From Rhetoric to Responsibility: What the Global Compact for Migration Must Deliver

CEDA’s Director of Strategy and Advocacy, Francisca Vigaud-Walsh, shares her reflections after participating in the regional review of the Global Compact for Migration in Santiago, Chile. Photo: International Organization for Migration (IOM).

Last month’s regional review of the Global Compact for Migration (GCM) in Latin America and the Caribbean landed at a time of reckoning.

Civil society from across the region convened in Santiago, Chile, to assess progress and setbacks since the Compact’s adoption in 2018. As the second formal review of the GCM, the gathering brought renewed energy to long-standing demands for a migration agenda rooted in rights, dignity, and accountability.

While the review showcased moments of meaningful coordination between states, international agencies, and civil society, it also surfaced a series of uncomfortable truths. According to many advocates, the GCM’s commitments remain dangerously misaligned with the realities unfolding on the ground. In recent months, several signatory states have closed regular pathways while doubling down on punitive measures, such as migrant detention and accelerated deportations. At the same time, delays in regularization processes continue to leave migrants vulnerable to detention and exclusion, sometimes forcing them to migrate yet again. Disinformation campaigns and fear-based messaging further erode trust in migrants and institutions, while national migration policies are increasingly shaped by political expediency rather than evidence or human rights standards. Meanwhile, little progress has been made toward building sustainable reintegration programs for those who are returned.

Despite these barriers, civil society is not backing down. The review was a powerful reminder of the organizing power of regional networks—and of their intention to hold states accountable to the values they signed on to.

It is against this backdrop that Canada and Ecuador have taken up the co-chairmanship of the GCM Champion Countries Initiative. The moment is significant. With global migration becoming increasingly politicized, the need for visible, principled leadership has never been greater. Both countries have an opportunity to rally support for the Compact, but they also face domestic political inflection points that could test their resolve. Canada’s newly sworn-in government has a chance to align its international rhetoric with its policies at home. Meanwhile, Ecuador is heading into its second round of national elections this weekend, and the outcome will undoubtedly influence the country’s regional engagement on mobility and reintegration.

This co-chairmanship must be more than ceremonial. Canada and Ecuador must lead with clarity, not caution—and must ground their leadership in action, not optics. A key test of their leadership will be how they mobilize support for two critical GCM mechanisms: the Migration Multi-Partner Trust Fund (MMPTF) and the Capacity Building Mechanism.

The MMPTF was designed to support GCM implementation through flexible, collaborative financing. But fulfilling that mandate is a tall order in today’s climate of global retrenchment and widespread funding cuts. At a time when civil society is being sidelined and many governments are scaling back support for international cooperation, it is urgent  this fund is deployed adequately. The tools exist, but the political and financial will to use them effectively is waning. The MMPTF must not become a donor box-checking exercise. It must reach local and migrant-led organizations directly, and funds should be governed with transparency and linked to measurable impact—not just project completion.

Equally important is the Capacity Building Mechanism. Like the MMPTF, it risks becoming a technocratic shell if it is not matched with bold political will and sustained investment. The mechanism must prioritize the survival and strengthening of civil society actors who are increasingly operating under threat. The very organizations tasked with protecting rights, facilitating inclusion, and documenting abuses are facing surveillance, criminalization, and budget cuts. Their ability to function is foundational to any credible implementation of the GCM.

This moment is not about symbolism. It is a test of whether the GCM can remain relevant in an era defined by shrinking protection space, increasingly hostile narratives, and growing political pressure to criminalize mobility.

The governments of Canada and Ecuador now have the responsibility to show that the GCM can still deliver. That means championing rights-based approaches, and making sure civil society has not just a voice, but real power at the table. It also means ensuring that resources and political will are directed toward long-term solutions, not short-term optics.