“Forced international migrations bring more positive than negative impacts to recipient countries”. Referring to examples, discuss this statement.

Credit should not be given for material relating to internal migrations, countries of origin, or for material relating to voluntary migrations. However, in some cases, the distinction between voluntary and forced may be somewhat blurred, so credit should be given if the candidate offers some justification for treating a particular example as a case of forced, rather than voluntary, migration.

In general, it is likely that the negative impacts of forced migration on recipient countries are likely to outweigh any positive impacts. This is really determined by the circumstances of the host nation itself and the number of forced migrants that are moving. For example, most Syrian refugees are in Lebanon, a country that is already struggling with many other issues.

Possible positive impacts include:
• increase in size of workforce
• introduction of new skills, including language skills
• an influx of migrants may help to create a more culturally-diverse community or country.
• moral obligation – improves international opinion of the country eg Germany, Canada
• migrants can help reurbanize/repopulate areas of decline, especially in countries experiencing ageing population or population decline
• new potential market – boosts economy.

On the other hand, possible negative impacts include:
• increased pressures on supplies of food, water, and shelter
• the need to incorporate incomers into the existing workforce; may require retraining programs
• care systems designed to help the very young and the elderly may be overburdened
• rise of right-wing xenophobic movements/political parties
• increased congestion and pressures on infrastructure
• introduction of diseases
• environmental impacts such as deforestation (eg refugees needing wood for fuel and shelter), overgrazing (cattle, sheep and goats brought by the refugees)
• deterioration in water quality if no proper sanitation system is available.

The discussion of positive and negative impacts need not be in equal depth for the award of full marks.

Responses that only describe either positive or negative impacts (ie not both) should not be credited beyond band C.

At band D, responses are likely to describe a range of both positive and negative impacts, with most of the discussion relating to recipient countries.

At band E, responses are likely to be more focused and include a good range of valid positive and negative impacts. In addition, they are likely to either offer appropriate examples of forced migration, with some supporting detail, or provide some discussion of the concept of forced migration, possibly considering its associated “grey areas”.

At band F, responses are likely to do both.

Together with question 5, this was the most popular of the three questions. Many looked at the Syrian refugee crisis and the impacts on the host nations. There was a focus on nations in the EU and this is valid as it has dominated the news cycle but many stronger responses looked at the impacts on the nations that are bearing the burden of this mass migration – namely those bordering Syria such as Lebanon. There were some responses that bordered on being xenophobic themselves, often incorrectly blaming refugees for recent incidents in vast sweeping statements. It was possible for responses to make use of ‘voluntary migrations’ such as Mexico to the USA if they linked the case study to the concept of ‘forced’ as many in low income regions have limited choices and are often ’forced’ to look outside their own nations for employment.