The Future of Complementary Pathways: Paving the way for growth

This transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies. If you notice an error, feel free to email [email protected].

[00:00:00.03] - Susan Fratzke

My name is Susan Fratzke, and I am a senior policy analyst here at the Migration Policy Institute. And I'd like to welcome everyone to our webinar this afternoon, The Future of Complementary Pathways: Paving the Way for Growth. I have a couple of housekeeping notes before we jump into the discussion. First, if you have any technical problems, please email [email protected]. We will also have a Q&A at the end of the call and we're looking forward to what I hope is a very lively discussion. To participate in the Q&A, please type any questions you have into the Q&A box on Zoom, or you can email them to [email protected]. I'd like to note that this webinar is part of the culmination of the Complementary Pathways Network Project, or COMET, which is funded under the EU Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund. And we are very pleased to have released the final report from that project earlier today. It's called Complementary Pathways: Key Factors in Future Growth, and you can find it on the MPI website. So I'd like to start our conversation by giving the floor over to our lead project partner on the COMET project, Fiona Kendall, who is the European and Legal Affairs Advisor at the Federation of Protestant Churches in Italy.

So I'll hand over to Fiona for some introductory comments.

[00:01:27.07] - Fiona Kendall

Thanks very much, Susan. Uh, it's lovely to have the opportunity to be here and great to see this report come out after 3 years of working together on the COMET project. So Susan's asked me to give just a little bit of background about the project, um, to kick us all off. Um, we began back in 2022, and at that time the context was really, I guess, a combination of policy and operational drivers. There were 2 policy drivers in particular. One was the newly released recommendation on legal pathways, which was promoting the expansion of humanitarian and other, other kinds of pathway and promoting also the increase in places additional to resettlement. And there was UNHCR's global resettlement needs, which gave priority to the Central Mediterranean route. Operationally, we were aware that a plethora of pathways had burst onto the scene, but that they were all working independently from each other, and there seemed to be a sense in which different organizations were reinventing the wheel. So that inspired us really to consider the possibility of building and testing a supranational platform which would draw together a network of complementary pathways, new and existing pathways, and would maximise opportunities for matching beneficiaries and hosts in terms of integration and so on.

We had 6 objectives when we set out. The first, the most basic, was simply that coordination of different types of complementary pathway for people in need of protection. The second was the creation of a further 130 admission places for people in need of international protection along the Central Mediterranean Route. The third was exchanging good practice, diverse models, experiences, contexts monitoring and evaluation. The fourth was developing matching, but based not just on protection needs but something wider, looking at the person in need of protection through a wider lens, considering family links, geographical links, linguistic links, skills, and integration potential. Our fifth objective was to do with capacity building, uh, not only for the participants but in particular for the communities that welcome them. And sixth, we wanted to develop a repository of materials, common tools and standards that people could use and projects could use in future. If you've had a look at the report, you'll know that we are 14 partners in the COMET project. It was an ambitious group to bring together, but really a wonderfully diverse and rich body of experience in that partnership. We had, apart from FCEI, UNHCR, MPI, obviously Open Arms, Forum Réfugiés, Intersos, the Evangelische Kirche von Deutschland, Fonds Catalans, Justice and Peace, Refugees Welcome Italia, Mosaico, Association Frantz Fanon, Reset, and CCME.

So a huge number of partners, all with different kinds of experience, from advocacy to operational. To psychotherapeutic, and we're drawn from 7 countries: Italy, France, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and the UK. Within the project, we were able to work on 4 pathways. 2 of them were academic, one for universities, the other for unaccompanied minors, a really interesting project that's underway in Italy. We also had humanitarian corridors and community sponsorship. But as I say, the, the value of this particular project was the networking of those pathways and the possibilities for those of us involved in managing those pathways to work together and to develop practice together. In terms of outcomes, we have managed to bring 127 out of the 130 people that we hoped to bring, and we're delighted about that. Um, we regret that the advocacy work that was done in Spain and the Netherlands hasn't yet led to the establishment of new pathways, but a really good foundation has been laid, and we know that the advocacy work will continue now that the project is coming to an end. And that repository that we hoped for, the capacity building that we hoped for, is very much in place and hopefully can be accessed by all of you if you look at the website.

We had many challenges along the way, um, and most of those were external, much to do with political situations in other countries. The coup d'état in Niger, for example, was a massive problem for us because that was the hub that we'd identified as the place of departure for the participants. The situation in Ukraine caused a difficulty because it had an impact on the availability of communities to welcome those who would have been coming through the project. And then there was the usual political infighting, the Changing Migration policy that we're all familiar with. I won't talk to you about the lessons learned because I'm sure that that's what's going to come out in the course of this webinar, and the report does it in an excellent fashion. So I'd simply like to leave with you this one thought, that really the key for us in all of this was collaboration. Over the course of this 3-year period, what we were able to establish was a relationship of trust, genuine trust between the 14 organizations concerned. We all know that we can rely on one another, and where we have gaps in our knowledge, we know whom to contact if we need additional information.

