 I'm very pleased to have three presenters join us today. This is the second in our series and we do have a strong focus today on mobility and human rights and regular pathways. So while we're still getting people joining, I can see as the numbers are going up, please allow me to do a short introduction to really situate the webinar series and situate the papers that have been produced as part of this really big picture look at migration and mobility in the context of transformations globally. Firstly, very many thanks for our panelists who I will introduce in a moment who will be taking us through their very short think pieces on migration and mobility and also to many people who are joining us from all over the world. As you may recall in 2017, I was set up the migration research leaders syndicate to inform the global compacts on safe, orderly and regular migration and the intergovernmental negotiations and the finalization of the compact itself. In many ways actually our high level advisors supersede the syndicate and pick up where the syndicate sort of like left off, given that it was a specific project around the global compact. So we're very pleased to be able to collaborate and work with again some of the big thinkers on migration and displacement from all over the world, from different parts and different corners of the world. Before we start the substantive sort of discussions and hear from our presenters, just really it's worthwhile recalling some of the very long term focus that IOM has had on migration research and Susan Martin of course who will be presenting later knows this school well having really traversed the history of global governance of migration and knows that IOM established in 1951 as an operational agency in the aftermath of World War II has also had a strong focus on migration research and analysis and while we might be considered to be an operational agency historically and have a very strong presence around the globe in delivering services to beneficiaries, to migrants, especially to vulnerable migrants but also to member states and working with all sorts of collaborators in the field, we also have a very, very strong history in regards to migration research and analysis. IOM in its own right publishes more than 100 publications on migration research every year through our online bookstore and we also work very closely with research partners in terms of delivering research projects throughout the world and especially in some of the more should I say neglected geographies. We're also very pleased and have been working for a long time with the academic community of course and as you may know IOM helped establish the scientific journal that is currently published by Wiley and Co international migration and we have been supporting international migration since 1961 through very kind of modest financial support and we support the editors and editorial board of international migration. We also work of course with the scientific community and with member states in producing migration research and analysis of course the premier kind of contribution certainly from the research team is in regards to the buy in your flagship report, the world migration report. So in terms of that very short introduction in terms of situating this particular webinar and this particular webinar series, let us recall IOM's great strength in the field but also it's long-term interest and keen support of scientific and applied migration research and analysis from all over the world. Now in terms of today's session we will have our first presenter, Vonsont Châtel take us through human rights followed by Susan Martin looking at mobility systems and then Louisa Feline-Ferrer who will actually take us through regular pathways and some of the responses that have occurred some of the good practices that have occurred so far. We will then open up to a Q&A for all of the presenters so please feel free to put your questions in the Q&A function they will be transferred to me and we'll be able to have a rich discussion with various people connected all over the world as the case may be these days in this virtual environment. And we have set aside ample time so please do feel free to send through your questions at any time and when we get to the Q&A we'll be able to direct those to the presenters. Okay so if you can allow me now just to very quickly introduce all three of our speakers Vonsont Châtel is joining us from Geneva, he is the director of the Global Migration Centre, a professor of international law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies and is also the president of the Board of the Geneva Academy of International Human Law Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, he is an internationally recognized expert with 20 years of experience in law and policy of migration and displacement. He regularly serves as an expert advisor to governments, to NGOs, to international organizations including ourselves and has led over 20 projects and extensively published on migration and displacement. We also have joining us Susan Martin, Susan held the Donald G Hertzberg Chair in International Migration and founded and led the Institute for the Study of International Migration for the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington DC. Previously Professor Martin served as the executive director of the US Commission on Immigration Reform, established by legislation to advise Congress and the president on US Immigration and Refugee Policy, Professor Martin advises academic and policy boards all around the world on various aspects of international migration and displacement and is extremely widely published also on migration and displacement. So welcome to Susan too. Lastly, our third speaker will be Louisa Felene Ferrer, an assistant professor of Political Science at the Pacific University in Peru, joining us from Peru. The research focuses on migration and refugee policy and law in Latin America, regional South-South migration and of course more recently and most unfortunately the Venezuelan displacement crisis. Professor Ferrer has published widely in academic policy and media outlets and has been interviewed on Venezuelan immigration and displacement across international media. She has provided advice to various international institutions and organisations such as, I'll just name a few of them, Amnesty International, ICRC, IOM of course, UNHCR and the World Bank. So thank you again to our esteemed panellists. Looking forward to the presentations and I will first hand over to Professor Chetal Bonsang over to you. Thank you very much, Mary. This is always a pleasure to be involved in webinars and other events organised by yourself and IOM in general. Today, and I'm also very pleased to be here with great experts such as Susan Martin, I will discuss today about the impact of COVID-19 on human life of migrants and the overall framework, mainly normative framework, I will please give me the time to go. Sorry. Yes. So I will