COVID-19 Crisis Through a Migration Lens

The economic crisis induced by COVID - 19 (Coronavirus) could be long, deep, and pervasive when viewed through amigration lens. Lockdowns, travel bans, and social distancing have brought global economic activities to a near standstill. Host countries face additional challenges in many sectors, such as health and agriculture, that depend on the availability of migrant workers. Migrants face the risk of contagion and also the possible loss of employment, wages, and health insurance coverage. This Migration and Development Brief provides a prognosis of how these events might affect global trends in international economic migration and remittances in 2020 and 2021. Considering that migrants tend to be concentrated in urban economic centers (cities), and are vulnerable to infection by the coronavirus, there is a need to include migrants in efforts to fight thecoronavirus. Migrant remittances provide an economic lifeline to poor households in many countries; a reduction in remittance flows could increase poverty and reduce households’ access to much‐needed health services. The crisis could exacerbate xenophobic, discriminatory treatment of migrants, which calls for greater vigilance against such practices. This Brief is largely focused on international migrants, but governments should not ignore the plight of internal migrants. The magnitude of internal migration is about two - and - a - half times that of international migration. Lockdowns, loss of employment, and social distancing prompted a chaotic and painful process of mass return for internal migrants in India and many countries in Latin America. Thus, the COVID‐19 (Coronavirus) containment measures might have contributed to spreading the epidemic. Governments need to address the challenges facing internal migrants by including them in health services and cashtransfer and other social programs, and protecting them from discrimination.

i Summary This Migration and Development Brief provides updates on global trends in migration and remittances. It highlights developments related to migration-related Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators for which the World Bank is a custodian: increasing the volume of remittances as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) (SDG indicator 17.3.2), reducing remittance costs (SDG indicator 10.c.1), and reducing recruitment costs for migrant workers (SDG indicator 10.7.1).
The economic crisis induced by COVID-19 could be long, deep, and pervasive when viewed through a migration lens. In October 2020, COVID-19 case numbers rose again to surpass 44 million. The number of fatalities surpassed 1.1 million. A recurrence of COVID-19 phases accompanied by lockdowns, travel bans, and social distancing cannot be ruled out well into 2021. Although economic activities and employment levels around the world have rebounded to varying degrees from the depths reached in the second quarter (Q2) of 2020, they are still far from the pre-crisis levels, and the near-term outlook remains uncertain.
For the first time in recent history, the stock of international migrants is likely to decline in 2020, as new migration has slowed and return migration has increased. Initially the lockdowns and travel bans left many migrant workers stranded in their host countries, unable to travel back. More recently, however, return migration has been reported in all parts of the world. Furthermore, rising unemployment in the face of tighter visa and mobility restrictions is likely to result in a further increase in return migration.
The adverse effects of the crisis in terms of loss of jobs and earnings, and exposure to and sickness from COVID-19, has been disproportionately high for migrants, especially for those in informal sectors and lower-skilled jobs. Having jobs has not shielded migrant workers from suffering income losses during the crisis. Anecdotal reports suggest that migrants, especially those living in dormitories or camps, are particularly vulnerable to the risk of infection from the COVID-19 virus.
Based on the trajectory of economic activities in large migrant-hosting countries, especially the United States, European countries, and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, remittance flows to low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are projected to decline by 7.2 percent, to $508 billion in 2020, followed by a further decline of 7.5 percent, to $470 billion in 2021. The projected declines in remittances are the steepest in recent history, and steeper than the 5 percent decline recorded during the 2009 global recession. The foremost factors driving the decline in remittances are weak economic growth and employment situation in migrant-hosting countries, a weak oil price, and exchange rates of the currencies of remittance-source countries against the US dollar.
This outlook for remittances indicates a more gradual but prolonged decline (continuing into 2021) than our April outlook, which forecast a sharper decline in 2020 followed by a modest recovery in 2021. The outlook for remittances remains uncertain and will depend on the impact of COVID-19 on global growth. This is linked, in turn, to uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of efforts to restrain the spread of the disease.
Monthly or quarterly data on remittances reveal a common intra-year pattern in 2020: a sharp decline in April and May followed by a slow but partial recovery. Most countries, notably those in Europe and Central Asia, registered steep declines in remittances in the second quarter of the year. There was a recovery in remittance flows starting June. Following the hiatus of April and May, it appears that some ii migrants drew on their savings to send money home, but that cannot be sustained for long. Another likely reason for the observed partial recovery of remittance flows in June is a shift in flows from informal (unrecorded) hand-carrying to formal (recorded) remittance channels. This is especially true in the case of higher-skilled migrant workers with access to digital remittance services. A third reason is that some migrants were able to access cash transfers offered by host country governments. Three large recipients of remittances-Mexico, Pakistan, and Bangladesh-stand out as exceptions to the pattern mentioned above: these countries escaped a decline in Q2 and seem to register increases in Q3.
Even though remittance flows will decline in 2020, their relative importance as a source of external financing for LMICs is expected to increase. Remittance flows to LMICs touched a record high of $548 billion in 2019, larger than foreign direct investment (FDI) flows ($534 billion) and overseas development assistance (about $166 billion). The gap between remittance flows and FDI is expected to widen further in 2020 as FDI is expected to decline more sharply than remittances.
The declines in 2020 and 2021 will affect all regions, with the steepest drop expected in Europe and Central Asia (by 16 percent and 8 percent, respectively), followed by East Asia and the Pacific (11 percent and 4 percent), the Middle East and North Africa (8 percent and 8 percent), Sub-Saharan Africa (9 percent and 6 percent), South Asia (4 percent and 11 percent), and Latin America and the Caribbean (0.2 percent and 8 percent).
Beyond humanitarian considerations, providing migrants access to housing and health care is necessary to keep host communities safe from the pandemic. Migrants are on the frontline, saving people from COVID-19 in hospitals and science labs. They are also on the frontline in stores and restaurants, farms and factories, keeping these businesses running. Also, it is worth noting that every dollar spent on supporting a migrant is likely to increase remittances and thereby support many poor people in distant countries.
Government policy responses, especially the provision of access to health care, housing, and education, should be inclusive of migrants in host countries and their families in origin countries. Stranded migrants need help from governments and the development community in both host and transit countries. Migrant workers may need protection from abuse or wage theft by unscrupulous employers. Origin countries must find ways of supporting returning migrants in resettling, finding jobs, or opening businesses. Many host countries and origin countries would require grants or concessional financing from third parties to provide support to migrants from other countries.
Also, governments must support the remittance infrastructure, including recognizing remittance services as essential, reducing the burden of remittance fees on migrants, incentivizing digital money transfers, and mitigating factors that prevent customers or service providers of digital remittances from accessing banking services. The governments of the United Kingdom and Switzerland, as well as IFAD, UNCDF, and the World Bank have issued calls to action to keep remittances flowing.
Finally, the crisis has exposed significant data gaps that have prevented real-time monitoring of remittance flows and migratory movements, including of stranded migrants and returning migrants. There is a pressing need to improve relevant data collection systems. The World Bank, through the Global Knowledge Program on Migration and Development (KNOMAD), is launching an International Working Group on Improving Data on Remittances in collaboration with National Statistical Offices, iii central banks, and selected international organizations to improve data on remittances and international cooperation in the collection and dissemination of data. iv 1. Evolving COVID Situation and Its Impact on Migration