We're able to work together in advocacy terms. We're able to build collectively on the experience that we've had. So that's it from me. Over to you. Look forward to hearing more in detail from the other speakers. Thanks very much.

[00:07:23.13] - Susan Fratzke

Thank you so much, Fiona. And I can say from our side, it's really been a pleasure to work with you all at FCEI and also as part of the COMET project as well. It's been really instructive last few years. So we'll dive into the discussion. And I think as Fiona rightly pointed out, the COMET project emerged in an atmosphere both within Europe and globally that had really sparked a tremendous amount of interest and energy behind the field of complementary pathways. A great recognition of the potential that complementary pathways have, and they have quite a lot of promise. They have the potential to provide additional humanitarian avenues for refugees and displaced persons alongside resettlements. They can give refugees and displaced persons choices and allow them to exercise agency over their own future and solutions. And they have the potential to mitigate impacts on receiving communities and build public support for humanitarian complementary pathways by allowing displaced individuals to connect directly with a job or with a study program or a local support network who can support their arrival. An interest in complementary pathways has really grown, I think, also throughout the course of the COMET project as well.

We've seen this happen, but as Fiona noted, there have also been a lot of challenges that we faced both within the COMET project and also that the field as a whole has faced. And so far, while there have been a lot of success stories, the interest hasn't yet been matched by quite the, the level of scale I think that we are all still working towards and pushing for. And a lot of the programs that exist to date have admitted a fairly small number of individuals or have been critiqued for being resource intensive to operate. And that's led to questions about sustainability and ability of programs to keep achieving their goals going forward. So as we look to the end of the COMET project, we wanted to bring together a few of the people who have been working really intensively on complementary pathways over the last few years, particularly in Europe. To ask what the future holds and what the direction of travel should really be in the area of complementary pathways and how we can really ensure that these programs live into the promise that they offer. So we've asked each of our speakers to reflect on 3 questions.

First, the international protection system is evolving. Asylum has long been the cornerstone of the protection system. That seems to be shifting at the moment. And at the same time, resettlement commitments in many countries have gone down. What role do complementary pathways have in the new protection landscape that's beginning to emerge? Second, complementary pathways are by nature very decentralised. And we heard from Fiona already the number of different actors who are engaged just in the COMET project alone, anywhere from different civil society stakeholders, employers, educational institutions, and community groups. And coordination was a key goal of the COMET project. So how important do you see multi-stakeholder coordination being in the future of complementary pathways and supporting the growth of complementary pathways going forward, and how can we better accomplish it? And finally, what else do you see as being necessary for complementary pathways to really reach their potential, both in terms of scale, but also in terms of impact and reach of these programs? So those are the questions we've posed to you all. I want to turn now to you to share your thoughts with us. As a reminder to our audience, please put any questions that you might have in the chat throughout the discussion.

And I will start with my colleague Belén Zanzuchi, who is also a co-author on the report that we released today. Belén is a policy analyst at MPI Europe. So Belén, I'll hand the floor over to you.

[00:11:04.17] - Belén Zanzuchi

Thank you, Susan. I'm very happy to share some of the reflections from the report and more broadly from our experience in the Comet Network and more broadly on our engagement in community sponsorship and more broadly complementary pathways. And I think that what we've seen is that, of course, like these pathways have been playing a very important role over the last couple of years, and we've seen increased interest in them. I think it's important to reflect on why do we see this, or we have seen this interest in pathways, and in which context they take place. Because what we see in the field of protection and humanitarian admissions as a whole is that the number of people in need of international protection has been increasing over the past number of years. And resettlement, of course, has been playing and will continue playing a very important role. But what we see is that there is a huge gap in terms of the number of people in need of protection and the number of people who can access these opportunities. Normally every year, it goes around between 1% and 3% of people who are in need of international protection who can access these opportunities.

So it's in this context and in the context, as you and Fiona mentioned, of increased uncertainty in the field also, that these pathways take a very important role. So, and by increased uncertainty, I mean that We have seen in many cases that less support, for example, or less political buy-in for resettlement. We have seen some countries lowering the pledges for resettlement or being a bit more concerned about reception capacity, housing crisis that we're hearing everywhere in Europe. So again, it is in this context that we have seen that these complementary pathways, whether community sponsorship, education programs for refugees, or labour opportunity for refugees, play a very important role in increasing the number of opportunities and opening up new pathways for this group. But it's not only in terms, I think, of numbers and these channels. It's also about, as Fiona was mentioning, the diversity of stakeholders that are involved in pathways. So for resettlement, for example, it's normally, it has normally been like UNHCR, IOM, and then the countries of origin and destination normally mainly involved. While in the complementary pathways field, we have seen universities, employers, civil society, all taking a very active role in these pathways.

