Government’s analysis, assessment and research activities Student, Worker or Refugee? How complementary pathways for people in need of international protection work in practice Sirkku Varjonen, Amanda Kinnunen, Juho-Matti Paavola, Farid Ramadan, Mika Raunio, Joanne van Selm, Tuuli Vilhunen P U B L I C AT I O N S O F T H E G O V E R N M E N T ’ S A N A LY S I S , A S S E S S M E N T A N D R E S E A R C H A C T I V I T I E S 2 0 2 1 : 6 0 tietokayttoon.fi/en Student, Worker or Refugee? How complementary pathways for people in need of international protection work in practice Sirkku Varjonen, Amanda Kinnunen, Juho-Matti Paavola, Farid Ramadan, Mika Raunio, Joanne van Selm, Tuuli Vilhunen Prime Minister’s Office, Helsinki 2021 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Prime Minister’s Office © 2021 Authors and Prime Minister’s Office ISBN pdf: 978-952-383-225-1 ISSN pdf: 2342-6799 Layout: Government Administration Department, Publications Helsinki 2021 Finland Publication distribution Institutional Repository for the Government of Finland Valto julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi Publication sale Online bookstore of the Finnish Government vnjulkaisumyynti.fi https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/ https://vnjulkaisumyynti.fi/ Description sheet 12 November 2021 Student, Worker or Refugee? How complementary pathways for people in need of international protection work in practice Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publisher Prime Minister’s Office Author(s) Varjonen, Sirkku; Kinnunen, Amanda; Paavola, Juho-Matti; Ramadan, Farid; Raunio, Mika; van Selm, Joanne; Vilhunen, Tuuli; Language English Pages 126 Abstract This report presents the key findings of the project Complementary pathways for people in need of international protection: Learning from the evidence of pathways in practice (PATHS). The objective of the study was to obtain comprehensive information on what complementary pathways can mean in practice and describe what administrative and legislative solutions have been made by the countries applying these arrangements. Complementary pathways are safe and regulated avenues for refugees that complement refugee resettlement by providing lawful stay in a third country where the refugees’ international protection needs are met. We distinguish between three types of pathways: labour-based, study-based, and other complementary pathways and examine examples of each. Our main focus in this work is in labour- and study-based complementary pathways. In their contemporary form labour- and study-based pathways are mostly small-scale NGO-led programmes. Many of them are still in a pilot phase. Complementary pathways have a great potential to offer protection and, at the same time, give an opportunity for skilled refugees to integrate into the receiving country through working or studying. Labour- and study programmes do not target the most vulnerable refugees, however, and cannot replace resettlement. Provision This publication is part of the implementation of the Government Plan for Analysis, Assessment and Research. (tietokayttoon.fi) The content is the responsibility of the producers of the information and does not necessarily represent the view of the Government. Keywords Complementary pathways, refugees, immigrants, immigration policy, refugee policy, research, research activities ISBN PDF 978-952-383-225-1 ISSN PDF 2342-6799 URN address http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-383-225-1 http:// Kuvailulehti 12.11.2021 Opiskelija, työntekijä vai pakolainen? Kuinka kansainvälisen suojelun tarpeessa oleville tarkoitetut täydentävät väylät toimivat käytännössä Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja 2021:60 Julkaisija Valtioneuvoston kanslia Tekijä/t Varjonen, Sirkku; Kinnunen, Amanda; Paavola, Juho-Matti; Ramadan, Farid; Raunio, Mika; van Selm, Joanne; Vilhunen, Tuuli; Kieli Englanti Sivumäärä 126 Tiivistelmä Tässä raportissa esitellään Täydentävät maahanmuuton väylät kansainvälisen suojelun tarpeessa oleville ihmisille: Oppeja käytössä olevista väylistä (PATHS) -selvityshankkeen keskeiset tulokset. Selvityksen tavoitteena oli luoda kokonaiskuva täydentävistä väylistä käytännössä sekä esitellä, minkälaisia hallinnollisia ja oikeudellisia ratkaisuja on tehty maissa, joissa näitä väyliä on käytössä. Täydentävät väylät ovat turvallisia, uudelleensijoittamisohjelmia täydentäviä reittejä päästä maahan, jossa pakolaisten suojeluntarpeeseen voidaan vastata. Jaoimme väylät kolmeen eri tyyppiin: työperusteisiin, opiskeluperusteisiin sekä muihin täydentäviin väyliin ja tarkastelimme esimerkkejä jokaisesta. Keskityimme tässä työssä erityisesti työ- ja opiskeluperusteisiin väyliin. Ne ovat nykymuodossaan pääsääntöisesti varsin uusia ja pienimuotoisia ei-valtiollisten toimijoiden vetämiä ohjelmia, joista monet ovat vielä pilottivaiheessa. Täydentävillä väylillä on runsaasti potentiaalia ja ne tarjoavat kansainvälisen suojelun tarpeessa oleville osaajille mahdollisuuksia kiinnittyä vastaanottavan maan yhteiskuntaan opiskelun tai työnteon kautta. Työ- ja opiskeluperusteiset väylät eivät kuitenkaan kohdennu kaikkein haavoittuvimmassa asemassa oleviin pakolaisiin, joten ne eivät voi korvata uudelleensijoittamisohjelmia. Klausuuli Tämä julkaisu on toteutettu osana valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimussuunnitelman toimeenpanoa. (tietokayttoon.fi) Julkaisun sisällöstä vastaavat tiedon tuottajat, eikä tekstisisältö välttämättä edusta valtioneuvoston näkemystä. Asiasanat täydentävät väylät, pakolaiset, maahanmuuttajat, maahanmuuttopolitiikka, pakolaispolitiikka, tutkimus, tutkimustoiminta ISBN PDF 978-952-383-225-1 ISSN PDF 2342-6799 Julkaisun osoite http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-383-225-1 http:// Presentationsblad 12.11.2021 Student, arbetare eller flykting? Hur kompletterande vägar för personer i behov av internationell skydd fungerar i praktiken Publikationsserie för statsrådets utrednings- och forskningsverksamhet 2021:60 Utgivare Statsrådets kansli Författare Varjonen, Sirkku; Kinnunen, Amanda; Paavola, Juho-Matti; Ramadan, Farid; Raunio, Mika; van Selm, Joanne; Vilhunen, Tuuli; Språk Engelska Sidantal 126 Referat Denna rapport presenterar de centrala resultaten i forskingsprojektet Kompletterande migrationsvägar för personer i behov av internationellt skydd: Kunskap om tillgängliga vägar (PATHS). Syftet med projektet var att skapa en helhetsbild av kompletterande vägar i praktiken samt presentera vilka administrativa och lagstiftningsmässiga lösningar har gjorts i länder där dessa vägar används. De kompletterande vägarna är trygga och reglerade vägar som kompletterar vidarebosättningsprogram, och genom vilka flyktingar kan komma till ett land där deras behov av skydd kan tillgodoses. Vi delade upp vägarna i tre olika typer: arbetsbaserade, studiebaserade och andra kompletterande vägar, och vi granskar exempel på varje. I detta arbete fokuserade vi särskilt på arbetsbaserade och studiebaserade vägar. I sin nuvarande form är de huvudsakligen ganska nya och småskaliga program som drivs av icke- statliga aktörer, och många av dem befinner sig fortfarande i pilotfasen. Kompletterande vägar har stor potential och erbjuder experter i behov av skydd möjligheter att etablera sig i det mottagande landets samhälle genom att studera eller arbeta. Arbets- och studievägarna riktas dock inte till de mest utsatta flyktingarna och kan därför inte ersätta vidarebosättningsprogram. Klausul Den här publikation är en del i genomförandet av statsrådets utrednings- och forskningsplan. (tietokayttoon.fi) De som producerar informationen ansvarar för innehållet i publikationen. Textinnehållet återspeglar inte nödvändigtvis statsrådets ståndpunkt Nyckelord Kompletterande migrationsvägar, flyktingar, invandrare, invandringspolitik, flyktingspolitik, forskning, forskningsverksamhet ISBN PDF 978-952-383-225-1 ISSN PDF 2342-6799 URN-adress http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-383-225-1 Contents 1 Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.1 Aims .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2 Data & Methods.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.3 Structure of report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2 Defining complementary pathways.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.1 What is meant by complementary pathways?.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.2 The history and current state of complementary pathways.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.3 How the concept of complementary pathways is understood and used in this report .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3 Labour-based complementary pathways .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.1 Combining economic and protection needs in migration policy .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.2 Contemporary platform powered model and its practical applications.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.2.1 Talent beyond boundaries (TBB) model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.2.2 Economic Mobility Pathways Project (Canada).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4 Study-based complementary pathways.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.1 What are study-based complementary pathways and why are they needed?.. . . . . . . 55 4.2 Examples of study-based complementary pathways and other study programmes for refugees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.2.1 Comprehensive study-based complementary pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4.2.1.1 UNICORE (Italy).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4.2.1.2 Middle East Scholars (Lithuania) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4.2.1.3 DAAD Leadership programmes (Germany).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.2.1.4 Higher Education in Emergencies scholarship programme (Portugal) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.2.1.5 Syrian Scholars Initiative (Japan).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.2.2 Other study programmes for refugees.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 4.2.2.1 Student Refugee Program (Canada).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 4.2.2.2 SPARK.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 4.2.2.3 HOPES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.2.2.4 DAFI (Albert Einstein German Academic Refugee Initiative).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 5 Other complementary pathways.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.1 Humanitarian pathways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.1.1 HAP Syria (Germany).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.1.2 Austrian humanitarian programmes (I-III) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 5.2 Humanitarian visas.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 5.2.1 Humanitarian Corridors (Italy) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 5.3 Sponsorship-based programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 5.3.1 Canadian resettlement and private sponsorship model.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 5.3.2 Community sponsorship in the United Kingdom.