The latest edition of the UN World Data Forum took place between November 12th to 15th in Medellin, Colombia. With over a 100 sessions spanning across the three days, there were over 3000 participants from the data community, building the momentum achieved in previous forums through the Cape Town Global Action Plan for Sustainable Development Data (2017), the Dubai Declaration (2018), and the Hangzhou Declaration (2023).
Aapti Institute co-organised two sessions at the forum—a panel discussion and an announcement session under thematic area 4, ‘Effective Partnerships for Better Data and a more Equitable Data Ecosystem’.
For our panel on ‘Building Synergies in the Migration Data Ecosystem’, we convened discussants working at the intersection of human migration, mobility data and digital infrastructure. The objective of the discussion was to deliberate on how pathways for enhancing data flows between stakeholders in human migration can be created, while foregrounding the rights and self-determination of people on the move. The composition of our panel was as follows:
Speakers:
Dr Stefaan Verhulst, Co-Founder of The GovLab
Dr Aaron Martin, Assistant Professor of Data Science and Media Studies
Mariana Rozo-Paz, Policy, Research and Project Management Lead at the Datasphere Initiative
Rohan Pai, Research Associate, Aapti Institute
Moderator:
Soujanya Sridharan, Senior Manager, Aapti Institute
Each panelist was given 5-6 minutes to present their work, and this was followed by a 30-minute panel discussion and time for questions from the audience.
Presentations:
Rohan presented Aapti’s research on migration data infrastructures over the last year—breaking down the impact of digital interactions for people on the move. Showcasing examples from migration corridors we studied, such as the forced displacement of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar to Bangladesh, and international student mobility from India to Germany, we highlighted how non-traditional data sources collected through digital mechanisms lead to the creation of data assemblages for migration management. However, migrant or refugee involvement in the creation of data assemblages is often restricted, limiting self-determination and leaving migration decision-making in the hands of powerful actors like states, multilaterals and commercial actors.
Stefaan complemented this by expanding on digital self-determination (DSD), highlighting how there is a growing asymmetry in data collection and people’s agency to find out how their data is being processed. Inequitable power structures, lack of data autonomy and a lack of trust in deployers of technology make it difficult to think of processes through which consent can be gathered in migration contexts, where communities remain most vulnerable. Operationalising DSD will require policies for the implementation of social licenses to manage consent for the use of data commons, processes to re-use data through citizen data assemblies, and reimagining how accountability sinks can be prevented by professionalising the function of a data steward—making data governance bottom-up.
From here, we expanded the scope of the discussion, moving from looking at data use to the recent expansion of digital infrastructure in the migration space by focusing on AI in humanitarian aid and the growing proliferation of digital identity systems.
Aaron covered his recent work on advancing migrants’ identification needs in digital identity wallet policy and technology design within the EU. Offering his views on how migrants and refugees have uneven digital experiences, he brought attention to the fact that the design of digital identity wallets have significant implications for specific groups. For instance, the lack of appropriate hardware like smartphones with certain capabilities, and ambiguities around an EU-wide institution which will provide stateless communities with foundational access to attain a digital wallet are missing pieces of the puzzle in EU digital wallet policy. Politics and ideologies of states often come into play, and the EU’s push for digital sovereignty in public infrastructure will have implications for data privacy and protection. Lastly, he highlighted how humanitarian organisations have access to diverse information through on-ground operations, and ensuring the confidentiality of this data is maintained and protected from misuse by data-hungry AI models is the need of the hour.
Mariana presented the Digital Identity Inclusion Assessment Framework she developed with colleagues at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center. She added a much needed local perspective by highlighting how the framework can be applied to deconstruct some of the emerging challenges in Colombia, with the unexpected influx of Venezuelan migrants that are escaping the crisis in their country. Historically, being a region that has only dealt with outward migration, state and administrative institutions within Colombia lack the capacity to facilitate the integration of Venezuelan refugees into their digital identity infrastructure. Given current global migration trends and the challenges of including and protecting the human rights of people on the move, the presentation underscored the importance of fostering digital public infrastructure (DPI) that prioritise inclusion and accessibility, particularly for vulnerable populations navigating migration and displacement.
Questions from audience:
How do you think the concept of social licensing could have been applied to the recent disaster caused by the flash floods in Valencia?
Stefaan: Many city corporations were collecting extensive data that could have proved to be invaluable for forecasting and managing disaster relief. However, this data often remains siloed within individual organisations, limiting its potential impact. By fostering a culture of collaboration and data sharing, and integrating this shared data in forecasting could have improved outcomes for affected communities.
How do you think about delegated consent for stateless communities?
Stefaan: International law often leaves migrant and stateless communities with limited avenues to represent themselves, restricting their ability to collectivise and bargain for essential social protections. This challenge makes it difficult for these groups to advocate effectively for their rights and interests. However, multilaterals can play a critical role by championing digital self-determination, enabling communities to actively participate in shaping policies and decisions that impact them.
Additionally, over and above the questions mentioned, there was plenty post-panel discussion around the application of speakers’ insights to emerging migration debates in various geopolitical contexts. The conversation was alive to the changing realities of migration policy, given the results of the recently concluded US presidential elections and upcoming electoral considerations in the EU context.
Takeaways from the discussion:
State and policy machinery: Migratory experiences are diverse, and policy and regulation from states needs to acknowledge this to ensure migration management is inclusive and equitable. Due to differing needs and vulnerabilities, states need to actively create pathways to enable bottom-up governance of migration data. Data stewardship and social licensing are processes through which digital-self determination can be operationalised in migration contexts, but this is hinged on states and policymakers creating an enabling environment to promote these mechanisms.
Humanitarian and multilateral organisation: These actors often bridge the gap between states and migrant communities, and will have to set the example by implementing standards for advanced data protection in the age of AI, that can be replicated by states and policymakers alike. As suggested by the Datasphere Initiative, there is potential for sandboxes as tools to experiment with and advance the development of responsible DPI, and international organisations can play a role by ensuring there is participation from refugees and migrants when these technologies are being tested.
Next Steps:
We are planning to continue our research in this domain, with a specific focus on understanding the implications of growing sources of non-traditional data in the migration context, and what this could mean for migrants and refugees who are often unaware of ongoing data collection. Similarly, we will be expanding our focus to look into the practices of international organisations such as multilaterals and humanitarian agencies to analyse their data governance models, and tracking DPI efforts from nation-states.
We plan to hold online and in-person convenings on specific topics at the migration and technology intersection through our Community-of-Practice. The details are available here, make sure you sign up if you are interested!
We will be hosting two sessions at RightsCon 2025, on community-led migration technology initiatives and the border-industrial complex. Reach out to us here for further details!
Comments