And that has translated also to, I think, a more diversified or broader profile of beneficiaries that have been able to access through these different channels. So again, we have seen that also greater flexibility to respond in terms of crisis, for example, because resettlement quotas normally and the priority countries of selection are normally set a year or more in advance. And we know that the humanitarian field changes very quickly. Geopolitical challenges and so on can happen and are very hard to predict. So these pathways have also added a lot of flexibility to the field. For example, when we saw what happened in Afghanistan or the war in Ukraine, we have seen humanitarian corridor, for example, in Italy for Afghans. We have seen many host programs for Ukrainians across Europe, the US, and elsewhere. So I think all these different pathways, again, have added to like new legal channels for refugees and other people in need of international protection to enter these pathways have helped broaden the profile of people entering. We have seen some pathways targeting, for example, LGBTQI people in need of international protection who may not maybe necessarily have refugee status. We have seen people not only accessing based on vulnerability assessment, which is very important, but of course it's also important to take into account sometimes skills and the aspirations that these people bring also to the table.

So they have helped diversify the field a lot. But at the same time, as you and Fiona were mentioning, we have seen that these pathways have been very hard to scale in many cases. And this richness of stakeholders and of pathways, they bring a lot of richness to the field, but at the same time make it a bit more complicated or fragmented to coordinate. And yes, For COMET, we were like only for COMET, we were 14 partners. We have seen that there are many, many different pathways that have taken place in different countries, continents, and so on. So the field has been kind of like fragmented. It's very different. You have, for example, for resettlement, again, like mainly UNHCR, IOM, and the relevant countries involved versus having NGOs, employers, universities, governments to different extents and different levels involved. So this, I think, has created in some cases, again, like some fragmentation, difficulties in coordinating and communicating between the different stakeholders, and also to some duplication in a sense of structures which have made these pathways oftentimes a bit more, quite resource intense to operate. And that has posed definitely one of the challenges in scaling these efforts.

So I think something that we wanted and we tried to reflect in the report is what do we need to make these pathways grow? And of course, like kind of addressing and tackling some of these coordination and communication challenges is, is part of what we call in the report supportive ecosystems for these pathways to grow. And we have underlined and seen, for example, that spaces where pathway stakeholders can come together, oftentimes also with resettlement and other relevant stakeholders in the field to discuss what challenges and innovative strategies or solutions they are encountering to coordinate on, for example, on selection or other parts of the process have been very important. We have seen— Guilhem can maybe speak about that more or during the Q&A session— but France has that national roundtable bringing together different stakeholders from the resettlement and pathways field that has been very important. The ICMC share network has also, for example, played an important role in bringing different stakeholders together. During the Comet Project, we've also tried to do this through different roundtables and conversations that we have facilitated So we see some opportunities for better coordination in the field, but we also see that coordination can only go a long way.

And I think we need more to make this field grow. And something else that we notice is, for example, awareness raising, because again, because there are so many different pathways that exist and so many different smaller, bigger programs operated by different stakeholders with different exceptions, visas, and so on. Sometimes it's also even difficult for people on the ground, for governments on the ground to understand what are the process for like for screening, visa applications, and so on. So I think we've also seen the need to raise awareness for the different stakeholders in the field to really understand like what pathways are on the way, how do they operate, what are the rights of people entering these pathways, and what are their roles. So some clarity around the expectations around this I think could also help the field. Something else that we identified in the report is the very important role that governments play. And again, I think civic society stakeholders, universities, employers have played an amazing role at setting up these pathways, piloting and so on. But what we ultimately see and something that became clear also, as Fiona mentioned in the COMET project, is that for scaling and for creating some of the larger like policy structures, frameworks and so on that you need to scale these pathways is that you need the government buy-in to make them grow.

And that's something that we're oftentimes missing. And the other aspect in which we saw that we, again, like these different pathways could make more efforts and the field could make more efforts is towards fundraising because we also often see that these different stakeholders are competing for the same pot of money. In the case of external funding or EU funding, for example, in many cases, once the project comes to an end, in many cases, it's very, very difficult to continue these programs. So we do see also the need to identify bigger opportunities for funding and adding some predictability to the field in that way. And funding not only means for operating these programs, which of course you need, like for visa applications, travel arrangements, and so on and so forth, but also for coordination. Because again, as Fiona mentioned, coordinating even a network of 14 partners takes a lot of time and resources, and you also need the budget and the capacity to do that for the field to grow. So I think I'll leave it there. Happy to reply to any questions during the Q&A and expand on any, any of Thank you so much, Belén.

[00:20:17.16] - Susan Fratzke

So I want to turn now to Daniele Albanese, who is the head of Europe programs at Talent Beyond Boundaries. Talent Beyond Boundaries, of course, does a lot of work in the employer-sponsored and refugee labour pathway space. Looking forward to hearing from you about your experiences and thoughts.Thanks, Daniele.