Resurgence of COVID-19 in Major Migrant-Hosting Countries
In October 2020, COVID19 case numbers rose again in many countries, especially in the migrant-hosting countries, notably the United States and Europe (figure 1.1, first panel). On October 27, 2020, the number of cases surpassed 44 million and the number of fatalities surpassed 1.1 million. The virus has affected people in every country.
Judging from the experiences of the Spanish Flu a century ago, a recurrence of COVID-19 phases in major migrant-hosting countries cannot be ruled out well into 2021. In Migration and Development Brief 32 (World Bank 2020c), we pointed out that the Spanish Flu in 1918-1920 lasted two years; it had three distinct phases: phase 2 of the Spanish Flu was the deadliest, followed by a phase 3 which had a higher mortality rate than in phase 1 (figure 1.1, second panel).

Figure 1.1 Recent Upsurge in COVID-19 Cases in the United States and Euro Area Mirrors the Spanish Flu in 1918-1920
Source: Spanish flu data are based on Taubenberger and Morens (2006, 15); COVID-19 data are from the Johns Hopkins University COVID Resource Center.

Impact on Migrants
Travel restrictions, lockdowns and social distancing measures imposed in response to COVID-19 have inflicted enormous adverse effects on lives and livelihoods. An estimated 88-115 million persons are thrown back into severe poverty as a result of the economic crisis (World Bank 2020a). 1 Although by October, economic activities and employment levels around the world have rebounded to varying degrees from the depths reached in Q2, they are still far from the pre-crisis levels, and the near-term outlook remains uncertain.
The adverse effects of the crisis in terms of loss of jobs and earnings, exposure and sickness from COVID-19, has been disproportionately high for migrants, especially for those in informal sectors and  United Kingdom. 1918-20 lower-skilled jobs. In times of crisis, migrants tend to be more vulnerable to risks of unemployment than native-born workers. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the share of the working-age population with jobs fell by 4.0 percentage points, to 64.8 percent, in the second quarter of 2020, the lowest since the fourth quarter of 2010 (OECD 2020a). 2 Highfrequency data are not available on employment levels of foreign workers in most countries. Anecdotally, however, foreign workers have lost jobs in relatively larger numbers. In the United States, for example, compared to the pre-crisis level of February 2020, the employment level of foreign-born workers declined by 21 percent in April, sharper than the 14 percent decline in the employment of native-born workers (figure 1.2). Since then, although the employment level has improved for both categories of workers, it is still down by 12 percent for foreign-born workers (and by 5 percent for the native-born workers). (The recovery has been somewhat stronger for Hispanic workers, which has helped keep remittances flowing to the LAC region.) Having jobs has not shielded workers from suffering income losses during the crisis. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), global labor income losses (before considering income support measures) declined by 10.7 percent during the first three quarters of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. The estimated income losses amounted to $3.5 trillion, or 5.5 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) (ILO 2020). The loss of wages and earnings was likely higher for migrant workers. Again, there is a paucity of high-frequency data on earnings of foreign workers. Looking at historical data from the United States, during the 2009 global recession, the earnings of foreign born as percent of native born fell from 79.9 percent in 2008 to 79.1 percent in 2009 and 77.5 percent in 2010.
Migrants working in the informal sector and irregular (undocumented) migrants are particularly vulnerable during this crisis. Not only are they suffering from a loss of income and employment, but also, they are excluded from social security and cash transfer programs implemented by host country governments. As such they are more vulnerable to income loss and poverty during the COVID-19 crisis, as we have seen in the case of Venezuelans in Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador or of South Asian migrant workers in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. On top of this, anecdotal reports suggest that migrants living in dormitories or camps, are more vulnerable to the risk of infection from the COVID-19 virus. 3 Migrant workers tend to be in essential occupations that cannot be undertaken from home. According to the OECD, in three-quarters of OECD countries, the share of immigrants able to telework is at least 5 percentage points below that of their native counterparts (OECD 2020b). In the United States, 57 percent of all workers in building, grounds cleaning and maintenance were foreign born; nearly one-third of workers in service occupations (including food preparation and serving, personal care, transportation) were foreign born in 2019.
As new migration flow is reduced to a trickle and return migration surges, 2020 may well become the first year in recent decades to mark an actual fall in the stock of international migrants. Amid travel bans and restrictions on cross-border mobility set in place since March 2020 in several countries, a smaller number of people crossed borders during the first six months of 2020. According to the provisional results of Germany's migration statistics, the number of people arriving in the first half of 2020 was down 29 percent (Destatis 2020). Australia predicts that net migration numbers will fall from 154,000 in the 2019-20 financial year to a net loss of 72,000 in 2020-21, a first since World War II (SBS News 2020). According to the OECD International Migration Outlook 2020, issuances of new visas and permits in OECD countries fell by 46 percent in the first half of 2020 compared with the same period in 2019, registering the largest drop ever recorded (OECD 2020c).
Also, cross-border movement of refugees and asylum seekers seems to have declined due to the crisis, although more recent data are not yet available. The number of first-time asylum seekers to the 27 European Union countries (EU-27) fell from a peak of around 162,050in October 2015 to around 29,415 in August2020 (figure 1.3). The number of persons awaiting a decision on their asylum cases fell from about 1.2 million in September 2016 to just around 0.34 million in August 2020. According to the UNHCR, as of June 2020, there were around 79.5 million forcibly displaced persons around the world (box 1.1).

