 My presentation is, as I just said, about the regional level of migration governance, and the topic is analytical framework for regional migration governance in Africa. And I will talk about key features, patterns, and impacts in the ECOWAS and the regions. I will briefly talk about the structure of the presentation. I will first provide a background on the research project, my presentation is related to, or the topic is related to. Then I will briefly elaborate on two migration plans in the two case study regions. And then I will come to the centerpiece of the presentation, which is migration governance at the regional level. And I will first talk about some conceptual requirements and challenges. And I will present the framework on regional analysis for regional migration governance. And afterwards, I will slightly reply the framework in talking about how migration governance manifests itself at the ECOWAS regions. And afterwards, I will conclude with a group of them. I shall also say it's not only my research. I'm talking about actually its research I've done together with Benjamin. So I'm the one who's presenting that on afterwards questions and into both of us. OK, I come to the project background. The title of the project, both of us are working for at the moment, is reducing the root causes of post-spasement and managing migration, local and regional perspectives. The project is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, Schwarz-Puze. And it has a total duration of three years and it has started at the beginning of this year, meaning also that we are still relatively at the beginning of our work in that project. The project has two components. One is about the multi-dimensional analysis of the causes of post-spasement. And the second one is on regional migration governance. And as you may guess from the red writing or mark, that's the one I will focus on now, regional migration governance using the two case that I already mentioned when we go us and we got regions. What are the main questions we are focusing on in our research? The first is, what are current migration trends and their impacts in the case of the region? Regions. The second is, what are the institutional setups and processes of regional migration governance? And the third is, who are the engulfed actors and their interests? And what kind of interactions can be observed between regional, national, and also sub-national levels of migration governance? So very broadly speaking, we're interested in two aspects. On one hand, we're looking at the effects or the effectiveness of regional migration governance. And second, to go a step further, we're also doing a more normative manner and interested in the implications for undeveloped cooperation. What could be recommendations that can be given to funders such as the PMZ and also others? In terms of the methodology, we use mixed qualitative methodology and we are using analysis of policy documents. We're doing expert interviews and also observations from obviously also this review of secondary literature on the top. Now I come to the migration trends in the two case study regions, starting with IGAT. In the IGAT region, we can see that more than 50% of international migration occurs within the region. But apart from this, there are also quite large flows up to the Middle East and Europe. The IGAT region is among the major refugee and producing and hosting regions in the world. And so there are really large flows of refugees, but even higher flow of internally displaced people. You can also see this by the fact that some other countries, such as Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda, among the top 10 refugee hosting countries in the world. Now in terms of IGAT, and we see here in terms of migration patterns, we see a larger level of intra-regional migration, which has already been mentioned by Professor Abundina. And it's extremely large in the IGAT region, more than 90% of migration is occurring within the region. We have longstanding patterns of seasonal and circular migration, and also very light importance of extremism. This is also important in the IGAT regions that it's even more mentioned for IGAT. And Nigeria and Ivory Coast are two of the longstanding magnets in the region, but the region has also seen some changing developments. Now I come to the main aspect, which is regional migration governance and analysis of it. I'm talking about some conceptual requisites for the management and I work confronted with, or also thinking about, we wanted that actually all phases of the policy cycle are somehow attended to and covered in our framework of analysis, meaning the framework looks at the gender setting, looks at policies, implementation, but also I think ends. Then we thought it was important to also attend to institutional capacities and the differential gender setting power, which is included in regional migration governance. And we also thought we wanted this framework to have both descriptive and also explanatory qualities. So the challenge we encountered when developing it was that we were actually through models for analyzing regional level migration and governance. And these very few models come to look at it in part in a compressing manner. We wanted to work on how to do it. There are existing frameworks, but they either at norms or at institutional capacity is called institutional effectiveness, but not really all the aspects we were interested in. So as a result, we inspired ourselves by different sources, but in schools of thought, and put together rather interactive things for a moment. That's what I would like to present now. This is on the framework. And what you can see here is all the main criteria we are looking at, then what we call sub-criteria or sub-questions, small detail aspects we attend to within the framework and also the rationale of both criteria and sub-criteria. I will briefly present on the criteria. It's on the first one, there's foundational factors. So to what degree basically has migration an important issue of policy making in the history of the respective organization, also to see whether migration somehow holds public institutional identity, or we would call it. Then the second aspect is institutional capacities and