Forced Migration in the OIC Member Countries:
Policy Framework Adopted by Host Countries
5
Impacts
Forced displacement has serious consequences for all actors involved: the migrants
themselves, countries of first asylum and destination, and countries of origin. Costs to host
communities have become flashpoints of potential conflict, as dependent refugee populations
place heavy demands on local infrastructure, natural resources, and public services—
especially health and education—in countries of first asylum. Turkey, for example, estimates it
has spent over USD$10 billion on refugees. School capacity in Jordan has been exceed by 13
percent, and the capacity of health clinics has been exceeded by 22 percent. Many refugee-
hosting countries experience local tensions over competition for housing (as in Sweden),
while land scarcity has become a problem in Uganda.
At the same time, forced migration can also bring potential benefits that should not be
discounted. Refugees often bring significant skills and education (a significant proportion of
Syrians, for example, are highly skilled), and can attract substantial investments of aid from
the international community. The investments in additional services or new infrastructure
that receiving large populations of newcomers require can also create jobs and stimulate the
economy, as seen in Sweden. Finally, in some cases, refugees themselves may bring with them
investment capital or business opportunities, or attract diaspora investments.
As the scale of displacement continues to test national and international protection regimes,
countries will need to rethink both legal frameworks and poverty alleviation efforts in order
to mitigate the costs of forced migration and take advantage of the potential opportunities.