At EPIM, we’ve long been committed to understanding and addressing the complexity of migration governance in Europe. But over time, it became clear that traditional approaches were no longer sufficient. Linear strategies may miss the ripple effects they create, isolated consultations often overlook crucial voices, and fixed funding cycles may have limited potential for long-term systemic change.

The challenges we face are not linear. They are systemic, dynamic, and deeply interconnected. Therefore, we needed a new way of seeing, thinking, and acting.

That’s why we launched a collaborative systems mapping process, the first of its kind focused on migration governance in Europe. This wasn’t just about creating a visual tool: it was about building a shared understanding of the system we’re all part of and identifying where and how we might collectively shift it.

Why Systems Mapping?

In philanthropy, we often default to a familiar formula: define a problem, identify interventions, fund solutions. But issues like migration governance don’t follow linear paths. They are shaped by feedback loops, power dynamics, and unintended consequences.

Systems mapping helps us make sense of that complexity. It allows us to see not just the individual parts, but the relationships between them.

This process invited us to ask deeper questions: what’s really driving this issue? Who holds power? Where are the leverage points for change? How can we act with confidence, knowing that our efforts will contribute to healthy, systemic transformation?

A Snapshot of the Migration Governance systems map

A Participatory and Strategic Process

From the outset, we knew this couldn’t be a top-down exercise. No single actor, us included, can fully grasp the migration governance system. Which is why we invited a diverse group of partners, practitioners, and experts with different lived and professional experience to co-create the map with us. Their insights shaped not only the content of the map, but also our understanding of the deeper dynamics at play.

The process was as valuable as the map itself. It created space for trust-building, honest conversations and collective sensemaking, often surfacing blind spots around power, voice, and unintended consequences. It reminded us that systems mapping is not a product, but a mindset shift. This was particularly evident during our sensemaking workshop in June 2024 in Brussels, where a diverse group of migration governance experts came together to test and refine the map. In that safe space, healthy disagreement emerged, and participants constructively challenged and complemented one another’s assumptions. The result was not only a reshaped map, but also a richer, shared picture of how the system works.

Migration Governance Mapping Sensemaking Workshop in Brussels, June 2024

From Insight to Action

The goal was never just to build a map, but to use it as a springboard for action. Once the mapping phase was complete, we entered a second phase focused on translating these insights into a more intentional and systemic grantmaking strategy.

We asked ourselves: where in this complex system is EPIM best placed to catalyse change? We looked at areas that felt “frozen” or resistant to progress, and those where momentum was already building. We analysed each element of the map to assess where targeted interventions could have the greatest ripple effects. With input from our partners, we identified four promising leverage directions. From these, we prioritised two: reimagining governance processes and reimagining funding. These now form the foundation of our 2025 grantmaking strategy.

Our initial focus will be on reimagining migration governance processes. The goal is to rethink and reshape how outdated, bureaucratic, and securitised approaches to migration governance are developed and implemented.

Migration Governance Leverage Directions’ session at the EPIM Forum, November 2024

To support this work, we engaged in a collaborative scoping process to identify organisations already active in our priority areas. We also relied on the collective intelligence of our Cluster Committee, composed of our partner foundations and other experts. Their contributions helped us refine our direction, and dedicated the first half of this year to identifying organisations that are already working, or have the potential to work on the priorities surfaced through the mapping. This included actors who are not only addressing symptoms, but also engaging with root causes, shifting narratives, and building bridges across sectors and communities. We were particularly interested in those who work across different contexts and are experimenting with new forms of collaboration and approaches to migration governance. The map has helped us see where energy is already building in the system and where strategic support could help unlock further momentum.

This focus will unfold across four Action Areas:

• Action Area 1: Promoting the use of ethically informed & imaginative tech solutions

Encouraging the use of tech that prioritises people’ needs in the migration space, enhancing access to information, resources, opportunities, and support while safeguarding dignity and rights.

This can take many forms: from initiatives that accelerate and build on the innovation newcomers themselves bring to Europe through migrant-led formats, to the application of next-generation learning methodologies and ed-tech; from platforms that provide quality information and legal aid support to migrants and to legal practitioners, to collaborations with vulnerable communities that aim to reshape technology tools in order to tackle systemic injustice and advance human rights.

• Action Area 2: Streamlining bureaucratic processes to enhance efficiency and accessibility

Addressing lengthy, fragmented, and complex procedures that leave people in limbo and limit access to work, family life, and wellbeing.

While bureaucracy is undoubtedly a central issue in the governance of migration in Europe, it remains a particularly challenging area for civil society organisations to engage with meaningfully. The complexity stems from its being largely controlled by different levels of government, which makes it difficult for outside actors to influence directly. Yet we have been impressed by the creativity with which organisations address specific aspects of bureaucracy, sparking approaches that could later be applied more broadly. Some, for example, work to close legal loopholes that allow administrations to exclude individuals from accessing basic rights. Others focus on removing bureaucratic hurdles that prevent the recognition of qualifications for professionals with a migratory background, an issue whose resolution would benefit society as a whole. Still others build trust with public administrations and civil servants, opening new spaces of collaboration to ensure that people are not lost in layers of bureaucracy and can navigate procedures in a fair and timely way.

• Action Area 3: Championing solution-based combinations of strategies to counter the securitisation approach

Promoting coordinated, rights-based alternatives to the securitisation approach by using a combination of different strategies.

This Action Area builds on our past experience in the Migration Governance cluster, particularly with projects on Alternatives to Detention (ATD), where we have seen strong impact coming from combining different tactics to challenge securitisation.

Under this Action Area we have identified initiatives demonstrating that engagement-based, rights-respecting alternatives are both feasible and effective. They do so by bringing together elements such as individual case management, solutions-oriented advocacy, coalition building, community mobilisation, and narrative change. In many cases, they also pursue unusual and creative paths, while building trust with actors who are not typically part of this space. In this way, they offer concrete blueprints for moving away from coercion and towards trust-based engagement.

• Action Area 4: Advancing policies grounded in real needs and insights from the ground

Bridging the gap between grassroots knowledge, lived experience, and policymaking, ensuring decisions are informed by those most affected.

This Action Area tackles one of the main elements of the map, that is the disconnect between what happens in reality and what ends up into policymaking. Therefore, the initiatives we have identified work to close this gap by cultivating evidence-based dialogue on migration, belonging, and diversity, drawing on critical perspectives from migrants in conversation with academics, researchers, practitioners, the public, etc. They strive to ensure that the perspectives of those most affected are meaningfully integrated into public policies and programmes, for example through policy labs, collaborative forums, and opportunities for dialogue with not only civil servants, but also political actors. Much of this work begins at the local level, where the conditions for constructive engagement are often more promising, and where bridges between research, policymaking, and practice can be most effectively built.

A New Way of Working

We know that no process is perfect, and that there are many other valid ways to approach this work. But one thing we’ve learned through the systems mapping process is the importance of pushing ourselves not just to think differently, but to work differently: to experiment, to collaborate in new ways, and to remain open to learning.