Figure 1.3 First-Time and Pending Asylum Applications in the EU-27
Source: Eurostat. According to the UNHCR, as of June 2020, there were around 79.5 million forcibly displaced persons around the world including 26 million refugees, 45.7 million internally displaced persons (IDPs), 4.2 million asylum seekers, and 3.6 million Venezuelans displaced abroad. 4 More than two-thirds of all refugees and Venezuelans displaced abroad came from just five countries: Syria (6.6 million), Venezuela (3.6 million), Afghanistan (2.7 million), South Sudan ( Even as new migration flows and refugee movements have declined, the crisis has led to an increase in return migration. Initially the lockdowns and travel bans left many migrant workers stranded in their host countries, unable to travel back. More recently, however, return migration has been reported in all parts of the world. Many international migrants, especially from the GCC countries, returned to countries such as India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Some migrants had to be evacuated by governments. For instance, India repatriated over 600,000 stranded migrants using special flights and shipping vessels. According to some reports, Egypt faces the specter of growing return migration, with estimates suggesting up to 1 million returning (Cairo Review 2020; OECD 2020d). According to the Philippine Overseas Labor Office, over 230,000 overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) were repatriated to the Philippines as of early October, representing about one-tenth of workers overseas and almost 50 percent of workers who lost their jobs. About 120,000 migrant workers (over 10 percent of Cambodian workers in Thailand) are said to have returned from Thailand to Cambodia. The Ukrainian government claimed in April that 2 million Ukrainian working abroad had returned to the country due to the pandemic. Tajikistan also reported that the number of returning migrant workers rose sharply in February and March from Kazakhstan and Russia, which account for more than 90 percent of migrants. Official numbers from Colombia stated that 113,000 Venezuelans had returned to Venezuela by the first week of October.

Box 1.1 Refugee Movements and Forced Displacements
The surge in return migration is likely to prove burdensome for the communities (to which migrants return) as they must provide quarantine facilities in the immediate term and support housing, jobs, and reintegration efforts in the medium term. 6 Furthermore, rising unemployment in the face of tighter visa and mobility restrictions is likely to result in a further increase in return migration. Already in 2019, the number of potential (involuntary) returnees had risen to over 6 million in the European Union and 4.5 million in the United States and (figure 1.4). (Potential returnees include other-country nationals refused entry at the border; and "undocumented detected", that is, other-country nationals "illegally" present within the borders of the jurisdiction. See World Bank (2017) for a methodology and explanation of these data.) In Europe, the increase in potential returnees was mainly a result of asylum applications filed in 2015 that were subsequently rejected. 7 In the United States, the increase was a result of increased enforcement of immigration regulations and detection of undocumented persons in 2019 (figure 1.5). 8

Figure 1.4 Potential Returnees Have Risen in the European Union and United States, 2009-19
Source: Calculations using data from Eurostat and Department of Homeland Security. Note: Asylum seekers are first-time asylum applicants from non-EU-28 countries. Undocumented detected stock t = undocumented detected stock t-1 + new undocumented detected t -returned T .

Remittance Flows Are Expected to Decline in 2020 and 2021
Based on the trajectory of economic activities in many large, migrant-hosting countries, especially the United States, European countries, and the GCC countries, remittance flows to LMICs are expected to register a decline of 7.2 percent to $508 billion in 2020, followed by a further decline of 7.5 percent to $470 billion in 2021 (figure 1.6 and table 1.1). The projected decline in remittances will be the steepest in recent history, certainly steeper than the decline (less than 5 percent) recorded during the global recession of 2009. This outlook for remittances indicates a more gradual but more prolonged decline (continuing into 2021) than our April outlook (see World Bank 2020c), which forecast a sharper decline in 2020 followed by a modest recovery in 2021. 9 Despite the projected decline, the importance of remittances as a source of external financing for the LMICs is expected to increase further in 2020. 10 Remittances flows to LMICs touched a record high of $548 billion in 2019, larger than foreign direct investment (FDI) flows ($534 billion) and overseas development assistance (ODA, around $166 billion) (figure 1.6). 11 The gap between remittance flows and FDI is expected to widen further as the decline in FDI is expected to be sharper (box 1.2).
According to these projections, in 2020, in current US dollar terms, the top remittance recipient countries are expected to be India, China, Mexico, the Philippines, and Egypt, unchanged from 2019 (figure 1.7). As a share of GDP for 2020, the top five recipients would be smaller economies, including Tonga, Haiti, Lebanon, South Sudan, and Tajikistan.

Box 1.2 FDI Flows to Decline in 2020
FDI flows to LMICs are projected to decrease by nearly 32 percent in 2020 in the wake of the global pandemic, from their 2019 volume of $531 billion. Available data show a decline of 37 percent year-onyear in Q2 2020 and 32 percent in the first half of 2020. Nearly all developing countries, notably China (-17 percent), India (-36 percent), Indonesia (-39 percent) and Russia (-86 percent) have experienced a sharp drop in FDI inflows during the first half of this year. The global lockdown measures have affected the implementation of existing investment projects. Lower corporate profits due to the pandemic are likely to have reduced reinvested earnings, which account for a significant portion of FDI. In addition, the prospect of a severe global recession is likely to prompt multinational companies to reassess new projects in developing countries. Indeed, both new greenfield investment project announcements and cross-border mergers and acquisitions declined by more than 50 percent in the first months of 2020 from a year ago. FDI flows to developing countries have steadily declined since 2013 (with the exception of 2018), and they could remain below pre-pandemic through 2021.

Figure 1.7 Top Remittance Recipients in 2020e
Sources: World Bank staff estimates, World Development Indicators, IMF Balance of Payments Statistics. Note: The top recipient countries include several high-income countries such as France and Germany (not shown in the figure), but as a share of GDP, remittance flows to these countries are negligible. GDP = gross domestic product.
The foremost factor driving the decline in remittances in 2020 and 2021 is weak economic growth and employment situation in large migrant-hosting countries such as the United States and Europe. This has been discussed in detail in the previous section, but it is worth repeating that the weak employment situation in high-income countries will continue to dampen employment and earning prospects for migrant workers and therefore remittance flows to LMICs.
A second factor affecting remittance flows is weak oil price. The economies of GCC countries and Russia-major sources of remittances to South Asia, South-East Asia and Central Asia-are highly dependent on oil price (figure 1.8). Outward remittances from Russia seem to have a direct correlation with cyclical movements in oil price. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the correlation is less visible at a quarterly frequency, but the long-term effects are present; a continued weakness in oil price has affected economic activities and hence employment of foreign workers, and outward remittances have been falling since 2015. A more structural factor in the case of Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries is a shift in their employment policies that favor employment of native-born workers. In the medium term, outward remittance flows from the GCC countries are unlikely to increase significantly. A third factor affecting the flow of remittances is the exchange rate (vis-à-vis US dollar) of the source currency for remittances. The weakening of the ruble against the US dollar, by over 26 percent since the beginning of 2020, has reduced remittances from Russia in US dollar terms. Remittances to Central Asia has therefore declined significantly.
Among the regions, ECA is expected to register the sharpest decline, by 16percent in 2020 (figure 1.9 and table 1.1). The weakening of the Euro and other currencies against the US dollar will also reduce remittances originating from Europe and other migrant-hosting countries. (Note that South-South migration is larger than South-North migration, and intra-regional migration accounts for over two-third of international migration in Sub-Saharan Africa.). Remittance flows to Latin America and the Caribbean region are expected to decline by 0.2percent in 2020. A more detailed description of regional trends in migration and remittance flows is provided in Section 2 below.