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5.3.3 Neustart im Team – NesT (Germany). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5.3.4 Privately sponsored federal state admission programmes for Syrians (Germany).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 5.4 Family reunification.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.5 Other pathways .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.5.1 At risk programmes in Germany.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.5.2 Institute of International Education - Scholar Rescue Fund (case Finland).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 5.5.3 Scholars at Risk and SARF.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 6 Cross-sectional overview of complementary pathways.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 6.1 Setting the scene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 6.1.1 What are the aims of complementary pathways? .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 6.1.2 Labour and study-based complementary pathways are still relatively new and small-scale.. . . 101 6.2 National organisation of pathways.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 6.2.1 Coordination and cooperation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 6.2.2 Relation to resettlement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 6.3 Eligibility and selection process of beneficiaries .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 6.4 Residence permit and legal status .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 6.5 Support services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 7 Discussion and future considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 7.1 Prospects and key concerns.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 7.2 How do complementary pathways compare to resettlement?.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 References .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Interviews .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 8 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 List of abbreviations CEDEFOP European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training CRISP Sustainable Resettlement and Complementary Pathways Initiative DAAD German Academic Exchange Service EDUFI The Finnish National Agency for Education EU European Union EMPP Economic Mobility Pathways Project GCR The Global Compact on Refugees GRSI Global Refugees Sponsorship Initiative HOPES Higher and Further Education Opportunities and Perspectives for Syrians ICMC The International Catholic Migration Commission ICU International Christian University IIE Institute of International Education ILO International Labour Organization IOM International Organization for Migration IRCC Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada JICUF Japan International Christian University Foundation NHS National Health Service (UK) NYD New York Declaration OAU Organisation of Africa Unity OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OET Occupational English Test SARF Scholars at Risk Finland SRF Scholar Rescue Fund TBB Talent Beyond Boundaries TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language UN United Nations UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (The UN Refugee Agency) UNICORE University Corridors for Refugees WUSC World University Service of Canada 9 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 1 Introduction Complementary pathways have been defined by UNHCR (2019a, 5) as: safe and regulated avenues for refugees that complement resettlement by providing lawful stay in a third country where their international protection needs are met. They are additional to resettlement and do not substitute the protection afforded to refugees under the international protection regime. Humanitarian admission programmes, private or community sponsorship programmes, humanitarian visas, family reunification (outside resettlement), and education and labour opportunities are examples of immigration channels that could count as complementary pathways (UNHCR 2019a). Complementary pathways could be an answer to several problems in the refugee protection field. There are very limited opportunities for resettlement globally, in part because this durable solution is resource intensive and viewed as a permanent move, and therefore not one taken lightly by either states or refugees. Only 4.5% of the refugees identified by UNHCR as being in need of resettlement were actually resettled in 2020. The percentage was particularly low partly due to the pandemic, but also due to low quotas made available by resettlement countries (Fratzke et al. 2021). For comparison: in 2014 approximately 10% of refugees in need of resettlement were resettled (UNHCR 2015). UNHCR estimates that in 2022 almost 1.5 million refugees will be in need of resettlement (UNHCR 2021a). This level of need will undoubtedly not be met. What is more, it is a tiny fraction of the forcibly displaced population, 82.4 million according to UNHCR (2021b). With often limited protection or prospects in neighbouring countries, and insufficient legal pathways to reach the longer- term safety of life in developed countries, refugees often find they have little choice but to take dangerous and sometimes fatal journeys, for example to Europe, resorting to smugglers who benefit economically. Their efforts to find protection and safety frequently then result in irregular migration, posing many challenges for them and for the receiving countries too. Developing complementary pathways is now seen as one of the key strategies for managing the movement of more refugees: keeping some potential asylum seekers out of the hands of smugglers, avoiding many of the abuses and challenges posed by independent journeys, complementing resettlement, while allowing for a focus on non- refugee aspects of migration for some people whose need for safety can be met through channels other than asylum or resettlement. 10 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 In the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants (UN General Assembly 2016), governments voiced a commitment to strengthen and enhance mechanisms to protect people. Further, the Global Compact on Refugees adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2018 stressed the expansion of legal access to third countries and emphasised making available pathways for admission that complement resettlement in ways that benefit both refugees and the communities that host them. Despite the growing demand for information, however, complementary pathways have not yet been thoroughly evaluated (van Selm 2020a). This study has been carried out as part of the implementation of the Finnish Government Plan for Analysis, Assessment and Research. The research was conducted in collaboration with the Rehabilitation Foundation, Migration Institute of Finland, Oxford Research AB and an Independent consultant, Dr Joanne van Selm. The research team was led by Senior researcher, Dr Sirkku Varjonen from Rehabilitation foundation and the report was cowritten by Dr Varjonen, Researcher Farid Ramadan and Researcher Tuuli Vilhunen from Rehabilitation Foundation, Senior researcher Mika Raunio from the Migration Institute of Finland, Analyst Juho-Matti Paavola, Analyst Amanda Kinnunen and Analyst Stefanie Lange Scherbenske from Oxford Research and Dr Joanne van Selm. Director, Docent Riikka Shemeikka (Rehabilitation Foundation) and Julia Erginoz (Oxford Research) assisted in the project. 1.1 Aims The objective of this research is to gather and provide information on the practical aspects of complementary pathways. This means examining the variety and nature of the complementary pathways internationally, particularly in the EU, and compiling what could amount to an annotated inventory of the situation to date. This study pulls together the evidence on the practical implications of complementary pathways, focusing on labour and study-based programmes in particular as relevant to the Finnish situation. Examining experiences from existing complementary pathways is important for both national and international level discussions and debates on the need for and means of developing complementary pathways for legal migration of people in need of international protection. This research project contributes to knowledge concerning the development of legal migration pathways as part of the EU’s comprehensive approach to migration, as emphasised by the European Commission (2020). The aim of further developing the system of legal admission pathways is also mentioned in the Programme of Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s Government (2019). 11 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 As noted in the ERN+ (2018a) policy paper on three types of complementary pathways, ‘Further policy-focused studies, both at national and EU level, could be engaged to investigate what works well, and come up with innovative approaches’ (p. 29). By collecting information from and engaging in discussions with a wide array of experts working in the field, the project aims to inspire and support collective efforts to create and adopt new solutions to ensure more people can live their lives in safety.  In line with the research call and research questions mentioned in the terms of reference provided by the Prime Minister’s office, the main emphasis of the report is on mapping and describing the currently existing complementary pathways on a practical level and not on evaluative perspectives or offering policy advice.1 We will, however, also briefly discuss the functionality of the programmes based on current experiences at the end of the report. Six main research questions guide this enquiry, each with several sub questions. The questions below were formulated in the terms of reference. Over the course of the research process certain questions proved more relevant than others2 and, therefore, it is those questions that we address here in most detail. In the main results in Chapter 6, we present and discuss our answers thematically, instead of explicitly answering each question in the order presented below. 1 However, a separate policy brief in Finnish will be provided based on this study. 2 For instance, programmes are not quite as country-driven as the questions assume: they are not strictly coordinated or initiated by a single state but are more programme-based. This is relevant to RQ1 in particular. In addition, there are usually no separate solutions at the legal framework level when it comes to visa types or residence permit procedures. The same permit types are used as with regular migration. 12 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 1. What are the complementar y pathways for legal migration? 1.1 What strategies and arrangements are in place in various countries and how are they coordinated nationally? 1.2 Is there a common core idea in the various arrangements made by countries? What do these arrangements seek to accomplish? Do different countries have different emphases? 1.3 If a country has a resettlement programme, how do the complementary pathways relate to it? 1.4 Are arrangements pertaining to complementary pathways used to improve labour supply, for example in sectors suffering from labour shortages? 