[00:20:37.12] - Daniele Albanese

Thank you, Susan, and thank you for inviting me and us to present I mean, some ideas around, in particular, labour mobility, of course, as the field where we are working more, and the potential to increase protection space in general using labour pathways, and also the challenges that we are facing and seeing on the ground that some has already been mentioned. I will start from the challenges and then I'll go through the potential for scale. So the challenges, I will repeat the same that Belén has used and it is used in the report that you are presenting, which is fragmentation. We see 3 different types of kind of fragmentation at the moment in terms of regulation in the EU space on labour mobility, in terms of funding, and in terms of stakeholders. Regulation, we are seeing an increase in general, generally speaking, in all EU countries on labour immigration regulation, let's say, but they are generally piecemeal as opposed to a large-scale effort, even at the country level. Apart from Germany and Spain recently, a couple of weeks ago, probably all the other European countries are facing fragmentation internally in their labour mobility policies, and this is of course a challenge.

Second challenge is funding, as it has already been mentioned. I would just give you A couple of data taken from the recent report of, from ODI about the labour mobility in Europe, about the two main funding opportunities, the MPF and the AMIF funds. Both are from the AMIF, generally speaking, fund. The MPF, which is the Migration Partnership Facility Fund, from 2016 until August 2024 spent supporting legal migration and mobility around €35 million. In the same period from '21 to 2027, the amount that is allocated to border security and migration management is €10 billion. So the amount is completely different. In the AMIF fund, the investment that involves mobility, whether refugee resettlement via community or relocation via labour pathways is low and is 8%. And ultimately only 3% of the AMIF Action grant funding is directly supporting labour migration initiatives. So we are seeing, as Belén already mentioned, and this number shows that there is a little investment despite the effort that the Commission is putting on these complementary pathways topics. Last point is partnership and fragmentation of stakeholders that is complex and huge. As you already mentioned, 14 partners to manage in all project, and it's not only Comet, all AMIF-funded projects imply a lot of partnership, multi-countries and so on.

This kind of fragmentation of course implied a lot of coordination and some partial funding on this piece. Despite this fragmentation, there is a lot of potential to scale, and I will mention 5 briefly points. The first one is the new Commission and the clear political priority to attract talent and to promote legal and safe labour mobility pathways into Europe, which is of course something that we are all seeing. And it is very clear even in the document of the new Commission around that and the commitment that the Commission has. Second is, and it's why we have a clear political commitment, it is because for the first time in the resettlement space and the protection space of people in need of international protection, there is a need, which is labour shortages. In all European Union, we are seeing, I mean, 4 million vacancies in 2024 that has to be filled. And of course, displaced people can support and help sectors and to address this kind of need. And for the first time, also overcoming the emergency approach that we are, that we are seeing in this space since years, like as you mentioned, like the Afghan crisis and then the Syrian crisis, a crisis after crisis, of course, that we are all experiencing in the Mediterranean space that can be overcome through a more stable approach addressing also labour needs in an aging society.

Is that because we know that there will be a need in the next future. Third point is the— there is a new actor, which is the private sector, which is of course not new per se, but it's new in the protection space. So as civil society organization, as international organization, as government, we can think about the private sector not only as a donor of humanitarian organization, but as part of a solution, a win-win solution for everyone, for the private companies and employers and for the societies and for beneficiaries themselves as well, as well as a potential for a new community sponsorship group, which is the colleagues, the community of colleagues that can be really leveraged into, into the sponsorship space, let's say. Fourth is the pipeline and sector approach, and that's what we are trying to do in some European countries. I would say particularly in Italy at the moment, we are working with several employers with the same needs even small and medium employers, not only big multinationals that have the same needs that they would like to tap into international recruitment, but they need a support, a structural support from organization. And this can lead to the creation of pipelines of candidates in different sectors, in the IT sectors, in the green skill sectors where we know that there is the, uh, a need and there will be a need in the, in the future.

And then the candidate themselves that are amazing. This is an asset that we should discover more and more, not to think about refugees as potential beneficiaries of our humanitarian activities, but really to see candidates as potential contributors for our societies, for employers, for the private sector, and so on. Last point, potential for scale is the sustainable financing. That is Probably possible. Not yet. It doesn't yet exist in the European space, but there are some initiatives that are very promising around that because for the first time, as I mentioned, there will be candidates in the complementary pathway space that will be working from day one. So that means that can be net contributors for the societies as well as taxpayers, as well as they can sustain themselves through their job. So of course this can benefit different stakeholders, the private sector themselves, and the society as a multiple win for all of the players that are involved. I will stop here, and I'm of course open to questions.

[00:28:16.24] - Susan Fratzke

Thanks so much, Daniele. I want to turn now to Guilhem Mante, who is the coordinator of the Welcome Program at FEP, the Fédération Entraide Protestant. I would note that Guilhem unfortunately has to leave us a few minutes early, so please go ahead and put your questions in for him in the Q&A while you are listening, and we'll go to him first for the Q&A. Guilhem?