Figure 1.9 Projected Growth of Remittances by Region, 2020
Source: World Bank-KNOMAD staff estimates.
The current outlook for remittance flows indicates that by the end of 2021, remittance flows to LMICs would decline by over 14 percent, only slightly lower than the 15 percent decline projected in April. The current outlook indicates a trajectory of more gradual but prolonged decline continuing into 2021 than our April outlook of a sharp decline of 20 percent in 2020 followed by a modest recovery in 2021. Nevertheless, the intra-year variations in remittance flows in 2020 merit further analysis.

Intra-year patterns in 2020
For most countries where monthly or quarterly data on remittances are available, data reveal a common intra-year pattern: a sharp decline in April and May (the initial crisis months marked by abrupt, pervasive and chaotic lockdowns, travel bans and disruption to remittance services) followed by a slow but partial recovery (figure 1.10). Most countries, notably those in ECA, registered steep declines in remittances in Q2. Remittances to LAC also dropped abruptly in the first few months after the Covid-19 outbreak. The foremost reason for a recovery in remittance flows starting June was a catch-up after the hiatus of April and May-even as migrants (especially lower-skilled or irregular migrants) suffered a loss of income or employment, their families back home needed support. Anecdotally, some migrants drew on their savings to send money home, but that cannot be sustained for long. A second reason is likely to be a shift in flows from informal (unrecorded) hand-carrying to formal (recorded) remittance channels. This is especially true in the case of higher-skilled migrant workers with access to digital remittance services. A third reason is that some migrants, were able to access cash transfers offered by some host country governments. 12 However, while documented migrants would have access to the stimulus support undocumented migrants would not. Three large recipients of remittances Mexico ($39 billion in 2019), Pakistan ($22 billion) and Bangladesh (18 billion) stand out as exceptions to the general pattern mentioned above-these countries escaped a decline in remittance inflows in Q2 and seem to register increases in Q3. In the case of Mexico, a sharp rise in remittance flows observed in the first quarter of 2020 may have been triggered by a 25 percent depreciation of the peso against the US dollar (figure 1.11). For Mexican migrants in the United States, a weaker peso provided a strong incentive to remit more to take advantage of lower prices (in US dollar terms) of goods and assets in Mexico. 13 Over 90 percent of Mexican migrants are in the United States and many of them who have resident status or legal work permit may have had access to social protection measures offered by the United States. However, a weak employment situation in the United States-employment of Hispanics declined by 5 million in April-is likely to dampen remittance flows in the near future ( figure 1.11). In the case of Pakistan, there was a sharp increase in remittances in July, mostly from the GCC countries, particularly from Saudi Arabia (figure 1.12). Arguably this spike in remittances could be at least partially attributed to "Haj effect"-Pakistani migrants remitting home the money saved for pilgrimage to Mecca due to a sharp reduction in the number of Haj visas to contain the pandemic. In 2019, more than 1.8 million foreigners made the Haj, whereas this year only local residents (formally 1,000) were permitted.
In addition, the government's efforts to attract remittances and migrants' savings through tax incentives may be working although the program is yet to be evaluated. 14 The "Haj effect" seems to have affected remittance flows to Bangladesh as well in July 2020. But perhaps a more important reason for a whopping 53.5 percent year-on-year increase in remittance flows in Q3 was the damage from the floods that inundated more than a quarter of the country's landmass, nearly a million homes and affected 4.7 million people. Other plausible explanations include pent-up remittances after the shutdown in Q2 and a shift in flows from informal to formal channels.  A closer look at data by source countries for remittances to Pakistan reveals that even remittances from the GCC countries, in particular, from Saudi Arabia has been either flat or declining for the past three years, perhaps reflecting the indigenization policy mentioned earlier. A second interesting trend is a decoupling of flows from the US and the UK this year and a sharp increase in flows from Europe starting Q2, perhaps reflecting the relocation of money transfer operators to outside the UK after Brexit ( figure  1.13). More recently, remittance inflows form the US declined sharply in Q3, reflecting the weak employment situation in the US.  The SDG target rate of 3% The cost was the lowest in South Asia, at around 5 percent, while Sub-Saharan Africa continued to have the highest average cost, at about 8.5 percent (figure 1.15). Remittance costs across many African corridors and small islands in the Pacific remain above 10 percent.

Recent Progress toward Migration-Related Sustainable
Banks continue to be the costliest channel for sending remittances, with an average cost of 10.9 percent in 2020 Q3, while post offices are recorded at 8.6 percent, money transfer operators at 5.8 percent, and mobile operators at 2.8 percent.

Developments in De-Risking Practices
Before COVID-19, several countries had seen a reduction in the number of correspondent banks for financial services including remittances. In several instance, this reduction was lined to "de-risking" with banks closing bank accounts of money transfer operators under the justification of avoiding risks of money laundering or terrorist financing From 2011 to 2018, the number of correspondent banking relationships around the world declined by 20 percent. Some countries such as Somalia and countries in the Caribbean and Pacific Islands have few correspondent banking relationships. 16 Financial institutions continue to perceive remittances as higher-risk, vulnerable to risks of noncompliance or weak compliance with anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism Strengthening mobile money regulations and ID systems is expected to reduce the risks of ML/FT, by improving transparency and traceability of transactions. The World Bank is supporting countries to implement DFS as well as AMF/CFT policy reforms in the financial sector including assisting countries in strengthening its Financial Reporting Center (FRC) as well as its AML/CFT regime by supporting the undertaking of a national risk assessment (NRA); strengthening financial institution supervision functions of the Central Bank, enhancing the payment system infrastructure, provision of financial services, and working on digital IDs.