1.5 How much have people in need of international protection migrated through such arrangements, and what is known about them from statistics? 2. How are people who may be suitable for complementar y pathways selected: how are they identified or presented to the countries, and how does the process then proceed? 2.1 The purpose is to determine how the process works: among other things, how, at what stage and by whom is the need for protection assessed, and how are other conditions for granting of a permit determined? 13 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 3. On what grounds is the stay of a person selected under an arrangement based? 3.1 Is the stay based on the need for international protection or on a ‘complementary’ criterion such as working or studying? 3.2 Is the person issued a residence permit or other document granting the right to stay and at what stage? How long is the right to stay valid and can it be renewed? 3.3 On what grounds does the right to stay cease or on what grounds can it be revoked, and how is the need for the person’s international protection taken into account here? 4. Is there a difference in the legal status of a person selected under an arrangement when compared against a person, on the one hand, entitled to stay on the basis of an ordinary permit granted, for example, for work or study; and, on the other hand, a person with a residence permit based on the need for protection? 4.1 Are facilitated admission to a country or eased criteria for granting a residence permit (e.g. on the basis of work or study) applied to persons entering under an arrangement, and what does such facilitated admission mean in practice? 4.2 If the permit is based on such a complementary pathway admission, how do the arrangements take into account that the persons concerned are in need of international protection? 4.3 What rights does a person arriving through the arrangements receive? 14 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 5. Is there cooperation with, for example, educational institutions and employers within the framework of the models, and what forms of cooperation are in use? 5.1 Can educational institutions and/or employers influence the selection of people? 5.2 Are training, coaching (e.g. language training) or other early-stage relocation services provided to individuals selected through different models? If so, what kind and by what bodies? 6. Are there examples indicating that the model would be applied only in geographically limited areas, for example as par t of a mobility par tnership with a specific countr y or region? 1.2 Data & Methods A three-strand methodology was undertaken for this study. These consisted of a desk review of existing documents, interviews with representatives of key organizations and governments, and participation in online events. Thus, the research data consist of interview data, documents (scientific publications, policy documents), as well as documentation of and presentations given by experts in online events. Interview data To gain preliminary insight into the topic of complementary pathways, we started with four group interviews (11 interviewees in total, two of whom participated in two interviews) with experts from key organisations having an overall view of the current state of complementary pathways. Interviews were made with officials from the IOM Regional Office Brussels, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the UNHCR Headquarters Geneva, UNHCR Regional Bureau for Europe and the UNHCR Representation for the Nordic 15 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 and Baltic countries. During these interviews suggestions were also received for further organisations and individuals to interview. In order to learn about the practicalities of particular labour- and study-based programmes, we conducted interviews with people working in or in close contact with these organisations or programmes. In total, 18 interviews were conducted with 22 interviewees in relation to the following programmes: TBB UK, TBB Australia and New Zealand, EMPP, SPARK, Middle East Scholars programme, AUF (France), DAAD, The multi- stakeholder Global Task Force on Third Country Education Pathways, Humanitarian Corridors, Student Refugee Program, NesT, BMI, University Corridors. The interviewees in this group included also local stakeholders (e.g. migration authority officials and representatives of ministries) in Italy and Germany. Key focus of these interviews was on the legal and administrative solutions used, as well as the policy context and the target groups of the pathways adopted in the context of these countries.3 The interviews were semi-structured, and the length of a typical interview was one hour. Documents A wide range of documents were assessed in this course of this study. These were drawn from research literature, policy documents, legal documents and other relevant material including statistical information focusing on complementary pathways in general, as well as those addressing key programmes and selected case countries in particular. Besides online library and google searches, snowballing was used, following up on sources found in various documents. Webinar data  In June 2021 we organized an international webinar on complementary pathways to deepen our understanding through expert discussion. The Complementary Pathways and Migration Policy – World Refugee Day 2021 webinar & expert panel was built around four major questions concerning complementary pathways as a policy measure. For details, see: Complementary pathways and migration policy - World refugee day 2021 webinar & expert panel - Siirtolaisuusinstituutti 3 Our initial plan was to focus on 3 case countries (Italy, Germany and Canada) in more detail, but as we realized that the current programmes often aren’t initiated of closely coor- dinated by states, we directed our focus on individual programmes more than the country context as such. https://siirtolaisuusinstituutti.fi/en/events/complementary-pathways-and-migration-policy-world-refugee-day-2021-webinar-expert-panel/ https://siirtolaisuusinstituutti.fi/en/events/complementary-pathways-and-migration-policy-world-refugee-day-2021-webinar-expert-panel/ 16 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 In addition, members of the research group attended several online events on or interlinked with complementary pathways to get a deeper insight into the research topic. Methods The interviews were semi-structured with questions largely based on the research questions. Interviews were conducted via MS Teams. The interviewees gave their informed consent and were given a list of main interview questions in advance. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Qualitative analysis of the interview data was based on simple content analysis and guided by our straightforward research questions. When analysing the interview data, a template was used to tease out specific elements across various programmes. Document and webinar data was also analysed guided by our research questions and aiming at producing definitions and descriptions of current complementary pathways, with a special emphasis on labour- and study-based programmes and focusing mainly on the European context. 1.3 Structure of report In the first chapter we have provided a brief introduction to the topic of complementary pathways and described the aims, data and methods of the research. Chapter 2 offers a brief overview of the background and history of complementary pathways and looks at how the concept has been defined and used in previous literature. At the end of the chapter, we elaborate on how the concept of complementary pathways is used in this report. Chapter 3 zooms in on labour-based complementary pathways. It introduces the background and current state of labour-based complementary pathways and presents key examples of pilot programmes currently in use. Chapter 4 focuses on study-based complementary pathways. It discusses the need for study-based opportunities and presents several current programmes, dividing these into comprehensive study-based programmes and other study programmes available for refugees. Chapter 5 offers an overview of other complementary pathways including humanitarian pathways, humanitarian visas, sponsorship-based programmes and family reunification. 17 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Chapter 6 takes a cross-sectional view of complementary pathways and related programmes and provides an overview. The chapter is organized into five main themes and responds to the six research questions and their sub-questions, listed in section 1.2. Chapter 7 offers some evaluative comments on how the current pathways function. It also discusses some open questions and considers the future prospects of complementary pathways. 18 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 2 Defining complementary pathways Chapter 2 provides a brief overview of the background and history of complementary pathways and looks at how the concept has been defined and used in pervious literature, thus partly answering research question 1. ‘What are the complementary pathways for legal migration?’. At the end of the chapter, we elaborate on how the concept of complementary pathways is used in this report. 2.1 What is meant by complementary pathways? International documents and scholarship on complementary pathways reveal a progression of thought and content on what is exactly meant by complementary pathways as a term or concept, although it has not yet achieved a standard and widely accepted definition. As Wood (2020, 3) points out, ‘the diversity that exists between the various kinds of complementary pathways makes it difficult to identify with clarity what is, or is not, [a] complementary pathway’ and that, in turn, ‘raises the question of whether a single definition of “complementary pathways” is possible or even desirable’. Most recently, in a September 2021 report commissioned by UNHCR and conducted by MPI Europe and the University of Ottawa Refugee Hub, complementary pathways were defined as: legal admission programmes created or adjusted to allow refugees access for the purposes of eventually reaching a solution to their displacement. These programmes are additional and separate to UNHCR-referred resettlement programmes against state-set quotas. Eligibility of refugees for complementary pathways is based on criteria other than those for resettlement (such vulnerability or protection needs of the refugees) and includes their education or employment qualifications, family composition, etc. Ideally, complementary pathways include progressive access to permanent residency or citizenship. (Fratzke et al. 2021, 15) Wagner and Kaliaficas (2021) have noted that, rather than being defined, complementary pathways are often presented as a list of methods or approaches to admission strategies 19 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 for refugees and others in need of international protection through various immigration channels. A major reason for this listing of pathways rather than defining the general approach is probably the fact that complementary pathways essentially amount to the use of a range of regular immigrant admission channels for safe entry and residence status for people who: y are