acting actors. So we were looking at structures and processes and to what degree there are specific structures and processes for migration related purposes and policies, and also the relationship between member states and the respective influence of external actors, for instance, donor agencies. The third criteria is on the long-term approach. So we were interested then to what degree does the regional organization take or what degree has affected international norms, global norms of migration, and also does it rather orient itself by rights-oriented, narrative or approach, or rather movement issues, rather than migration problem issues, or what does it have more security problems. And the last criteria is transferred into policies, written policies, and practices, and that's what I've already said on terms of the policy cycle. Not only in the normative level, but also to what degree these norms are actually observed and implemented on the ground. Now I will briefly provide examples or illustrate on the analysis framework by elaborating on IGOT and ICUBUS and on how these different criteria apply for them, coming to the foundational factors. In terms of IGOT, one can say there's a relatively recent focus on migration. The historical policy focus has been on the issues on broad development, on that was the foundational issue, but also on security issues, which is not surprising given problems on the region. This experience has been experiencing already in the last decade. And the migration program only started in 2008. In terms of IGOTUS, this is very different. Migration has been important from the very beginning of starting with the movement on proper code and has been a policy issue almost as long as the organization itself has been existing. And migration is also always being and it was strongly related also to the regional development and integration agenda. So quite different experiences in the two regions. Coming to the institutional capacities issue, we see for the case of IGOT, the organization has an all migration program. That's the main operational structure. However, it does not have a mandate for decision-making on behalf of the members of the states. So you can say it has a very strong intergovernmentalist orientation as opposed to a sub-nationalist one. We'll come to this aspect just a minute. And it also shows quite unequal power relations within the organization itself. Informal said, if you're just running the show, that's just very briefly to point it out. And IGOT's policy agenda and migration is also heavily influenced by external interests and funding, particularly from the side of the EU. In terms of ECUBUS, it's again different. The organization has worked with strong decision-making competencies. Since 2005, the secret character has become a commission and has been higher enforcement and implementation competencies. So you can say, in contrast to IGOT, with this intergovernmentalist orientation, IGUBUS has a sub-nationalist orientation, again, being able to take decisions on behalf of the members of the states. There are also different unequal power relations in IGUBUS or differential differences, particularly manifesting in the leadership role of Nigeria. In total, one can say the European migration agenda is a little bit less influential, even though it also does have influence with IGUBUS. Third point, the normative approach, starting in IGOT again, the main strategic or policy documents, which are regional migration policy framework work and the action plan, such as quite a comprehensive approach. If you look at discussions and what cases are made in the discussions, one can say that there's quite a tension between external very security and control, migration control focused interests, and rather migration and development related interests on the public member states. But that's quite complex. And for the case of IGUBUS, one can say that it's probably a more comprehensive approach. There's quite a comprehensive movement with a freedom and protocol with three subsequent phases, which consists of the entry, right of residence, and right of establishment, respectively. And also the common approach, there's a common approach to migration and development that's been introduced or formulated in 2008, and that includes also migration and refugee rights in the agenda. Coming to the last point, transfer into policies and practices. And that's probably the category where we can find most similarities between the two regional organizations. The case of IGUBUS, one can say, even though there are quite impressive policies and quite comprehensive ones in terms of migration, there is very little to stay down on the original policies on domestic migration policies and management. There are very big, generally speaking, national migration policy frameworks in almost all member states or non-existent. But nevertheless, one can talk about an increasing programming at the regional level. Now in the case of IGUBUS, I'm looking again at the free movement protocol that we mentioned already twice. The third phase of the free movement protocol remains still to be implemented, although this originally was intended for much earlier from more than 25 years ago. So there is also quite some implementation standing out. Also, the implementation of the regional labor and environmental policy for the support of the regional labor market is still outstanding. OK, I come to the conclusion. And the outlook, in terms of the framework, I think I could somehow show it allows quite an encompassing analysis of regional migration governance. It also allows to identify and contrast important elements and determinants of regional migration governance and looking more at the application and its application in the IGUBUS and IGUBUS regions. One can say that in spite of the important incremental differences partly between the two regions, there are also certain commonalities that can be observed, particularly on the one relating to the implementation challenges. And that's more something which is definitely an outlook. Ideally, we hope that the framework provides the basis for addressing gaps on problem areas and the regional and also other levels of migration governance in the near future. We will see. Thank you very much.