Progress on the Recruitment Cost Indicator (SDG Indicator 10.7.1)
SDG indicator 10.7.1 calls for global efforts to reduce recruitment costs. The high recruitment costs faced by many low-skilled migrant workers reduce the overall benefits from migration and its impact on reducing poverty in poor countries. The objective of SDG indicator 10.7.1 is to monitor the burden of costs incurred by migrant workers in obtaining jobs abroad. The World Bank and the ILO are cocustodians of this indicator.
Data collection by national statistical agencies on the recruitment cost indicator has seen relatively more progress in Asian countries, where such costs are a salient issue among policy makers and where labor migration is mostly organized through a complex and well-established system of private recruitment agencies (formal and informal). In Vietnam, a new SDG module added to the country's Q4 2019 Labor Force Survey (LFS) found average recruitment costs to be the equivalent of 8.7 months of foreign wages. By contrast, reported costs incurred by migrants from Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR) who mostly obtain jobs in Thailand through informal channels was less than a month's worth of overseas earning. 18 Cambodia, Indonesia, and the Philippines have also recently fielded recruitment cost questions in their latest LFS, and Myanmar will be including a module in its Q1 2021 LFS. A noteworthy development from the East Asia and Pacific region is a landmark settlement by a private firm in Malaysia facing a sales ban in the United States, in which the firm agreed to reimburse its foreign workers for (illegal) recruitment fees that they had paid manpower agencies to obtain their jobs.
In Africa, a 2019 pilot survey on recruitment costs completed in Ghana found costs paid by Ghanaian migrants to average $1,370 or the equivalent of two months of foreign earnings with substantial variation across receiving regions, ranging from 0.7 months for ECOWAS countries 19 to 4.4 months among low-skilled migrants to Asia, where costs averaged almost $1,800.
Recruitment costs remain high due to lack of opportunities at home and the relatively small number of work visas available overseas, owing to restrictive immigration policies. The difficulties of navigating complex migration processes have created a market for brokers and recruitment agencies. Moreover, the illegal practice of "visa trading" and excess demand for foreign jobs combine to create an exploitative setting. The development community should endeavor to eliminate illegal recruitment fees (in excess of genuine costs related to airfare, visa, and training costs). This would require effective regulation and monitoring of recruitment agencies implemented in constructive collaboration between the sending and the receiving countries.

Policy Responses Should Be Inclusive of Migrants and Their Families
The pandemic has left migrants deeply vulnerable to joblessness, abuse or breach of contract by employers as well as risks of contagion. Beyond humanitarian considerations, providing migrants access to housing and healthcare is necessary for keeping the host communities safe from the pandemic. Migrants are on the frontline saving people from COVID19 in hospitals and science labs. They are also on the frontline in stores and restaurants, farms and factories keeping the businesses running. Also, it is worth noting that every dollar spent on supporting a migrant is likely to increase remittances and thereby support many poor people in distant countries.
Government policy responses should be inclusive of migrants in the host countries and their families in origin countries. A more detailed list of policy measures was published in April in the Migration and Development Brief 32. A more specific, prioritized list of policy responses that governments and the global development community could consider includes: 20 i. Support to stranded migrants in the host or transit countries. Facilitate evacuation of stranded migrants. Grant temporary protected status to foreign nationals. Support informal businesses employing migrant workers. Protect migrants from abuse or wage theft by unscrupulous employers. ii. Extension of cash transfer programs to support internal and international migrants in the host countries. Support social services and provide cash transfers to migrants' families left behind in the origin countries. iii. Provision of access to health care, housing and education for migrant workers in the host countries and their families back home in the origin countries. iv. Support to returning migrants in resettling, finding jobs or opening businesses in the origin countries. v. Supporting remittance infrastructure. Declare remittance services as essential. Subsidize the cost of sending money to reduce burden of remittance fees. Incentivize online and mobile money transfers, following a risk-based approach to AML/CFT and KYC regulations. Mitigate factors that prevent customers or service providers of digital remittances from accessing banking services.
Supporting migrants at a time of crisis and fiscal difficulties can raise thorny political issues. Cash transfers to support foreigners is one such issue. Even for provision of health care, most countries use residency criteria to determine eligibility (World Bank 2020c). Many host countries, especially low-and middle-income countries, however, may require grants or concessional financing from third parties to provide support to migrants from other countries. 21

Call to action to keep remittances flowing
The United Kingdom and Switzerland, in partnership with World Bank, have launched a Call to Action (CtA) to Keep Remittances Flowing (KNOMAD 2020). Separately, in response to a call for global solidarity in addressing the COVID pandemic by the United Nations Secretary General, IFAD launched the Remittance Community Taskforce to come up with immediate and short-term measures to address the impact of COVID on remittances. 22 The CtA has organically grown into a coalition of 47 stakeholders on remittances. 23 This coalition can be leveraged for facilitating and increasing the flow of remittances worldwide, explore measures to provide relief to migrants (such as reducing remittance transaction costs), invest in financial education, and promote inter-operable open systems that can be used as a basis for migrant-centric financial products. It would be important for RSPs and authorities to work together to mitigate the effects of the crisis and encourage the adoption of digital payments, greater use of regulated channels, and wider availability of cost-efficient services. In the meantime, the World Bank will continue to monitor and report on the availability of remittance services worldwide, and work with stakeholders to improve the transparency and efficiency of the remittances market.

Improving high-frequency data
The crisis has exposed significant data gaps that have prevented real time monitoring of remittance flows and migratory movements including stranded migrants and returning migrants. The World Bank through the Global Knowledge Program on Migration and Development (KNOMAD) is launching an International Working Group on Improving Data on Remittances (see box 1.3).

Box 1.3 International Working Group on Improving Data on Remittances
More than a decade has passed since the publication of International Transactions in Remittances: Guide for Compilers and Users (IMF 2009). The growing importance of remittances as a source of external financing in the developing countries as well as the growing importance of data on remittances in the global payments industry has revealed a need for more granularity in the collection of data. The COVID19 crisis has exposed major lags in the availability of data. For example, data on outward flows, bilateral flows, remittance channels, instruments need improvement. Data collection practices and scope may vary from country to country. The potential use of Big Data would also be explored.
The Working Group will invite national statistical offices, central banks, World Bank and selected international organizations to recommend measures to improve data on remittances and international cooperation in the collection and dissemination of data.