in a country of first asylum; and y have a protection need; and y qualify for an immigration status, or for a specific humanitarian programme; and y are granted status or at least permission to enter prior to arrival; and y might have their travel organized by the authorities of the country to which they are migrating; but y will not necessarily be granted refugee status or subsidiary protection; and y do not fall under a resettlement programme; but y will have residence and other rights for the duration of their immigrant status; and y should be able to apply for asylum, which is their right, as is non-refoulement The ‘pathways’ are immigration channels and humanitarian programmes that ‘complement’ resettlement as alternative, legal, organized means of admission for refugees and others in need of protection. They are generally limited in size, and the status granted is usually not a refugee or protection status, and is temporary, though renewable, in nature. Resettlement is a precious mainstay of the international protection regime. One challenge of the last two decades has been how to expand resettlement, while not actually challenging its pre-eminence as a durable solution in any way. Some of the methods investigated or attempted to achieve that end are discussed in the history section below. The concept of complementary pathways rose to prominence in the 2016 New York Declaration (NYD). In that document, governments signalled their intention to expand the number and range of legal pathways available for admission of refugees to third countries, benefiting those refugees and the countries of their first asylum, as well as the destination states (para 77). By indicating that they would consider expanding existing humanitarian 20 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 admission programmes with possible short-term evacuations for medical reasons; making flexible arrangements to assist family reunification; private sponsorship, and opportunities for labour mobility and education (para 79), governments gave some substance to the meaning of ‘legal pathways’ without actually defining a new approach. In the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) annexed to the NYD, governments employ the term ‘resettlement and complementary pathways’ as a durable solution, alongside return and local integration (Point 10). The legal pathways of the Declaration text were apparently the ‘complementary pathways’ of the annex with a link to resettlement. However, while indications of substance and purpose were present, a real definition remained lacking. Furthermore, some of the substantive elements, such as private sponsorship, were already functioning parts of resettlement programmes in some countries (e.g. Canada), while other elements, such as family reunification, were highly politicized in their existing, narrow form (e.g. in the EU, where efforts over recent years to limit the extent of family reunification, seen as a major immigration channel, could be counter to the idea that extended family members, in need of protection, be admitted under a complementary pathway). The Global Compact on Refugees (UN 2018) clearly distinguishes between resettlement and complementary pathways – the latter being specified as ‘a complement to resettlement’ (para 94). The GCR seeks contributions from states, again setting out a list of potential pathways, and stressing the need for increasing both their availability and their predictability. The list in the GCR offers some nuance on the New York Declaration list. For example, establishing private or community sponsorship programmes is specified as ‘additional to regular resettlement’ and the Global Refugees Sponsorship Initiative (GRSI) is referred to directly. The list of pathways continues with (para 95): humanitarian visas, humanitarian corridors, and other humanitarian admission programmes; educational opportunities for refugees (including women and girls) through grant of scholarships and student visas, including through partnerships between government and academic institutions; and labour mobility opportunities for refugees, including through the identification of refugees with skills that are needed in third countries. As mandated in the GCR, UNHCR produced a Three-Year Strategy on Resettlement and Complementary Pathways (2019b) in which it defined complementary pathways as: 21 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 safe and regulated avenues that complement refugee resettlement and by which refugees may be admitted in a country and have their international protection needs met while they are able to support themselves to potentially reach a sustainable and lasting solution. This perhaps comes closest to a non-list definition to date, and is the definition on which we ground ourselves, as will be explained in section 3 of this chapter below. Whether or not there is an agreed definition of complementary pathways, there are several criteria widely viewed as central to the approach, with significant potential benefits for various participants in the refugee protection process. Although the pathways are posited as complementary to resettlement, there is often tension in discussion of the relationship, similarities and differences. Wood (2020) discusses four core objectives of complementary pathways and notes that they can (ultimately) provide durable solutions to refugees who find themselves in first countries of asylum without access to other durable solutions such as return or resettlement, although this is not always the case. Secondly, they can at least meet the immediate international protection needs of people whose lives and freedoms are at risk. Furthermore, they can help to achieve self-reliance for refugees by allowing them to re- establish themselves and pursue their own goals and livelihoods. The fourth core objective according to Wood is promoting responsibility-sharing among states in the protection of refugees. Another core feature of complementary pathways, highlighted by the European Resettlement Network+ is that they contribute to the international protection regime generally, in particular to the search for durable solutions for refugees (ERN+ 2018a). Self-reliance, independence and human agency are also emphasized by UNHCR (2020a, 5): ‘An important feature of many complementary pathways is that refugees are able to exercise control over their own solutions by accessing them independently using publicly available information and processes.’ Yet here an example of tension arises: the GCR distinguished between resettlement as a durable solution, and complementary pathways. Can the latter offer a step on the path towards a durable solution, although the immediate solution might be temporary? Do they complement resettlement by offering different criteria for admission or by not necessarily providing permanent status? Analytically, Wood (2020, 13-14) suggests that different types of complementary pathways can be categorized in two ways: 1) Needs- vs qualifications-based complementary pathways, and 2) ‘custom’ complementary pathways vs regular migration channels. Under the first of these categorizations, needs-based pathways would include humanitarian visas and humanitarian admissions programmes, while expanded family reunification, employment, and education would be qualification-based pathways. Meanwhile, regular 22 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 migration channels would involve those labour and education mobility programmes that are available to any qualified person, including refugees – although these might require adaptations or adjustment to ensure access for refugees (Wood 2020, 13-14). They also give rise to questions about how protection can be ensured. Custom complementary pathways are those that have been specifically developed and implemented, often in conjunction with UNHCR, to provide admission and stay for refugees (whether needs or qualification based). In sum, complementary pathways, broadly speaking, are any legal admission route that opens up opportunities or are specifically created for safe refugee mobility. They could be existing immigration channels or newly crafted programmes. They are not refugee resettlement programmes, but they complement resettlement opportunities. This complementarity is found through a sort of mutual programmatic co-existence, or by reinforcing access to resettlement for those refugees who are particularly vulnerable, while other refugees with particular skills or connections can make use of complementary pathways to reach a secure situation. Regular legal migration pathways are often not accessible for refugees ‘as is’ – for example due to documentation requirements and other eligibility criteria. So they may need adaptation. However, complementary pathways can also be legal immigration opportunities of which refugees take advantage to find their own solution to the problems they face in their existing location and situation. The search for a definition portrayed above makes complementary pathways sound like something new, a policy creation of the last few years. In fact, they have existed without a title for a long time, as will be explored below. 2.2 The history and current state of complementary pathways Complementary pathways is quite a recent term in international protection, probably first explicitly coined and linked to resettlement in 2016 in documents of the 66th Standing Committee of UNHCR and the build-up to, and finalizing of, the New York Declaration (2016). However, both the term and the approach it connotes have a history. In some senses, the movement towards complementary pathways (i.e. refugees being admitted under various immigration headings) can be seen as completing a circle with earlier forms of resettlement (see e.g. Zeick 2013). In other ways, it might be seen as a more linear consequence alongside the understandings of mixed migration flows and motives (see e.g. Angenendt et al. 2017). One could even suggest its lineage goes further back to 23 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 examples such as the 17th century welcoming of Huguenots in the UK and the Netherlands as ‘denizens’ and citizens, or the early 20th Century introduction of Nansen passports, allowing safe movement for hundreds of thousands of refugees. The overview below is necessarily cursory, but is intended to give a sense of the developments over time that have contributed to the current policy (if not numerical) focus on complementary pathways, alongside resettlement. First, the terminology of ‘complementary’ has a history. The term ‘complementary protection’ has previously been used to describe states’ obligations to people who do not qualify for refugee status in the sense of the 1951 Convention, but do have protection needs and are granted status under other international or regional legal instruments, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (Karlsen 2009; Hein & Donato 2012). Many of these same forms of, or reasons for, protection now fall under the label of subsidiary protection, in Europe at least. Second, the notion of regular immigration channels or pathways being used by refugees (or by states to accommodate refugee admissions) is really not new. This has been a feature, even in the 1951 Convention era. Many of the Hungarians who were ‘resettled’ from Austria and Yugoslavia following the 1956 uprising and exodus were admitted to west European states as miners or farmers, not as refugees (van Selm-Thorburn 1998, 216). This is an example of state use of immigration channels for the purpose of refugee admissions. Individuals' use of immigration opportunities rather than applying for asylum, for example, is more difficult to document, but has frequently occurred. The 1956 example illustrates the historical relationship between the use of regular migration pathways for protection purposes and resettlement. Resettlement had been a more common and widespread feature of the international protection regime until the Indo-Chinese resettlements of the 1970s and early 1980s, and the 1989 Comprehensive Plan of Action, which sought to bring resolution to issues surrounding asylum, migration, return and resettlement for those who had fled conflicts in Vietnam and the region. Following that era, resettlement programmes came to be viewed as primarily instruments of the traditional immigration countries (US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Those conducted by the few European states (primarily Nordic/Scandinavian) still active in the resettlement field were relatively small in scale and scope. A dichotomy had appeared in resettlement. In North America, Canadian citizens supported resettlement to the degree that new streams of private sponsorship were opened (see e.g. Pfrimmer 2019). The US consolidated a multi-strand refugee programme involving referrals from UNHCR and NGOs, as well as political designations of priority situations (see e.g. Elliott 2007; National Immigration Forum 2020). 