 The Director General has mentioned the fact that the notion of migration pathways was crucial to the analysis that we present in the report. It is through that notion of pathways that we look at the notion of well-being, which Nellie is going to talk to us about. Question, why did we choose the four pathways of migration? Well, first of all, because in migration and development discourse, there is an inordinate attention given to one of the pathways, south-north, as if that was the only axis along which migration occurs. And we thought it would be useful to give attention to the other dimensions. As the Director General has mentioned, there is migration between developed countries north-north. There is a very great amount of migration that occurs between countries of the south, between developing countries, and increasingly, particularly as the result of the economic recession, there are indications of a sharp increase in the number of people who are moving from the developed north to seek opportunities in the developing south. So this is what led us to look at the four pathways. And to compare and see whether there were differences. We started with a Nell hypothesis. I guess we would have been very disappointed if we had seen no differences. But we didn't want just to look at the global picture. We wanted to see how those different pathways led or did not lead, since it was a Nell hypothesis, to differences in outcomes in terms of well-being. And of course, once that decision had been made, we had a challenge. Unfortunately, countries such as the ones I see on the name plates in front of me do not come with very convenient labels saying country X, north, country Y, south. So we had to decide how to divide countries between the north and the south. In fact, there are three ways in which the division is made. UNDESA divides countries into developing and developed regions. That would have been one way of doing it. The World Bank does the division in terms of GNI per capita and makes a difference therefore between high income countries and other countries which are low, middle or upper middle income. And UNDP comes up with a different way of dividing the countries based on the Human Development Index. For your interest, you will see that in fact we provide the three divisions. We give you what the outcomes would be at least in terms of north and south countries under each of these. But for our analysis of well-being, we have chosen to follow the World Bank way of dividing up the countries if only because that one seemed to be most relevant to a discussion on migration and development. A few other considerations to leave with you while you look at that analysis. Of course, bear in mind that these are constructs. That means that while the report tries to highlight common characteristics along each of the pathways, there are of course large significant differences within them. Secondly, of course, let's not conclude that these are standalone pathways. They interact and they all form part of a global migration system in which all of the pathways are interlinked. I should also like to highlight that the description of the four migration flows represents a snapshot of the situation in 2010 as these countries were classified at that particular point in time because that can change from year to year. Let me give you some very quick glimpses just to tease you. Some of the interesting insights we come up with and some of them are new. Some of them are counter-intuitive. First, most international migrants, it's true, move from the south to the north or between countries of the south. If there is one snapshot that I would like you to bear in mind as you read that report, it is that one. To show that movement goes in all directions. North-north, 22%, north-south, 5%, but increasing, south-south, 33%, almost as much as movements from the south to the north, 40%. Most international migrants live in the north, roughly 56% of all migrants. Most represent between 10% and 12% of the population in the north while they represent only 2% of the resident population in the south. So bear that in mind. The proportion in the north is much higher than in the south. This perhaps explains the reason why the issue of migration as a political, social and economic issue tends to be more visible and more prominent in the north because of those differences in proportion. The number of south-north migrants increased the most during the last two decades. So where there has been increase, it has been, in fact, along the south-north axis. But that particular pathway represents less than half of all international migrants. South-south migrants are, and I underline that fact, represent a very large proportion. They are also deserving of particular attention because they are economically important. And I think because in the past, that's been a blind spot in research. And in this particular report, we have tried to redress that. We draw attention that all the most international migrants originate in the south. Now I underline that people in the north are much more likely or at least more likely to emigrate. Again this is a very interesting finding. Which goes counter to a lot of the thinking according to which it is lack of development that underlies much human mobility. In fact, the statistic that we come up with is that development, in fact, is in itself a cause of great mobility. That may be for reasons that we are yet to fully understand. It may be that people in developed countries have more resources to use in order to move about. These are some of the questions that we would like to follow through. But it's a very interesting finding. The next slide shows that a small majority of international migrants are male. There, we knew that, so that has not changed very much. Except in the case of north-north migration, where the majority are female. Migrants in the south are more likely than those in the north to be at the low and high extremes in the age distribution. Whereas migrants in the north are more clustered within the working age. Perhaps at this point I should also mention that the survey shows that migrants are represented across all skill levels. Lower skilled, middle skilled, higher skilled. However, there is a higher representation among low skilled workers. 