Remittances to East Asia and the Pacific Held Steady in 2018
Remittance trends. Formal remittances to the East Asia and Pacific region are projected to fall by 10.5 percent in 2020 to $131 billion due to the adverse impact of COVID-19. Remittances to the Philippines are estimated to drop by 5percent in 2020 with over 300,000 of its displaced migrant workers expected to return home by the end of the year. By far the United States remains the primary source of remittances for the Philippines (about 38 percent in 2019), followed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (7 percent), Singapore (6.3 percent), Japan (6 percent), the United Arab Emirates (5.3 percent), and the United Kingdom (5.2 percent). Remittance flows from the United States remain somewhat resilient, growing by 5.8 percent in the first eight months of 2020 compared to the same period last year. 24 In contrast, year-on-year remittances over the eight months have declined from sources in the Middle East and Europe by 13.2 percent and 16.1 percent respectively. 25 This likely reflects the absence of formal safety nets available to migrant workers in many host countries in the face of the pandemic and the large repatriation of Filipino workers. Double-digit declines are also anticipated for Indonesia in 2020, driven by falling remittance inflows from Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, which together contributed to over 60 percent of its inflows in 2019.  Migration trends. Top Glove, the world's largest disposable glove company, based in Malaysia, saw its sales to the United States banned since July due to allegations of forced labor. It will pay roughly $40 million to more than 10,000 of its employed foreign workers to cover illegal recruitment fees paid to agencies in their home countries. 26 Workers from Nepal will receive about $1,500 while those from Bangladesh will get $4,800. These reimbursements represent an industry record. 27 In a bid to eliminate recruitment fees paid by workers, the Indonesian government introduced new regulations in July that prohibit recruitment agencies from charging migrant workers placement and training fees, placing the onus on employers. 28 Prior legislation introduced in 2012 placed limits on agency fees but many workers continued to pay excessive amounts, leading some advocates to question the viability of implementing and enforcing the new ruling, including workers' access to justice if violations occurred. Under increasing pressure to stem the tide of falling remittances and rising unemployment rates, several sending countries in the region are anxious to resume overseas placement of their workers. Toward the end of July, the Indonesian government announced its readiness to deploy workers abroad, lifting a four-month-long suspension in place since March 20 due to COVID-19 containment efforts. 32 The Philippines is also exploring alternative labor markets for its workers, including China and Eastern Europe. Within the region, the Thai government indicated a willingness to allow more than 100,000 migrant workers to return, though entry is conditioned on more stringent health requirements, including a compulsory two-week quarantine period at state centers. This is expected to cost at least 20,000 baht (about $640)-a prohibitive amount for most migrants, the majority of whom originate from neighboring Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar. These additional costs may compel some to resort to irregular means of entering the country.

Remittances to Europe and Central Asia Tumbled in 2020
Remittance trends. Inward remittances to Europe and Central Asia (ECA) are estimated to fall by 16 percent as the COVID-19 pandemic and the plunge in oil prices are likely to have wide-ranging impacts on economies across the region. The ECA region is projected to be the most affected by the pandemic among low-and middle-income regions, with nearly all the countries in the region posting double-digit declines of remittances in 2020. 33 Recessionary pressure in host countries along with the oil price drop and movement restrictions is likely to result in high levels of unemployment among migrants, hurting remittances. Consequently, a sharp drop in remittances could have negative effects on personal consumption and the labor market in ECA economies, as well as pressure on the foreign exchange market.

Figure 2.3 Top Remittance Recipients in the Europe and Central Asia Region, 2020
Sources: World Bank-KNOMAD staff estimates, World Development Indicators, and International Monetary Fund (IMF) Balance of Payments Statistics. Note: GDP = gross domestic product.
Ukraine, the region's largest recipient of remittances, received an estimated $14billion in remittances in 2020, a negative growth of about 13percent over 2019 ( figure 2.3). Russia is the second-largest recipient of remittances in the region, with an estimated $9 billion after a negative growth rate of 15.8 percent.
Meanwhile, remittances from Russia to Central Asia dropped by 23 percent in the second quarter of 2020 (figure 2.4) compared to 2019, a decline similar to that seen during the 2008 financial crisis. The fall in the income of Central Asian workers in Russia appears directly linked to the lockdown measures to curb the spread of COVID-19 since labor activity among migrants tends to pick up in the second quarter, due to seasonal factors. The sharp depreciation of the Russian ruble, slumping 22 percent against the US dollar this year, is also likely to weaken outward remittances from Russia. Remittance costs. The average cost of sending $200 to the ECA region fell slightly to 6.5 percent in the third quarter of 2020 from 6.6 percent a year earlier. Excluding Russia, the average cost also fell from 7.0 percent to 6.9 percent for the same period. Russia remained the lowest-cost sender of remittances globally, but the total cost of remitting from the country rose from 1.54 percent to 1.94 percent, mostly reflecting the increased costs of sending money to Armenia and Tajikistan. The highest cost for sending remittances was from Turkey to Bulgaria, while the lowest cost for sending remittances was from Russia to Azerbaijan (figure 2.5). Year-over-year growth (%)

Figure 2.5 Russia Remained the Least Expensive Country from Which to Send Money in Europe and Central Asia
Source: World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide database. Note: Cost of sending $200 or equivalent.
Migration trends. According to data released by European Asylum Support Office (EASO), the number of first-time asylum applicants in the European Union fell by 68 percent in the second quarter of 2020 compared with the same quarter of 2019, reflecting the strict lockdown measures deployed across the region. The number of asylum applicants decreased in all EU countries, with France being the country with the largest decrease in the number of first-time applicants (23,400 fewer), followed by Spain (21,000 fewer) and Germany (18,900 fewer). Reduced migrant arrivals via irregular means in the European Union are also reflected in data from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which showed a decline of 59 percent in the second quarter of 2020 from a year previous. Depressed irregular migration flows to the European Union are likely due partly to the consequences of movement restrictions in sending and transit countries to battle COVID-19 crisis, and Europe's rise as an epicenter of the pandemic. Migratory movement, however, is likely to pick up once restrictions are lifted and the COVID-19 pandemic has passed, since the latter has not changed the structural causes of irregular migration.
In the wake of a global pandemic, many migrants have returned to their home countries. The Ukrainian government claimed in April that two million Ukrainian working abroad had returned to the country due to the pandemic (this figure may include returning students). The government has temporarily prevented migrant workers from leaving the country during the lockdown period. However, limited job prospects at home and lack of financial assistance for returnees have prompted them to seek employment opportunities across EU countries despite this official position. Tajikistan also reported that the number of returning migrant workers rose sharply in February and March from Kazakhstan and Russia, which account for more than 90 percent of its migrants abroad.
Many migrant workers from Central Asia were left stranded in Russia in the wake of the pandemic, with three-fourths of foreign workers losing their jobs or going on unpaid leave during the COVID-19 lockdowns in April and May, according to a survey by the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Pubic Administration.
Migrants have faced irregular and ad-hoc repatriation measures after border closing. The Tajikistan government begun repatriation flights in June, but temporarily suspended the waiting list in July due to a larger-than-expected number of applicants. Migrant workers from other Central Asian countries have also faced difficulties.

Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean Are Expected to Fall Slightly
Remittance trends. Officially recorded remittance flows to Latin America and the Caribbean region are expected to reach $ 96 billion in 2020, a decline of -0.2 percent over the previous year. This is the first negative growth rate since the financial crisis in 2009. Growth in remittances is projected to decrease by about 8 percent in 2021.   Year on year growth* Source: Central banks of the respective countries. Note: *Year-on-year growth of 3-month moving-averages.