24 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 In Europe, however, resettlement was reduced (see e.g. Loescher 1989). In part, this was a consequence of increasing asylum seeker arrivals as travel became easier for many and geographic proximity to areas of conflict and persecution meant people sought safety in Europe through direct arrival. However, there was also some political tension around resettlement (Duke et al. 1999) and around asylum and immigration in general. Those European countries that continued to resettle into the 1980s and 1990s generally focused on the particularly vulnerable among the refugees, with special attention on medical needs, for example. The perception was that the larger, traditional immigration countries seemed to resettle refugees with skills, who found employment and apparently became independent and integrated soon after arrival. This made for a differential in approaches to resettlement. The largest difference was of scale and of approach. The US in particular, without a welfare state, emphasised and continues to focus on work as the only way refugees can survive in their new lives; and the sheer size of the US programme until 2016 meant that the admitted population was bound to include some people with existing skills and professional motivation. Over time, overall resettlement places diminished vastly relative to the refugee population in need. As irregular immigration and refugee arrivals through asylum became increasingly politicized in Europe, practical, if short-term, solutions to immediate crises taught lessons that contributed to the impetus to re-examine resettlement or other methods of admitting refugees. In the early 2000s, following the relatively successful Humanitarian Evacuation Programme for Kosovars who had fled across the border to North Macedonia, the European Commission started to investigate the feasibility of more organized admission for refugees to the EU. The seeds of current complementary pathways might be found in the thinking of that time. The Humanitarian Evacuation Programme, building on experience of temporary protection for those fleeing the Yugoslav conflict of the early 1990s, was a temporary admission programme for European states (whereas the US and Canada resettled those admitted to their countries on the same programme, giving a durable solution and full refugee status) (see van Selm 2000). The European Commission commissioned two feasibility studies. One, on ‘protected entry procedures’, was conducted by Gregor Noll and a team at the Danish Centre for Human Rights (Noll et al. 2002). The other, on resettlement, was conducted by a Migration Policy Institute team led by Joanne van Selm (van Selm et al. 2003). These two studies were the basis for the early conversations at EU level about admission of refugees through traditional resettlement and other means, which initially focused on humanitarian visas. 25 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Simultaneously, in the mid-2000s, UNHCR and the Canadian government, seeking to boost resettlement places, launched the concept of the Strategic Use of Resettlement (SUR). SUR centred on the idea that resettlement could have a multiplying effect: that if a refugee were resettled, there could be benefits beyond that individual’s protection. For example, in a given displacement situation, the thinking goes that it could be that by resettling 10,000 refugees from a country of first asylum, one could, through political agreements, facilitate the local integration of 50,000 others. A smaller scale benefit might be that by resettling the brother of a refugee already in your country as an immigrant or as a refugee themselves, you could strengthen the integration chances of all the family concerned (van Selm 2013). Neither SUR nor the initial efforts to increase resettlement or other humanitarian admissions had immediate, significant impact in the EU, but they were part of a process that has contributed to thinking and policy attention towards complementary pathways. In fact, most of the countries that had Protected Entry Procedures ended them in the early 2000s, although Switzerland maintained its humanitarian visas and has used them as a ‘complementary pathway’ for Syrians (ERN+ 2018b). Independently, some countries were increasing or restarting resettlement, e.g. the UK’s Gateway Programme starting in 2003/4, or showing interest in becoming emerging countries of resettlement. The European Commission, under the European Refugee Fund, continued to support research into alternative or complementary models of admission for protection (e.g. Hein & Donato 2012). As the European Commission continued to establish supportive funding mechanisms under the AMIF, interest grew, and by the early 2010s, particularly with an eye to the Syrian refugee crises with displacements to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, some European states, such as Germany and Austria, were establishing either resettlement or Humanitarian Admissions Programmes. Others, responding to public pressure, were starting to establish Humanitarian Corridors (Italy and later France), with private or community sponsorship of those admitted. Aware that many Syrians were highly educated, many European universities and their national bodies started to offer scholarships for Syrian refugees. Resettlement itself was growing, if still relatively limited compared to the needs, and other programmes, a range of initiatives that were not quite resettlement but something like it, were expanding, if still relatively small scale. The arrival of over a million asylum seekers in 2015/6, including large numbers of Syrians whose situation in the region of origin was becoming untenable, focused attention again on organizing admission of refugees, which might, some theorized, if done on a sufficiently large scale, break, or at least dent, the smuggling business model (see e.g. for news on the Turkey Deal, Reuters 2016). There is, however, no concrete evidence that this would actually be the case. 26 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 EU funding extended also to research into both resettlement and complementary pathways. The European Resettlement Network, and ERN+, a consortium of UNHCR, IOM and ICMC, undertook both knowledge sharing and research projects during the mid- to late 2010s (See ERN+). The AMIF call in 2020/2021 resulted in the selection for funding of several practical endeavours to put complementary pathways into practice, albeit starting on a relatively small scale. Projects funded include some with government partners in multi-Member State consortia (AMIF 2020). The 2016 New York Declaration and 2018 Global Compact on Refugees gave some substance to the idea that immigration channels can be used for refugees (and already often were being used by refugees whose qualifications allowed them to do so, and who were prepared to forgo the benefits of refugee protection for the safety of immigration to a developed country and employment in a strong economy). The fact that governments could use entry means other than resettlement to admit people in need of protection gained firmer footing, and a title – Complementary Pathways – was given to what had been an organic process until that point. As the Three-Year Strategy mentioned above built on the concept of complementary pathways with ideas for action, CRISP, led by IOM and UNHCR (see: CRISP - Sustainable Resettlement and Complementary Pathways Initiative), was established as a resource platform intended to lead to concrete capacity building projects that will help to implement the plans set out in the three-year strategy. CRISP pulls together news and data on resettlement and complementary pathways, training resources and documentation. One question on considering this history and the range of motives for complementary pathways would be: why not simply expand resettlement? Some would answer that resettlement must be preserved as a ‘gold standard’, only for the very vulnerable among the larger refugee population, and giving a durable solution only on protection grounds, with no possibility that a refugee could be resettled due to other qualities such as skills, education or family relationship. Noll (2003, 11) has suggested that ‘resettlement alone is too monodimensional and too limited to bring relief in this crisis [of access to asylum, territory and protection]’. He also indicated that resettlement is constrained by numerical quotas. Neither of these points is necessarily as clear-cut as Noll suggested: resettlement can have different criteria – European states have generally chosen to focus on vulnerability; there can be quota, targets, ceilings – all are needed for planning, but they can be set sufficiently high to meet needs if governments so choose. What is important from this commentary on the need for entry mechanisms beyond resettlement is that flexibility is required. Complementary pathways – using different eligibility criteria for refugee immigration purposes – can offer that, alongside resettlement, if expansion of resettlement is not seen as desirable. https://resettlement.eu/page/ern-project 27 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Of course, many people in need of protection, seeing their avenues to refugee status through either resettlement or asylum being limited, take up immigration opportunities for which they qualify. In doing so, they might not receive the form of status and protection their situation requires under international law, but they can achieve safety, security and a more peaceful life. The exact number of people who have migrated