[00:28:39.11] - Guilhem Mante

Thank you, Susan. Thank you very much. And I'm very honoured to be able to speak in front of you all about our experience implementing humanitarian corridors in France since 2017, but also in our experience in being involved at European level with the COMET partners and with other networks such as the Shared Network as well, working complementary pathways. I would say that a lot have been said by Belén and Daniele, so I will try to insist on a few additional points that I have. First, about the protection field and the role of complementary pathways, I would insist on the fact that broadening the scope and the coordination with other actors, including in the country of first asylum, is something as well that we found important. We are working from Lebanon on humanitarian corridors, and we believe that trying to work with actors such as human rights organizations that are not used to work on safe and legal pathways, for example, in Lebanon, we work with the Lebanese Centre for Human Rights, Centre Libanais des Droits who is getting more and more involved in working on safe and legal pathway, is a great asset for two reasons.

The first one is that it also allows us continuous work in challenging geopolitical situation. And we see that there is a restriction of humanitarian access in the country of first asylum. For instance, France had to suspend its resettlement program from Lebanon due to security reasons, whereas we were able to continue working in partnership with national actors and able to continue working on humanitarian corridors, receiving in October families from Lebanon. So this is something that we should take into consideration for Lebanon, but for other countries with a volatile security context. And it also supports the involvement of actors in the country of first asylum that are not traditionally involved in safe and legal pathways. And it's very important because we have a tendency to forget about advocacy in the country of first asylum towards the diplomatic bodies of European Union members. We do think that advocating as well from country of first asylum is something very important, trying to broaden the scope of actors involved. And in terms of coordination, I would also say that what we've been trying to do, Belen was talking about the roundtable we set up in France, trying to involve actors involved in safe and legal pathways.

But also trying to create bridges to broaden the coalition of actors involved. So we do have now NGOs that have been traditionally involved in Safe and Legal Pathways, but we also have universities, we have companies, we have human rights activist NGOs, we have LGBTQI+ NGOs that are involved. And we do think that having extending and scaling up complementary pathways is also trying to develop not only coordinating with the existing actors, but also developing new partnership and relationship with other actors. I would say but paradoxically, this also creates now, and it has been also mentioned by Belen and Daniele, a patchwork of a lot of different organizations in France working on complementary pathways without a clear national policy and associated fundings related to the development of complementary pathways. So we have quite a strong and sustainable resettlement program that is funded by the public power. But in terms of complementary pathway, you have a patchwork of different initiatives that are actually led and financially supported by civil society actors. And if we want, and it's not only the case in France, There are other countries in Europe where we observe the same pattern. So we do need a common policy to develop complementary pathways with harmonised standards and with associated funds.

Now, having said that, I think we really have to be careful about the fact that those while they should try to harmonise and encourage engagements of actors, we have to be careful about the fact that they could also restrain the number of actors that are involved, which is actually the core of complementary pathways. So, and including in terms of fundings, we know that it could also have a negative effect on the number of and the scope of actors involved. Involved, benefiting only to the big actors and leaving behind smaller actors. We do have, for example, LGBTQI+ NGOs that are doing a great job in France with very limited means, working only with volunteers. But we should make sure that policies and funding should take that into consideration and trying to continue building this large alliance of actors. So I think that the implementation plan for the Pact on Migration and Asylum is actually an opportunity. We may have a lot of criticism against the Pact, but regarding the development of complementary pathways, there is a building block related to resettlement, inclusion, and integration, and humanitarian admission is part of it. So maybe this is something that we should take into consideration in seeing how this could be used as well to develop complementary pathways.

Thank you very much.

Over to you, Susan.

[00:35:42.21] - Susan Fratzke

Thanks, Guilhem. So we'll go ahead and move into the Q&A portion now. We have already quite a few questions that have come in. Again, if you have questions specific for Guilhem, please feel free to drop them in. We have a couple that have come in already for you. We'll start with you since you have to head out early, and then we have some broader questions as well. So Guilhem, a couple that have come in specifically for you. One is, who would lead on the development of a national strategy for complementary pathways? So given the diversity of the field, who would, would be best positioned to do that? Another question is, why do we need harmonised standards? Complementary pathways are different and target different groups, would harmonised standards harm flexibility? So I'll leave those two with you. And then we have a couple of broader questions, which I'll share as well and come to you first, and then Daniele and Belén, if you want to jump in. Two of the questions for the rest of the group are, first, is there a risk that government outsources responsibility via complementary pathways? So is there a risk of this actually shifting what should be government responsibility onto civil society actors? And second, given the rising anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiments across the Global North, is there a future for complementary pathways that's viable in the short term, or might they be at risk of some of these same trends? So, I'll go to you first if you want to answer those two that were specific to you and either of the general questions that came in as well.

[[FOR THE Q&A PORTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT, SPEAKERS ARE NOT IDENTIFIED BY NAME. PLEASE SEE THE RECORDING TO IDENTIFY SPEAKERS.]]

[00:37:12.20] - Speaker 5

Thank you, Susan. Those are excellent questions. And we, what we are thinking is more endorsements really from the government related to complementary pathways, at least in the French context. So we would see the French authorities leading this process of trying to have common policy leading, but a few points, it should not be only the business of the Ministry of Interior. We have a tendency now seeing all migration policies in European member states that are under the Ministry of the Interior. This is a cross-cutting issue that should include a lot more stakeholders at a public level. And it should also include this design of policies, the variety of actors that are involved at a civil society level. And this is very important because if it doesn't If it does not, the risk of restraining the access and the number of actors will probably materialise. So in the way we design this policy, in the willingness to include all those different civil society actors, I think the way we design it will also impact on the way it is framed and the way it will be inclusive.