Remittances to Colombia, El
Remittances flows to Mexico held up, in part because migrants were employed in essential critical categories in the United States. According to the Center of Migration Studies, about "69 percent of all immigrants in the labor force and 74 percent of undocumented workers are essential infrastructure workers, compared to 65 percent of the US native-born labor force" (Kerwin et al. 2020). In addition, documented migrants to the US also benefitted from stimulus payments to low-income households which helped them to continue sending remittances back home (World Bank 2020e). Remittances to Mexico saw a large increase in March due to the depreciation of the peso against the dollar (figure (1.11). Mexico receives the largest amount of remittances in the region (figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7 Top Remittance Recipients in the Latin America and the Caribbean Region, 2020
Sources: World Bank-KNOMAD staff estimates, World Development Indicators, and International Monetary Fund (IMF) Balance of Payments Statistics. Note: GDP = gross domestic product.
As mentioned in the main text, weak employment situation in the United States is expected to dampen remittance flows to Mexico in the near future ( figure 1.11). Similarly, the poor economic situation in Spain, which is experiencing a second wave of COVID-19 infections, will further affect remittance flows to Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, Paraguay, and Peru (Spain hosts one-tenth of all migrants from Latin America and the Caribbean). Remittances from Italy will also be impacted. .

Remittance costs.
According to Remittance Prices Worldwide, the United States experienced no increase among G8 countries in the price of sending remittances in the third quarter of 2020. In Latin America, the cost of remittance transfers rose slightly in the second quarter of 2020 to 5.83 percent in the third quarter (World Bank 2020). Although there was an expansion of remittance service provides (mainly internet-based products), the imposition of regulations to transfer remittances appears to be having an impact on prices. In many smaller remittance corridors, however, costs Migration trends. According to the data from US Customs and Border Protection, apprehensions of unaccompanied children, family units, and single adults trying to cross into Texas increased during July and August. Monthly border apprehensions have returned to "pre-COVID levels" for unaccompanied children and doubled for single adults since dropping significantly during April and May 2020 (figure 2.9). The number of single adults caught also doubled compared to August 2019.
The increased in the number of apprehensions of single adults is due to repeat crossings, as several of the people apprehended had previously been deported. In July, about 34 percent of people apprehended were repeat crossings compared to 7 percent in 2019 (The Wall Street Journal 2020a). Other development in relevant migration policies include the continuation of land and ferry border restrictions, allowing only essential travel across the US-Mexico border, and a shortening of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) renewal period from two years to one (Infobae 2020). There is also a proposal by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to change visas for international students (F) and exchange visitors (J) from duration of stay to a fixed period of stay in Spain to Dominican Republic the United States. Colombia announced a new special temporary permit for Venezuelans who entered the country before August 2020. This new permit is in addition to the Special Permit of Permanence introduced in 2017. Since there are several Venezuelans without this permit, they cannot work, study and access healthcare. Due to the pandemic, Venezuelans are returning to their country. Official numbers from Colombia stated that 113,000 Venezuelans had returned home from Colombia in early October. Yet desperate measures are still being taken by individuals seeking to migrate. Smugglers are using new routes, including the Panama-Colombia border and Brazil-Bolivia-Chile border, to go to the United States. A number of migrants from Haiti, Cuba, and African and Asian countries have been detained along these new routes (Cronkite News 2020; BBC News 2020).

Remittances to the Middle East and North Africa Posted a Sharp Drop
Remittance trends. Remittances to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region are projected to fall by about 8 percent in 2020, and 8 percent in 2021 (figure 2.10). The projected decline in remittances to the region can be attributed to the projected persistence of the global slowdown due to the novel coronavirus. All major remittance-receiving countries will likely see a decline of remittances. In 2020, Egypt is projected to see around -9 percent growth, Lebanon -7 percent, Jordan -12 percent, Morocco -5 percent, and Tunisia -15 percent. Remittance costs. The cost of sending $200 to the MENA region increased in 2020 Q3, to 7.5 percent, compared with 6.8 percent in the same quarter of the previous year. This may be due to COVID-induced disruptions especially in cash-based transactions. Costs vary greatly across corridors: the cost of sending money from high-income countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to Lebanon continues to be in the double digits. On the other hand, sending money from GCC countries to Egypt and Jordan costs around 4 percent in some corridors (figure 2.11).
Return migration, stranded transit migrants, and displaced populations. As the coronavirus crisis ravages the world, countries such as Egypt face the specter of growing return migration, with estimates suggesting up to 1 million returning (Cairo Review 2020; OECD 2020b). On the other hand, Egypt is itself a major transit country and has a high rate of COVID infection. This has resulted in many transit migrants getting stranded there as the country shut down to combat the virus. At the same time, the MENA region continues to bear the burden of widespread forced displacement due to conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. As of June 2020, UNHCR recorded 6.6 million persons of concern from Syria (including asylum seekers, refugees, and IDPs).