to third countries while actually in need of protection (i.e. via complementary pathways that they have sought out, rather than a government expressly opening to them) is unknown. A recent OECD–UNHCR (2021) study has mapped the residence permits issued by OECD countries and Brazil to citizens of Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Venezuela, which together encompassed 62% of all displaced persons in 2019, providing a proxy indicator for complementary pathways admission. Based on the study, approximately 1.5 million first-time residence permits were granted between 2010 and 2019 to citizens of these countries on the grounds of family, work or study.4 Numbers for 2020 are expected to be significantly less due to the COVID-19 pandemic (OECD & UNHCR 2021; Manicom 2021). Policies that now might be labelled complementary pathways have been used in the past, by governments (e.g. for Hungarians in 1956) and by individual refugees choosing an immigration route rather than battling for recognition as a refugee. Now, international discourse and national policy thinking are becoming more open to exploring the potential of marrying refugee needs and characteristics beyond protection. This gives rise to many questions: practical, philosophical, legal and ethical. One underlying factor is clear: the effort is to improve the opportunities for refugees to reach safety, to increase the number or proportion of them who can access security and get on with their lives, in communities that support and accept them. 2.3 How the concept of complementary pathways is understood and used in this report In this report, we return to the description used by UNHCR in the Key considerations document (2019a, 5), which defines complementary pathways as follows: Complementary pathways for admission are safe and regulated avenues for refugees that complement refugee resettlement by providing lawful stay in a third country where 4 There were however severe limitations in the data and the numbers therefor should not be considered as a reliable indicator of complementary pathways admissions. See more in ch. 6.1.2. 28 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 their international protection needs are met. They are additional to resettlement and do not substitute the protection afforded to refugees under the international protection regime. Complementary pathways include existing admission avenues that refugees may be eligible to apply to but which may require operational adjustments to facilitate refugee access. Next, we will dismantle the above definition, listing five features that we understand to form the key criteria of complementary pathways. We also clarify how we interpret each criterion and how we are using this definition of complementary pathways in this report. Five core criteria of complementary pathways: 1) Safe and regulated avenues Access to a third country is made possible via safe avenues, instead of resorting to the help of smugglers, for instance. Safe travel is facilitated for instance by issuance of Refugee Convention Travel Document and legal entry documents (e.g. humanitarian visa), by providing financial support for travel, or by organizing the travel, e.g., through IOM. Such organization might be in terms of ticketing, but also support at airports or other transportation locations, as well as pre-departure orientation and welcoming services on arrival. 2) For refugees As indicated by the OECD and UNHCR (2021,13): complementary pathways are meant to complement refugee resettlement by offering safe and legal admission avenues to refugees and other persons in need of international protection who find themselves outside their country of origin and seeking opportunities in a third country. Many texts on complementary pathways simply refer to refugees, without specifying what is meant by the term – whether it is being used in the general sense, or the specific sense of the 1951 Convention definition. As indicated in the quotation above, many complementary pathways are open to all people in need of international protection, and not exclusively to people who are determined to have refugee status. Like the vast majority of literature on complementary pathways, in this report we also use the term ‘refugee’ not in the strictest legal sense, but to refer broadly to a displaced person in need of international protection. 29 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 3) Provide a lawful stay in a third country This is understood to include ‘access to legal status and documentation in the third country’ (UNHCR 2019a, 12), for example: a residence permit, usually for at least two or three years and renewable, is provided to people admitted to a third country via a complementary pathway. 4) International protection needs are met We take this to include safeguards such as the right to a long-term stay in the receiving country if needed, or to seek asylum, protection against refoulement (in line with the non- return principle contained in article 33 of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and customary international law, see OHCHR 2018 and Goodwin-Gill 2021), as well as confidentiality, and data protection (UNHCR 2019a, 12-14). UNHCR (2017, 1) has explained that the need for international protection arises: when a person is outside their own country and unable to return home because they would be at risk there, and their country is unable or unwilling to protect them. Risks that give rise to a need for international protection classically include those of persecution, threats to life, freedom or physical integrity arising from armed conflict, serious public disorder, or different situations of violence. Other risks may stem from: famine linked to situations of armed conflict; natural or man-made disasters; as well as being stateless. These elements are very often interlinked. We use this standard as indicating the need for international protection. 5) Pathways are additional to resettlement and do not substitute the protection afforded to refugees under the international protection regime By being ‘additional to resettlement’ we understand that a pathway to admission and residence does not replace, substitute for or diminish any existing national resettlement quotas, nor exclude the expansion of resettlement or creation of a new resettlement quota. Complementary pathways and resettlement are also targeted at different refugees, although the two could overlap. Resettlement is a durable solution for the particularly vulnerable; complementary pathways are generally focused on skills and connections. The protection afforded under the international protection regime refers to the right to apply for asylum, the right to non-refoulement and alignment with broader protection strategies and data sharing with UNHCR (UNHCR 2019a, 14). Beneficiaries of complementary pathways might not be granted an actual protected or refugee status, but rather an immigration status. But this should not mean they are excluded from applying for asylum at any point. 30 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 In this report we use the above UNHCR (2019a) description as a framework for assessing whether a specific immigration programme or arrangement, or the use of a certain immigration category under particular circumstances, can be categorized as a complementary pathway. Finally, we pay special attention to, but do not limit ourselves to, those programmes that clearly fulfil all five criteria. The reasons for this are manifold, including: 1) Only a very limited number of prototypical, comprehensive complementary pathway programmes exist. 2) Looking at cases that are not at present fully classifiable as complementary pathways helps us in part to answer the first broad research question: ‘What are the complementary pathways for legal migration?’ 3) Learning about programmes that do not quite ‘fit’ the description of complementary pathways may be helpful for both modifying existing pathways and developing new ones. Such programmes could provide useful building blocks for more extensive pathways, and broader understanding of emerging approaches. Throughout the report, we aim to clearly distinguish comprehensive complementary pathway programmes from less extensive or insufficient ones. The basis for this distinction is, again, the UNHCR (2019a) description cited above. 31 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 3 Labour-based complementary pathways Chapter three introduces the background and status-quo of contemporary labour- based complementary pathways. Current pathways are strongly based on the approach developed by a single independent NGO (Talent Beyond Boundaries), but behind them there is a long history of divergence and convergence of refugee and labour migration policies. Talent Beyond Boundaries have developed a model to co-create the complementary pathways in collaboration with national governments and other key stakeholders in receiving counties. They have provided legal and policy expertise, links to skilled refugees in sending countries and some ethical guidelines to frame the policy design processes that are now emerging in Australia, Canada, the UK, and very recently also in some EU member countries. Practical examples introduced here include on-going pilots in Australia, Canada and the UK. This chapter helps to answer all six research questions and puts a special emphasis on policy development of labour-based complementary pathways. 3.1 Combining economic and protection needs in migration policy Labour-based complementary pathways, or ‘third country employment opportunities’ as they are called in UNHCR’s Key Considerations report, are ‘safe and regulated avenues for entry or stay in another country for the purpose of employment, with the right to either permanent or temporary residence’ (UNHCR 2019a, 10). Combining refugee protection needs and labour migration avenues is not entirely new. Labour migration programmes have long been used in hybrid policy designs aiming to both improve the situation of those in need of protection and ease labour shortages in the receiving countries. In general, it is easy to see how such hybrid policies would be a ‘win-win’ situation. One aspect is enabling employment in a third country of people in need of protection who find themselves in vulnerable situations. Another aspect is the opportunities employment provides for those individuals to re-find their self-reliance and agency. Nonetheless, actual labour-based complementary pathways as policy measures, require careful design, with particular regard to aspects of safety and security in their implementation. 