[00:38:40.15] - Speaker 1

Thanks so much, Guilhem. Maybe I'll go to Daniele next and then to Belén if you want to answer either of those other two questions.

[00:38:49.12] - Speaker 4

Yeah, thank you. No, I think I have the same answer for both questions for two reasons, which is the, I mean, about the, I mean, responsibility of governments from one side and outsourcing responsibility. So this was the question and the I mean, how scaling labour pathways and how sustainable they are in the future with the anti-migrants, you know, kind of sector of society. I think that the answer might be to have to think differently as a whole of society approach. At the end of the day, integration is not done by only one single entity. It's not done by governments, it's not done by civil society actors, it's not done by private sector or refugees themselves. It's done by a world society approach. So everyone can really support the integration efforts and support legal pathways and legal channels of entry. At the moment, what of course What we are always thinking about is additionality, as it has been mentioned in some, some question. Of course, complementary pathways has to be additional to more traditional humanitarian-based and needs-based pathways, which is resettlement typically, with the aim of not leaving anyone behind. The fact that at the global level is that we are leaving the vast majority of the people behind.

[00:40:29.23] - Speaker 4

That's the— just few people can enter legal and legal channels at the moment, and just few of them have humanitarian-based opportunities. Having a World Society approach can really open up and broaden the scope of having more people moving regularly, predictably, in safety, and with them to make them contributors of the pathways themselves. And I think that this kind of approach can also shape differently the public discourse at the local or a national or a more global level in the sense that if we involved everyone in a predictable way to understand how pathways can be made managed by different actors and different stakeholders of the society. Also, the level of, I would say, the fighting among different groups can be lower because there is a need from one side, from the employers, there is a need from the society to have safe and regular movement of people. And at the end can be really a win-win-win for everyone. But we need less from orientation that the one that we are seeing at the moment if we want really to see an alternative that can be sustainable in the future for all the pieces of the societies that are involved.

[00:42:05.09] - Speaker 1

Thanks, Daniele. And I want to add one more question to the mix and maybe go back to Guilhem really quick before coming to Belén, just so we can get your answer before you head out. And that is, we have someone asking about the role of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum and how that will affect complementary pathways and potential to scale up complementary pathways. So I'll just go to you, Guilhem, first, if you have any thoughts on that, and then we'll head back to you, Belen, and then to Daniele.

[00:42:31.19] - Speaker 5

Yeah, thanks, Susan. I think there is an opportunity in the French context, trying to rely on the pact to convince authorities to build an integrated approach on the development of safe and legal pathways. So trying to have a common policy, including complementary pathways and including resources for the development of complementary pathways. A lot, I was thinking about actors such as LGBTQI+ NGOs who does not have resources to develop the potential they have in developing safe and legal pathways for LGBTQI+ persons in need of international protection, for example. So I do think that this is an opportunity to build a national policy around safe and legal pathways, integrated complementary pathways, and resources to develop them. As long, again, as there is in the design of this policy, strong dialog and co-construction with the concerned actors. And as well, something that we, I think, were not able to do sufficiently enough in the past is trying to work on the mobilization and participation of the people that are directly concerned by Safe and Legal Pathways that have been welcomed through Safe and Legal Pathways in France or that are still being hosted through Safe and Legal Pathways.

[00:44:15.10] - Speaker 5

This is, I think, also a main major perspective we have in including the people that were or are still directly concerned by safe and legal pathways.

[00:44:28.15] - Speaker 1

Thanks, Guilhem. So I'll hand over to Belen now. And Belen, if you have thoughts on either the question about the potential role of the Pact or the other two questions we had on the floor around the future of complementary pathways in this changing political environment for the protection space and whether or not there's a risk of actually outsourcing responsibilities to civil society actors on the part of government. Sure.

[00:44:55.16] - Speaker 3

Happy to come in on that. I think I agree with Guilhem on many of the points that you flagged. I think there is potential to see this as an opportunity to, again, like kind of like build momentum around these complementary pathways and try to increase funding in this regard. And I think one, one example, for example, that we flagged in the report is the opportunity to have like one kind of like national stakeholder trying to coordinate all these different efforts that again, I think the keyword today is this fragmentation. So having somebody kind of like bridging this role in some fragmentation and kind of like coordinating all these different efforts that are on the ground could be very important and could be an opportunity to build on this in the coming years. I think if we take, for example, the example from the US in the past years that the US State Department has provided funding for Welcome Corps to coordinate all these different education sponsorship programs that are on the ground. I think that's something that we could look into a bit more details in different European countries or even at EU level on how we can again coordinate a bit better on this, how to pull existing resources and make the best use of them.