Remittances to South Asia Projected to Decrease in 2020
Remittance trends. Remittances to South Asia are projected to suffer a protracted decline of around 4 percent in 2020 and 11 percent in 2021. The deceleration in remittances to the South Asian region is driven by the prolonged global economic slowdown due to the coronavirus outbreak. Given that the pandemic is likely to persist through 2021, the earlier anticipated V-shaped recovery now seems implausible. This is likely to directly affect remittance outflows from the United States, the United Kingdom, and GCC and EU countries to South Asia.  In India, remittances are projected to fall by about 9 percent in 2020, to $76 billion (figure 2.12). In Pakistan, remittances would grow at about 9 percent, totaling about $24 billion. In Bangladesh, also remittances are projected to grow at about 8 percent to around $20 billion. In both Pakistan and Bangladesh, the negative impact of the COVID-19-induced global economic slowdown has been somewhat countered by the diversion of remittances from informal to formal channels due the difficulty of carrying money by hand under travel restrictions as well as the incentives to transfer remittances. For example, Pakistan also introduced a tax incentive whereby withholding tax was exempted from July 1, 2020, on cash withdrawals or on the issuance of banking instruments/transfers from a domestic bank account. The tax incentive is capped by the remittance amounts received from abroad into that account in a year. Remittances to Nepal and Sri Lanka are expected to decline by 12 percent and 9 percent, respectively, in 2020. The coronavirus-related global slowdown and travel restrictions will also affect migratory movements, and this is likely to keep remittances subdued even in 2021.
Remittance costs. South Asia was the least costly region to send $200 to (at 4.98 percent) in 2020 Q3. Some of the lowest-cost corridors-including those originating in the GCC countries and Singapore, and the India-Nepal corridor-had costs below the SDG target of 3 percent. This is probably due to high volumes, competitive markets, and deployment of technology (figure 2.13). But costs are well over 10 percent in the highest-cost corridors (Pakistan to Afghanistan, Pakistan to Bangladesh, Thailand to India, South Africa to India, Japan to India) due to low volumes, little competition, and regulatory concerns (related to AML/CFT). factors, all driven by the COVID-19 crisis in major destination countries including EU countries, the United States, China, and GCC countries. Sub-Saharan migrants are disproportionately affected in host countries as many are engaged in precarious working conditions and informal jobs, with high vulnerability to contagion and loss of employment. In addition, these migrants are often excluded from social protection systems, health care, and government stimulus measures. As the COVID-19 pandemic affects both destination and origin countries of Sub-Saharan migrants, the decline in remittances in origin countries is expected to further lead to a decline in foreign exchange revenue, an increase in food insecurity and poverty, and a decline in the overall GDP, which are jeopardizing the hard-won development gains of the past few decades. Flooding and swarms of desert locusts have aggravated the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic for the SSA Region. Remittances are helping to address the impact on the African households. Nigeria remains the largest recipient of remittances in the region, and is the seventh-largest recipient among LMICs, with projected remittances to decline to around $21.7 billion, a more than $2 billion decline compared with 2019 (figure 2.14). Ghana, Kenya, and Senegal are ranked respectively a distant second, third, and fourth in the region, with an estimated amount of $3.2 billion, $2.9 billion, and $2.3 billion received, respectively. South Sudan has reported the region's highest share of remittances to GDP, at more than 35.4 percent, followed by Lesotho (20.6 percent), the Gambia ( remittances declined less than expected in Q2, and have recovered since them. Similarly, remittances to Zimbabwe decreased in April and recovered from May onwards. Kenya is the only country in the region where remittances inflows have so far been countercyclical to the crisis, though flows are likely to eventually decline in 2021. For countries where remittances account for a large share of GDP, a sharp decline in remittance inflows is expected for 2020 and 2021 as many migrant workers have seen their income plummet especially in OECD countries. Governments efforts to facilitate remittance inflows in these economies would be needed in addition to more efforts to support household remittance recipients who will be facing a significant decline in remittances. In this regard, many countries have registered a significant increase in remittances transfer through digital channels. In April 2020, the Central Bank of South Sudan launched its first international mobile money service (m-Gurush) to facilitate remittances inflows and outflows within and beyond the African region. 34 Remittance costs. Sending $200 remittances to Sub-Saharan Africa costed on average 8.5 percent in 2020 Q3 ( figure 2.15). This is a modest decrease compared with the average cost of 9 percent a year before. Sub-Saharan Africa is the costliest region to send remittances. The relatively less expensive corridors are in West Africa (respectively Cote d'Ivoire to Mali and Senegal to Mali) while the most expensive corridors are in the southern African region: Uganda to Tanzania, South Africa to Botswana, and South Africa to Angola (latest data available only for 2020Q2). However, with digital services, Sub-Saharan Africa is doing relatively better than the MENA region with an average cost of less than 7 percent compared to over 7.5 percent respectively. The COVID-19 pandemic has made it more difficult for migrants to remit money to Sub-Saharan Africa using traditional or informal channels as most payments are still in cash and some MTOs are closed due to the crisis. 35 The promotion of digital technology, which is cheaper than nondigital services, combined with a regulatory environment promoting competition in the remittances market, and relaxing money-laundering regulations are essential for Sub-Saharan countries to achieve the SDG target of 3 percent by 2030.

Figure 2.15 Five Most and Least Expensive Remittance Corridors in Sub-Saharan Africa
Source: World Bank Remittance Prices Worldwide database. Note: Cost of sending $200 or equivalent.

Migration trends.
Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, most Sub-Saharan African countries have imposed some level of mobility restrictions. This included suspending international and domestic flights-with the exception of humanitarian, cargo, and repatriation flights-closing land and sea border points as well as adopting restrictions on movement such as curfews and lockdowns. However, in the past few months, several countries in the region started reopening their air borders and resumed air travel. 36 So far, the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has been less prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa compared to the rest of the world. There are several reasons that could explain the region's relatively low rates of contagion and deaths, including lower rates of noncommunicable diseases and early mitigatory measures, coupled with low population density and mobility, testing limitations, younger population, and hot and humid climate.

Displaced populations and irregular migration.
Africa is facing a record number of IDPs amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the IOM (2020a) Displacement Tracking Matrix, as of October 2020, 15 countries out of a total of 18 in the world that had registered significant displacements were in Sub-Saharan Africa. These include Nigeria (2,406,604), Sudan (2,399,433) (CONASUR 2020), the majority of these IDPs are women and children who have fled their homes under the threat of armed attacks. Irregular migration. The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting border closures led to a significant decline in the number of irregular migrant arrivals to Europe from 128,536 in 2019 to fewer than 68,000 as of October 2020. The number of deaths in the Mediterranean Sea has also declined significatively from 1,885 in 2019 to less than 270 in October 2020. But over 2,900 irregular migrants were reported stranded throughout the region, including 1,100 waiting at the IOM transit centers (IOM 2020b). High densities of forcibly displaced populations residing in camps and the mobility of migrants make both groups highly vulnerable to the COVID-19 contagion. 30 The Philippines Department of Statistics estimated that 2.2 million OFWs were abroad during the period April to September 2019 based on results from the 2019 Survey on Overseas Filipinos. According to the country's Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), as of October 7, 10,849 OFWs had tested positive, of which 6,905 had recovered and 800 had died. 31 With domestic unemployment soaring due to the pandemic, sending governments in the region have yet to articulate a strategy to manage returnees, resorting instead to a patchwork of initiatives. The Philippines government is offering free retraining programs for select jobs such as call-center agents, teachers, and contract tracers, while migrant worker groups are lobbying for major construction projects that could help employ some of the repatriated workers. 32 Indonesia's Ministry of Manpower stated that it will initially focus on 14 economies that are prepared to welcome migrant workers back, namely Algeria; Australia; Hong Kong SAR, China; the Republic of Korea; Kuwait; Maldives; Nigeria; the United Arab Emirates; Poland; Qatar; Taiwan, China; Turkey; Zambia; and Zimbabwe. 33 A steep decline was seen in the second quarter of 2020, followed by modest improvement, but a substantial downward trend appears to be continuing in the second half of the year. 34 (EABW NEWS 2020) 35 According to Ernst and Young (2020)