As it does in much of the world, migration continues to shape Europe. At present, Europe is home to over 100 million immigrants—one-third of the world’s migrant population. At the same time, intentions to emigrateare also high, with one in five European adults currently considering leaving their home for another.
Spurred by income gaps, conflict and climate change, migration is expected to rise across Europe at a time of increased political and societal polarization. Anti-migrant sentiment and anti-immigration policies reflect (and reinforce) one another while increasingly multicultural European societies struggle with the existential challenges of integration and practical problems like critical skills shortages.
As this plays out, informed, coordinated and evidence-based policies are needed to promote safe andorderly cross-border movements that help realize the shared gains of migration for everyone—migrants, host communities and maybe even countries of origin. Managed well, any real or perceived ‘disruptions’ that migration might cause can be far outweighed by positive outcomes in terms of redressing growing demographic and socioeconomic imbalances or labor shortages across the EU, for example. Better and up-to-date information on the situation in countries of origin could improve the way returns are organized and supported. Returns can thereby aspire to being both dignified and fruitful rather than an unintended step towards re-migration.
In trying to contribute to sense making in the broader migration ecosystem—the European Philanthropic Initiative for Migration (EPIM), Europe’s largest and longest-standing philanthropic collaborative working on issues of migration, belonging and democracy—recently developed an innovative policy tool that provides a strong, useful and replicable bases for better decision making. EPIM’s Systems Map of Migration Governance in Europe attempts to capture the current migration governance system in Europe. It synthesizes many points of view and actively incorporates a diverse range of identities and contexts. To create the map, EPIM distilled published research, stakeholder interviews and input from in-person workshops into visual language that was in turn tested on a wide variety of stakeholders and subject-matter experts. The result is a potent tool to drive change that at once analyzes the migration governance system in Europe and, maybe more importantly, identifies leverage directions to inform not just EPIM’s own strategy but potentially the efforts of any number of other actors.
In curating the Map, EPIM used an inclusive definition of migration governance—that is, migration governance is the way the lives of migrants are governed by the intended and unintended consequences of regulations, policies and actions. Beyond laws, policies, institutions and practices, the Map strives to include the relationships, power dynamics and mindsets that contribute to shaping the way migrants are treated and the way migration is experienced. It is worth noting that before starting to map the reality of the system, the mapping team envisioned a desired future for it. It used a “guiding star” principle to represent the transformational intent of the exercise—and thus to influence the policies to be derived from it. The “guiding star” was (and remains) “an EU migration governance system that upholds and respects human rights and is grounded in the real experiences of migrants and those in the ecosystem.” The factors that can lead to (or obscure) this goal are what are illustrated in the map as variables, casual relationships and feedback loops. Intended as “a gift to the ecosystem,” the Map is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 and available interactively online.
EPIM’s Systems Map of Migration Governance in Europe is especially important in three mutually reinforcing ways. First, it is significant in that it exists at all. Applying systems thinking to migration and brining together multiple stakeholder perspectives through a co-creation methodology was a Herculean task. But like the resulting Map, EPIM proved that the process was complex but not impossible, complicated but not incomprehensible. However imperfect the Map may be (and all involved recognize its shortcomings), those working in migration policy and on the frontlines of response are better off for it. While the Map may look messy, it disentangles many of the forces at play and relevant to devision- and policy making. It’s a rich basis for discussion, including on returns.
Related, the Map provides a useful entry point for examining migration issues from a variety of perspectives, even simultaneously. It can be used to pursue lines of thought and reasoning; to identify shared interest(s) and to find common purpose. All this can forge the type of multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral and cross-sectional alliances that are necessary to confront the ‘wicked’ challenge of migration. Additionally, the Map reveals the interconnectedness of actors and actions. It points to ways where collaboration can be brought to bear from difference directions; steps in the right direction need not be top down. In fact, the Map highlights the interdependencies that can and do exist between governments, NGOs, international organizations and local authorities. Ideally, these can stop working at cross purposes. Indeed, are there synergies to be had? Beyond this, the Map sheds light on ways that academics and researchers can contribute in complementary if not pivotal ways. Meanwhile, from the Map, advocacy groups can glean ways to hone their messages and to better position themselves to advance them. Lastly, the Map can be taken apart and put back together for Europe and replicated for other contexts. It is a resource that underscored the need for deep and purposeful analysis based on quality data and a multiplicity of perspectives. Most importantly, it is dynamic and can adjust to changing times.