32 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Policy discussion relevant to the current formulation of complementary pathways can be found mostly in UNHCR’s fairly recent publications. For example, Long (2009) has suggested regularised labour migration as a tool in UNHCR’s traditional durable solutions toolkit to resolve refugee situations. The argument was that it could increase willingness to offer asylum in the North and help to solve prolonged refugee situations in many locations. Both were recognised challenges. Giving labour migration a more central role in the range of refugee solutions could emphasise the normality of human mobility. It could increase opportunities for people in need of protection to make their own choices about their optimal solution. It could also contribute to the improved quality of international protection, especially by focusing attention on labour market integration, which could have knock-on effects for refugees entering through asylum and resettlement. Long (ibid.) also notes that labour migration cannot replace the three traditional durable solutions (resettlement, local integration and repatriation) for refugees, and objectives and principles of labour migration must be carefully combined with those of the humanitarian refugee protection regime. In September 2012 UNHCR and ILO came together at a workshop in Geneva on ‘Refugees and labour mobility’ to discuss the convergence of labour and refugee policy models. The workshop’s Concept Note indicates the underlying perception that an increasing number of labour migration programmes (especially in emerging economies) mostly excluded refugees simply because of the level and type of documents required to participate in them. Exclusion from open labour markets is likely to increase irregular and high-risk mobility, as well as exploitative working relationships and unpredictable refoulements, because those excluded nevertheless need to sustain themselves and their families. The Concept Note specified that refugees’ unique legal status under international law, securing stay in the country where they are not at risk, has evolved into too strict a separation between refugees and labour migrants. Such a strict division is, according to the Concept Note, not necessarily an appropriate solution in the context of contemporary migration systems and more diverse models could also benefit refugees themselves. The distinction might prevent refugees from accessing labour mobility programmes, which could empower them and enhance their self-reliance while achieving durable solutions. (UNHCR 2012a.) The list of labour mobility programmes provided by the workshop illustrate the divergence of labour and refugee policies over time (UNHCR 2012b). In the European context, labour and refugee policies were intertwined after World War II. Labour for reconstruction was much in demand, and people in need of protection were abundant. A UNESCO exchange of persons programme was initiated after WWII to promote educational, scientific or cultural exchange for students, young persons, workers, teachers or professors. An important part of the programme was UNESCO’s assessment of refugees’ 33 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 skills and qualifications to ensure a match with labour needs in receiving countries (this was done by WHO in the case of health care services). Examples of national post-World War II programmes were also presented (UNHCR 2012b). In Belgium a programme was established to offer refugees the opportunity to work in coal mines as part of the national economic recovery and 50,000 refugees participated. A similar programme in Australia enhanced basic industries and services and 160,000 refugees participated. In Canada more general labour shortages were targeted and 100,000 refugees participated. Belgium and Australia offered two-year contracts initially, and all three countries preferred refugees from the Baltic States, who seemed to integrate smoothly. The International Refugee Organization (IRO) participated in these programmes. In the UK, the European Voluntary Service Balt Cygnet Programme and Westward Ho Programme specifically targeted women in the Baltic States to work as nurses in hospitals on initial one-year contracts and refugees from Eastern Europe to work in industries, coal mines and agriculture. In total, 96,000 refugees participated. Obviously, there are profound differences between the migration programmes of the late 1940s which satisfied the protection needs of some refugees, and current pathway development. In the earlier programmes, complementarity was not emphasised and the programmes did not aim at long-term solutions. Then as now, however, it is evident that labour-based pathways can offer highly relevant opportunities for refugees with skills or other qualifications to move from precarious situations to a more stable environment. In 2016, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recognised labour migration as an alternative pathway for beneficiaries of international protection. This OECD report emphasised the role of employers for successful implementation of policy and distinguished three broad approaches to policy development: y Improving access to existing labour immigration channels y Developing employers’ incentives to recruit refugees and dislocated people directly from abroad (under the framework provided by the labour migration policies) y Creating new types of work-based migration programmes specifically targeted at refugees and the dislocated. The OECD report notes that virtually all existing labour migration programmes are based on a model where the employer applies for the work permit, not the migrating employee. Therefore, any policy or programme based on labour migration is highly dependent on the ‘buy-in of employers’ (OECD 2016). 34 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 While the policy discussions extend beyond the last decade, actual labour based complementary pathways and their precise definition in practice are very recent. According to Cedefop (2019) in 2017 there were still no programmes or approaches at the global or EU level with tested pilots. Cedefop recognised two novel and emerging approaches that were frequently mentioned by the relevant stakeholders: Talent Beyond Boundaries and the Australian community sponsorship programme (CSP). While the Australian community sponsorship programme (CSP) shares many similarities with complementary pathways, it does not count as one according to the definition used in this report. It is not additional to resettlement, as the number of arrivals through this programme is included in the overall quota of the Australian Refugee and Humanitarian Programme (www.refugeecouncil.com). Rather the CSP makes the existing humanitarian resettlement programme more market-driven and prioritises ‘job ready and English- speaking refugees, and thus conflicts with ideals of helping the most vulnerable’, ((Hirsch et al. 2019). There is a sense of convergence emerging between labour migration approaches and refugee protection. The essential part of this process has been the discussion over the more precise principles of labour-based complementary pathways and related pilot projects over the last five years. The refugee and labour migration categories were kept quite distinct for policy making and admissions policy practice for several decades. However, the fact that many migrants might have a mixture of protection needs and other migration motives, for example, has been acknowledged for some time (van der Klaauw 2009). In the current context, even a refugee focused international organization like UNHCR is starting to see the benefits of using non-refugee-specific programmes to allow the entry and residence of people whose situation includes protection needs. The most significant progress in developing practical programmes is currently seen from expert NGOs in cooperation with governments and other key stakeholders. Projects are expanding in geographic range, with more destination countries gradually investigating the possibilities, but they remain relatively limited numerically. The outcomes of current pilot projects will provide important evidence of pros and cons of the approach, in particular in terms of their complementarity with resettlement, safety and security issues and the nature of employer involvement. Thus, the currently existing refugee-specific labour mobility complementary pathway programmes that fall within our parameters are very recent, are at a pilot stage, representing policy exploration more than well-established policy measures. They are also generally collaborations between governments (Australia, Canada, and the UK) and NGOs (While several NGOs are emerging in this field (e.g. RefugePoint, Kenya, and TalentLift, Canada), we focus here on the first and currently most active and visible one, Talent Beyond Boundaries (TBB), to explore the changing landscape of labour-based http://www.refugeecouncil.com 35 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 complementary pathways. Section 3.2.1 introduces TBB in general with practical examples from UK and Australia and section 3.2.2 provides more thorough analysis of Canadian case. 3.2 Contemporary platform powered model and its practical applications 3.2.1 Talent beyond boundaries (TBB) model The most visible contemporary model of a labour-based complementary pathway has been proactively developed by the NGO, Talent Beyond Boundaries (TBB). The origins of TBB can be found in the Harvard Advanced Leadership Initiative, under which the two founders were conducting research and exploring the migration of skilled refugees in Beirut. They came up with the initial concept and tested the idea with refugees and some relevant organisations, including UN agencies. The model gained support and was concretised when the founders met an Australian technology entrepreneur who had developed a parallel concept (Taskforce of experts). Talent Beyond Boundaries was established as non-profit organisation simultaneously in Washington DC and Melbourne in 2016. Its funding is largely sourced from philanthropic donors and governments. TBB is not a programme, but an NGO offering a model and links to refugees, as described below. From these premises, however, governments can develop various programmes, including labour market related complementary pathways, based on their existing migration programmes and policies. The key element of the model is a Talent Catalog – an online CV gallery and platform to match refugee talent with employers. It has been defined as the ‘Linked-in’ for displaced people, and marketed as the ‘first online platform of its kind’ on the TBB website (TBB 2020a). The Talent Catalog curated by TBB facilitates the matching of skilled refugees and displaced people with employers in the selected countries. The Talent Catalog itself was developed in collaboration with refugees with relevant technological expertise in Lebanon and Jordan. The development of the Talent Catalog was initiated and funded by the US State Department which was interested in identifying skilled people in displacement among Syrian refugees. It now displays the credentials of some 32,000 self- registered people, mostly in Jordan and Lebanon, covering over 150 occupations. Most registered job applicants are of Syrian origin, speak at least intermediate English (82%), and are 18 to 45 years old (92%). The Talent Catalog contains information about their skills, qualifications and employment histories, based on the information about their education, qualifications and professional experience they have entered into the system. This generates a CV that can be used to approach employers. TBB aims to provide open access to the catalog to all who need it among the target groups. The Talent Catalog is not 36 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 geographically restricted, anyone can join, but emphasis is still strongly on Jordan and Lebanon, where