44% of migrants are low skilled, if you're interested in the figures. 33%, it's estimated, have intermediate skills. And only 22% are highly skilled. But I repeat that shows that there is, in fact, representation right across the levels of skills. One quick little insight, which doesn't appear on the screen. Contrary to public perception, the majority of refugees not only originate but also live in the south, not in the north. They originate in the south, that was known, but it's also interesting to note that they live in the south. Four out of every five refugees were born and were living in the south. While we did not, in our study, focus very much on specific countries, our analysis enabled us to look at the important migration corridors across the world, illustrated here by arrows. The red arrows, 12 of them, are south-south movements. And please bear in mind that the notion of south-south is not geographic. It's in line with the construct I mentioned before. So south-south arrows, red. South-north arrows, they're the black arrows. And there is one arrow, which is gray, north-north, which is essentially from Europe to North America. Now, if you're interested in knowing some of the more specific streams of migration, for south-south movements, the largest corridor is between Ukraine to the Russian Federation, followed by Bangladesh to Bhutan, and Kazakhstan to the Russian Federation. In terms of south-north movements, there's no surprise. The largest corridor is between Mexico to the United States, 12 from 12.2 million, followed by Turkey to Germany. And if we look at north-north movements, the largest corridor is Germany to the United States, some 1.3 million migrants, followed by the United Kingdom to Australia. In terms of north-south movement, although they're not in the top global corridors, I did mention that this was something of a new type of movement, significant numbers of migrants have been recorded in recent times. With nationals, for instance, of the United States moving to Mexico, that's 0.6 million, and perhaps somewhat more surprisingly, to South Africa, 0.3 million, and Germans to Turkey, again, 0.3 of a million, and Portuguese to Brazil, 0.2 million. This is a flow which we are monitoring with particular interest because it's a newly emerging phenomenon. My next slide focuses on remittances. I'll go over that very quickly. What we find is that south-north migrants remit proportionately more than migrants on the other three pathways. So most of the remittances come from migrants in the north sending remittances back to countries of origin. These results may be explained by difference in transfer costs, the way differentials that exist between north and south, and perhaps there may be more remittances being sent south to south, but they go largely unrecorded. Again, this is something that requires greater attention. I've mentioned our interest in the emergence of movements from north to south, and I'd like to draw that to your attention. It has led us to ask questions about why this should have happened. And we propose, we propose only because much of that is speculative as possible reasons, that the people who are moving from north to south are essentially looking for economic opportunities. There is some evidence that as companies establish presence in parts of the emerging world, more and more workers, more and more employees are being transferred to the south. There are indications that some of the migrants moving south are in fact long-term migrants returning home. Having decided either that there are opportunities, they want to look back there. We're really not sure, but we think that that may be one of the reasons. Student migration is another one with the universalization of universities, of opportunities for study. More and more young people are looking elsewhere, sometimes out of a sense of adventure, out of a sense of curiosity. They want to study not in the country in which they were born, but elsewhere. Finally, there is also the notion of retirement migration. This is what we call people looking for havens of rest. They're the retirees who've worked themselves very hard in developed countries and are looking for places where it is perhaps easier to live. Perhaps there's also a search for a slightly more exotic environment to retire, but certainly, whatever the reason, this is a clear trend. Now, that allows me to make a transition to Nelly, who will really talk about what is at the center of this study, the notion of well-being. And I'd like to once again highlight the fact that we made that choice to focus on well-being very deliberately. All of you who have been following the discourse on migration and development will realize that very often that discourse, those debates, focus on fairly abstract notions. We talk about migrants and their impact on migration, but we talk on their impact on GMP, for instance. We talk about their impact on employment, on wage levels, then we look at their remittances and we try to understand whether there's remittances lead to sustainable development in countries of origin. In all of that, there's a very real danger of losing sight of the human beings. So to us, the notion of well-being was a concept that enabled us to make that return, to find that new focus. And so this is where our report asks the question, does migration really make a difference to the lives of the migrants? When they leave home and they go somewhere else, what happens to them? And no, we didn't want to do that in the abstract, but we wanted to focus very much on their personal, individual well-being. And this is where our partner Gallup helped us in finding the answers we were looking for.