on whose behalf the Barrow-led government has entered into an agreement with Spain and Saudi. The government should ensure these migrants are legally protected. That’s not a choice; it is a duty! This begins with the nature of the contracts which remains inconclusive as negotiations are still ongoing considering some critical issues.
Furthermore, apart from ensuring that the agreements legally guarantee the ultimate protection of these migrants in terms of safety, there should be a meaningful wage-structure for these young people. The government must ensure that no form of exploitation characterizes the wage payment of these youth. It is absolutely disheartening to read that the youth migrants to Saudi Arabia will be paid a monthly wage of $200. Just as believed by many Gambians, this is exploitative, and the government must negotiate for mutually beneficial wage structure. The same should be the case for Spain since no agreement is made regarding the wage structure as reported by the mainstream media. In addition, for the government not to end up biting her fingers saying, “had I known” which many believe “shall never be known”, she must ensure frequent monitoring/visits to the migrants in their destination countries to have meetings either on quarterly basis or as deemed necessary. This will not only be a show of concern but an opportunity to find loopholes that could be cemented. This is critical as it will prevent the agreements from operating in a loosened vacuum. Moreover, there should be regular review of the agreements to incorporate new needs and wants which could both be acquired through consultations and meetings with beneficiary youth to identify loopholes just as mentioned above. While the government supplies youth for these countries to reinforce their industries under shortage with necessary labor which is in their interest, it is equally wise for the government to equally pursue her interest of which the welfare of her able-bodied men must be fundamental.
CONCLUSION
At a time when many Gambians believed the country under the leadership of President Adama is going in the wrong direction, it is important to be conscious of which actions and policies to pursue. Jumping into agreements without proper negotiations and understanding of the deal’s infrastructure both home and with the partner countries could lead the country to a ‘wronger’ direction, more extreme than what the CEPRAS survey revealed. The Minister of trade’s bid to negotiate for increment of wages from $200 to “until God knows” proves that these agreements could have more unintended consequences. While the initiative in its design and intent might not be bad, when poorly pursued, it cannot lead to the achievement of intended outcomes. Similarly, the Government must think of “inward” youth empowerment strategies. These are more sustainable. It is what largely benefits the Gambia’s labor force and development. Therefore, the interests of both parties must be well-balanced and prioritized. The Government must not be carried by the infamous heaven-sent “promises” and “contracts” as hastiness could lead to consequences which could ultimately put them at the mercy of oppositions in the wake of the fast-approaching elections.