[00:46:12.23] - Speaker 3

In terms of the risk of outsourcing responsibilities for the government, I mean, I think civil society organizations have played an amazing role in the field in bringing momentum and like really creating new pathways. And I think they have played and will continue to play a very important role in advocacy. However, in looking at, for example, the experience from the different host programs that emerged after the war in Ukraine, where maybe there we new civil society actors that step in to support, some of them with very little experience maybe working with people in need of protection or, yeah, like just like, for example, in mentoring or sponsorship. So we did see in that context that there were a few situations of abuses or unclear expectations, paternalistic attitudes that emerged, for example, between hosts, yeah, like welcoming in their houses Ukrainians and who didn't really know how to handle the situation, maybe didn't handle it in the best way. So I think in that sense, there is a role for the government and to still kind of like have vetting processes and some control mechanisms in place and kind of like oversee these programs and make sure that those situations do not happen.

[00:47:34.07] - Speaker 3

And that again, like all for all these different stakeholders working in the field, that there are clear expectations and kind of like some common guidance on how to support this population. Because at the end of the day, again, like what we want to support is that these people can enter a safe legal pathway and that they are supported along the way. And I think in that sense, the government can play an important role in that while civil society have played an important role in service delivery and will we need to do this all.

[00:48:06.23] - Speaker 1

Thanks, Belén. So I'd like to turn to Daniele to see if you have anything to add from your perspective on what the Pact can add and do in supporting complementary pathways. There's also a specific question that came in for you from the chat, which is, do you think that labour shortages are a one-off or an ongoing trend in Europe? So childbirth, aging population, is this something that will be corrected for eventually or something that's really here to stay? And how can complementary pathways play a role in addressing that? So I hand over to you, Daniele.

[00:48:40.02] - Speaker 4

Yeah, no, thank you. And no, I have the same feeling that the Pact related to complementary pathways is a huge opportunity that we have at the European level to strengthen the coordination of the few organizations that at the moment are working in this space, as well as the national level. Level, trying to build together and to avoid fragmentation again at the national level, because we are seeing different streams of work in different pathways that at the end of the day can support the same kind of people and sometimes playing with the same actors. So of course, an effort in coordinating, catalysing funding, and having the opportunity to streamline procedures, policies and whatever. It's a huge opportunity that I see with the new Commission coming in 2025 and further. Plus, there is a potential for cross-country collaboration. I mean, I saw the question between, I mean, Canadian experience and Europe, but it can be the same within European countries as well as other parts of the world. In particular, I would say in, of course, sharing experience at coordination, but in particular in first asylum countries about lowering the cost, unit cost of the pathways, which is this point, and lowering fragmentation as well.

[00:50:16.15] - Speaker 4

As on the ground, we have a lot of different actors playing a role in development and cooperation, for example, humanitarian aid, climate policies, and whatever that can be catalysed again at source to lower the cost and to find a better and more useful cooperation there. About stabilizing, of course, I mean, it's not my data, the labour shortages and the aging populations is the data that are consistent statistics in European space and I would say in all the Western world. So labour shortages are here to stay. That's what all economists and statistics are saying. And we should not miss the opportunities to include people in need of international protection in filling this gap as well as all the other third country nationals that can be useful for the purpose as well. So why should we invest more and more humanitarian dollars and euros to support humanitarian needs, increasingly humanitarian needs all over the world, even in the border in the Mediterranean Sea, as we are experiencing every day, when we can better support candidates to come safely and legally to be included into labour opportunities and then to fill vacancies in Europe only by coordinating better the policies and avoiding the fragmentation that I was saying.

[00:51:59.09] - Speaker 4

So I see a lot of opportunities coming and strengths that are possible to make a better coordination around those pathways.

[00:52:12.09] - Speaker 1

Thanks, Daniele. So we have a question that's coming specifically for Belén, and then another question for both of you, which is on the role of tech and what role technology can play in addressing some of these coordination gaps. So I'll turn first to Belén. The question for you was, when you talk about the role of governments and their importance in helping programs grow, should governments be more involved in terms of support and resources, or should they step back and allow organizations more freedom of manoeuvre, or perhaps a bit of both? So I think the question is with regard to when governments are providing support for programs, what type of support should that be and what's sort of the optimal role for governments to play vis-à-vis civil society organizations?

[00:52:55.03] - Speaker 3

Yes, excellent question. I think just to maybe build on what I was saying before, I think there's definitely a role for governments to provide like more sustainable and predictable funding for these pathways. And I think that would be a huge step in moving the field forward already. There's also, as I mentioned, I think a role for the government, and this is what we've seen with the different host programs that emerged during Ukraine, for kind of like vetting stakeholders involved or like making sure that the pathways that are in place ultimately safeguard the individuals that they are trying to serve. And then I think because like it or not, I mean, government stakeholders are involved in the sense that integration happens at the local level. And many, many times, these individuals, as soon as they enter, they have to, yeah, like go to the administration office for either, yeah, like different procedures that they have to put in place as soon as they arrive. And what we see in the field is that in many cases, these local, these people local working at the local administration are not aware of this pathway. So I think there's also a role for the government there to create more capacity and understanding on how these programs work and what is required from the different government stakeholders that are involved in that process.