TBB has a base of operations. TBB currently employs over 20 people in six countries (Jordan, Lebanon, USA, UK, Australia, Canada). They work directly with refugees and other displaced people in sending regions and with governments and other relevant stakeholders in receiving countries to develop labour mobility pathways. TBB is a frequently found reference when discussing labour-based complementary pathways with experts or reading academic articles on the topic. Despite the active and visible role of TBB, labour-based complementary pathways are, so far, still in their infancy and used by a very limited number of migrants. Objective: According to their website, Talent Beyond Boundaries is ‘the first organization in the world to focus on pioneering labour mobility as a complementary solution to traditional humanitarian resettlement’ (Talent Beyond Boundaries: Unlocking skilled migration pathways for refugees). TBB supports governments and other organisations ‘to imitate and scale the model’ they have created and provides a concrete link to displaced talent through their online CV gallery, the Talent Catalog, described above. TBB actively initiates discussion with governments and other stakeholders. Support offered by TBB includes policy and legal support. The process needs to be carefully adjusted to each specific context (examples of the UK, Australia and Canada are elaborated below). TBB aims to explore and solve the challenges related to visas and other practicalities in cooperation with governments and other stakeholders. The working method of the TBB is very practical and pilot-based, and takes advantage of experience gained from previous pilots. It includes proof-of-concept by using ordinary permits for a small testing group and then developing a pilot programme for more profound testing and development purposes. Through these learning processes they are able to create the required network of actors and inform governments about challenges that arise and ways to overcome them. According to interviews, TBB does not want to grow extensively or have a large number of employees, but rather to create new visa streams and partnerships globally, catalyse the change, and then disappear when it works. In practice, their work mostly consists of testing, advocacy, sharing technology and knowhow and documenting what works. Geographical scope: TBB currently works with receiving countries in Australia, Canada and the UK and is exploring the possibilities for collaboration in the United States, Ireland, Belgium and Portugal. Thus, currently participating countries are primarily English- speaking countries who have been active in talent attraction and labour importing for a long time, with fairly business-led societal (and immigration) systems. https://www.talentbeyondboundaries.org/ 37 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 In sending countries, TBB started its activities in, and continue to focus on, Lebanon and Jordan. More recently, Kenya has been connected at least to Canada (via RefugePoint). TBB is also expanding into source countries (including Iraq and Turkey). In response to the withdrawal from Afghanistan, TBB is working with candidates currently in neighbouring countries. TBB is also working closely with the International Organization for Migration to open up labour pathway opportunities. Other NGOs such as HIAS are starting programmes to support displaced people in Peru and elsewhere in Latin America, with the aim of these candidates moving to Canada and elsewhere on labour pathways. Relation to resettlement: TBB refuses to develop programmes with governments if they aim to replace traditional refugee quotas with more market-driven models. New or adjusted pathways need to be fully additional, complementary to the existing quotas. They are labour-based channels adjusted according to the needs of displaced people. Eligibility: An eligible applicant is a refugee, a person who is stateless or has been displaced from his/her home country and unable to return (due to danger) and currently without a legal status that would enable working in the host country. In unclear cases, potential applicants may communicate with TBB representatives via messaging channels (e.g. Facebook). Proficiency in English is considered ‘an essential asset that affects the outcome of your application’ (TBB 2020a). People who are not yet proficient in English may apply to the system; however, they are recommended to improve their language skills while waiting. Legal frameworks and permits: TBB aims to create a clear pathway to permanent residence. In Australia and Canada TBB is already working with both permanent and temporary visa pathways, and in the UK TBB’s programme utilizes temporary pathways – but in all cases these visas are able to be translated to permanent residence after a period of time. In most cases TBB holds that candidates are able to secure permanent stay through work-based solutions. But in the worst case scenario, where a candidate loses their job and may risk losing their visa status, a amending to refugee status is a safeguard option. TBB collaborates with governments to find legal and safe solutions to either create totally new visa or permit types or amend existing ones to combine protection and labour pathways. Identification and selection take place mostly via the Talent Catalog online platform, up to the test and interview phase on the employer side. Endorsed employer partners are provided with access to anonymized candidate profiles through the Talent Catalog, in order to evaluate their equivalence with the job available. The employers receive the names and contact information only through TBB’s consent as it curates the process. If a candidate is found to match a vacancy, the TBB’s sending country team will be notified and communicate with the candidate first. Ultimately, selection is done by the hiring employer. 38 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Identifying candidates for the Talent Catalog in the sending countries involves constant work. TBB actively recruits skilled refugees to register to the system. There are, however, no specific requirements regarding the countries of origin or the countries of current residence of eligible candidates. TBB organises outreach activities in the sending countries to find potential candidates, especially via Facebook and WhatsApp. In addition, targeted activities to reach women have been organised, including women only information sessions as well as asking men who register whether they also have a spouse or sister who would like to register to increase the family’s chances of securing a solution. Other programme-specific outreach activities are also organised as needed (e.g. to find nurses). Also, different refugee organisations have spread the word as partners of TBB (e.g. Finnish Church Aid, IOM, Union of Relief and Development Associations, URDA). The role of TBB’s teams in sending countries is crucial. They work with a network of partners on location (including local and international organisations) and support candidates when they register to the system. If a job opportunity arises, they help the candidate take advantage of it. The team also identifies suitable candidates from the Talent Catalog for recruiting employers, ensures the skills match and provides other relevant information, and finally links the candidates with potential employers. Actors involved: In receiving countries, TBB works with government immigration officials as well as other stakeholders, such as immigration lawyers, employers and various integration services (see programme description below), depending on the programme and its target group. It should be noted that there are more than 900 organisations serving refugees in the UK alone, for example. These existing actors provide various opportunities to develop a new layer of services needed for the specific target group related to the development of complementary pathways. Partners in sending countries include those discussed above. RefugePoint in Kenya and HIAS in Central and South America are examples of partners co-operating with TBB in new source countries. TBB also work in partnership with an immigration law firm that operates in 160 countries, so they are able to get clear picture of the legal systems in any country they enter and what should be changed. According to the representatives of TBB, they also work in close cooperation with international organisations and forums (e.g. UNHCR, Global Compact on Refugees, Global Compact on Migration) with the aim to ‘open up labour mobility pathways to refugees and displaced people’. Finally, TBB puts out a continuous online ‘open call’ for new actors in both receiving and sending countries to participate in further developing and expanding the activities. This process is facilitated and curated by TBB (parallel with any online based recruitment https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/the-global-compact-on-refugees.html https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/the-global-compact-on-refugees.html https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/180711_final_draft_0.pdf 39 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 2021:60 platform and brokering between job candidate and employer) by matching skills and jobs, preparing candidates, conducting interviews, etc. TBB asks candidates about their displacement status and whether they are registered with the UNHCR or similar bodies – but registration is not essential to be considered for the programme. Candidates can submit documents that help to prove their skills to employers, but TBB does not require these documents unless employers and immigration officials require them, so there is some flexibility in interpretation. The fast pace of this development is notable. While the number of pilot projects has increased during the last five years and evolved towards functional programmes, also new actors are emerging. Partly, these are ‘spin-offs’ of TBB. For example, TalentLift (est. 2021) is a non-profit talent agency. They support Canadian employers to recruit and relocate talent from within refugee and displaced populations to fill skills shortages, ‘enabling candidates along with their families to lift to their potential, secure their futures, and leave displacement behind’ (TalentLift Canada 2021). They develop more equitable access to recruitment and visa systems for candidates who live in refugee or refugee-like circumstances. Candidates have to register their skills and aspirations on the TalentLift talent platform or with one of their non-profit partners. Their services include talent search, visa application, and settlement coordination. TalentLift is a federally-incorporated non-profit and a registered Civil Society Organisation with the Law Society of Ontario. In addition to the generic features above, numerous aspects need to be tailored case- specifically for different countries and different pathway types. These include definition of the target group (skills needed in the receiving country’s labour market), selection of suitable permit types to be adjusted, formation of a task force of actors to implement the processes, and so forth. These are illustrated by three country-specific examples below with respect to the UK and Australia, and more b