[00:54:20.08] - Speaker 3

So I think in that way, the government can also play a big role in kind of facilitating because, for example, for community sponsorship programs, we often see that sponsors have to kind of like play that bridging role and then end up many times like kind of like explaining to local authorities what are the rights of these refugees entering community sponsorship. Why they are entitled to, for example, social welfare or to different services. So I guess if there would be more capacity or more knowledge from the government in terms of how these programs work, that would already help simplify procedures and also help with scale. And in terms of, very briefly, the role of technology, I think it's also a very good question. And we do see that, for example, there has been some experimentation in terms of matching mechanisms and how different matching, yeah, like models have been used, for example, to decide or to take into account different needs from refugees, but also maybe aspirations and preferences on their side. And then also capacity on the ground of receiving communities to facilitate that process of matching that otherwise is very, again, like time-consuming in the sense if you have to do it like hand by hand maybe and consider all these different factors.

[00:55:41.10] - Speaker 3

So we see a role for digital technologies in the matching process. But also I think what we've seen is even in the, in the applications procedure. So for example, the Unicore program in Italy, so the education program in Italy or the education program that have been put in place in France, UNHCR has supported the setting up a kind of like common platform where students can apply to all different universities or different programs that are in place instead of like going one by one. And that is something that it may sound like very simple, but it makes very big change in how that works. I think Daniele from the role of TBB and the talent catalogue may have more to add. So I'll hand over maybe to Daniele.

[00:56:31.02] - Speaker 4

Thank you. And yes, of course, I totally agree about the fact that tech technologies, I would say, better inclusive technologies can play a huge role in migration management in general. I mean, lowering the cost again of the procedure that we are all experiencing, also asylum procedures and whatever. Or when it comes to labour migration, of course, technology are already there in labour market space in Europe and in the Western world in general. I mean, LinkedIn is already there, is one of the main tools of where people can find a job as well as other platforms. As TBB, as mentioned by Belén, we are using, we develop a platform, the Talent Catalogue, which is free and open source that we find really unique. And it is unique in the world that now counts more than 120 thousand candidates already registered there. And it is used by not only by TBB, by many partners on the ground and increasingly more and more destinations as well in order really to find suitable candidates and to make, I mean, refugees and displaced talents visible to employers all over the world. And it's increasingly, it's really astonishing the use that inclusive technologies like this one can play in really be a solution for employers from one side and also for candidates from the others, as it were inclusive technology can be really a tool for dignity for displaced people all over the world.

[00:58:22.23] - Speaker 4

A lot of, just to mention, like for example, the data that we are seeing in Australia, the vast majority of candidates find and employers find themselves directly with what we call autonomous access. So they literally find online themselves in the space, and we support just them for the immigration piece. And this can happen also leveraging the diaspora communities. For example, in Europe, we are hearing and seeing an increasingly willingness from diaspora communities to support their, uh, their community members, let's say, or sometimes family members, to come legally to Europe through sponsorship program and to labour opportunities. And of course, technologies can play a huge role there. We should invest more in that space. At the moment, there is the Talent Catalogue, is the best, I would say, tool that we have. It's not perfect, uh, so we can even increasingly, as it has been mentioned invest more to make this tool that already exists and it's open widely used among the, among different stakeholders even more.

[00:59:47.04] - Speaker 1

Thanks, Daniele. And I apologise, this is, we're at the end of our time. So that's all the questions we have time to answer. There was one last question that I'll take the liberty of answering myself, which is, given that the COMET project is coming to an end, How will the resources networks that have been produced last beyond the project? And I'm happy to share that the resources that were produced by the COMET project will continue to be available online, both on the MPI website and the project website. Some of the project partners from COMET are also coming together to support a new AMIF project under the latest round of funding. And I would also say one important, very important thing to know is that I think the relationships and trust that have built through the COMET project among the different partners will remain. And as Fiona said at the beginning, one of the important outcomes of the project has been the ability of partners to really know who is responsible within each, each program and build that relationship to be able to contact each other and ask questions when needed afterwards. I think that part will also certainly last beyond the duration of the project.

[01:00:50.23] - Speaker 1

Well, I wanted to thank all of all of our speakers, Belen, Daniele, and Guilhem, and also Fiona for joining us today, and also the audience for your fascinating questions and for joining to, to hear the reflections that were shared. I apologise for the questions that we were not able to answer, but we got to as many as we could in the time that we had. An audio and video recording of the event will be available on MPI's website. Um, after we close. And the report that we discussed today, Complementary Pathways: Key Factors in Future Growth, uh, is also available on MPI's website. If we have any reporters on the call, uh, please feel free to reach out to Michelle Mittelstadt at, um, the address on your screen, uh, if you have any questions. So thank you very much, and we hope to see you again on future occasions.