present, I will discuss here the COVID-19 and human life of migrants. The impact of COVID-19 on the protection of migrants provides a telling example of both challenges and opportunities. In terms of challenges are quite obvious. The moral practice triggered by COVID-19 has highlighted the risk of creating a migration crisis within the health crisis, simply because COVID-19 produces new forms of vulnerabilities and exacerbates existing ones. And the impact of COVID-19 upon the vulnerabilities of migrants is well documented and I will not develop these, but of course, the most obvious instances include obstacles in accessing healthcare, denial of protection because of border closure, rise of racism, stigma, and so on. But clearly, neglecting the human rights of migrants can be arguably counterproductive or even dangerous in addressing the health crisis for three basic reasons. First of all, denying protection to migrants increases the risk of contagion within the whole population. Second, it encourages irregular migration without any health control and so on. And third, a large percentage of migrants are working in sectors essential to address the pandemic. So against this background, and to go beyond the typical challenges in Iran to COVID-19, the current pandemic may be also an opportunity to devise current and evidence-based policies grounded on rulebook. My main argument is the following one. Public health and human rights are not mutually exclusive. They can and they must be reconciled within a sound and evidence-based approach. The human rights of migrants as grounded on international law provide a suitable toolbox to address their needs of protection while facing the current emergency. And in fact, as I will develop in future seconds, addressing the pandemic may require more or less rights depending on the relevant legal norms and factual circumstances. And in fact, human rights law is quite well equipped to face public emergencies with due regard to state sovereignty and fundamental rights of individuals. There are basically, as mentioned in this slide, three layers of legal norms in case of emergency, such as the one of COVID-19. The first layer are co-content of human rights in terms of emergency, second, derogation mechanism, and third, restriction to human rights. So let's start with the very first normative label, the co-content of human rights in terms of emergency, because some basic principles and basic rights are available in any circumstances, including in terms of unconsciousness, emergency, and pandemics. Freedom from Tokyo is an obvious example of traditional forced labor, are typical instances of fundamental rights are available to everyone in any circumstances. In the context of migration, I identify some core rights at the border. Principle of non-refillment, prohibition of collective extortion, the principle of non-discrimination, the best interest of the child and the prohibition of racism are crucial rights in terms of emergency. And these rights remain plenty applicable in the sense that these core rights are minimum standards of humanity. They are not negotiable, they prevail over any consideration and they share three main characteristics I identify in the slide. First, they are legally binding for all states under customary international law and reinforced by the broad range of widely ratified convention. Second, these core rights at the border are absolute. They cannot suffer from any exception or derogation in any circumstances, including in terms of pandemic. And so they apply to all migrants regardless of their documentation status and regulations. So this is the very first starting point to identify the first normative level governing the response in terms of COVID-19. The second level, the second normative level is based on the derogation mechanism provided by some, but not all human rights convention. So all these levels are accumulated, so first the core content of human rights in terms of emergency are plenty applicable in any circumstances. And then this is supplemented by the second layer based on the derogation mechanism, which means that in some exceptional circumstances states may derogate from their conventional duties, but provided that six cumulative conditions are fulfilled. I identify the six conditions that are required by the relevant treaties. So typically the user derogation requires a public emergency, so in this case a straight of a widespread contagion within the whole population. Second, these public emergency must be officially proclaimed and notified with the reasons. Next, the derogation must be strictly required by the situation in order to protect the decays. Fourth condition, the derogation must be proportionate to the objective of protecting the decays. Fifth condition, some human rights cannot be subjected to any derogation in line with the core content of human rights dimension. And finally, compliance with other international obligations, which means that derogations must be consistent with other legal duties under customary law, but also under treaty law, because and here this is an important element in the broader picture because contrary to the common belief, the vast majority of conventions governing human rights and migration cannot provide the derogation mechanism. So there are still plenty applicable in the context of COVID-19. I put here a list of the most relevant UN convention without any specific derogation mechanism. So as a convention on social and cultural rights, again discrimination, the different specialized instruments on labor migration, on smuggling of migrants and so on. So all these conventions remain plain applicable, but obviously it does not mean that states shall implement them as if the pandemic never happens. On the contrary, states are bound by these treaties to protect the right to protect lives and health within their relevant scope. So to mention the very first example, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. All economic and social rights may be subjected to lawful restriction in order to protect public health. However, a core content of subsistence rights is guaranteed in any circumstances to all individuals. So as a result of the plain applicability of the Covenant, equal access to health care for all migrants remains unbinding and is in fact more needed than ever in order to avoid the spread of the contagion. So even from the angle of derogation mechanism, there is a rule for implementing other conventions that are extremely important and relevant both to protect for the two awful purposes of protecting health and migrants. The third level, the third normative level, is considered restrictions to human rights. Addressing the public health emergency may require more or less rights depending on the relevant norms. So in most cases, states are able to attain the public health subjective by invoking the possibility to restrict certain rights. In fact, the vast majority of human rights are not solute. They may be subjected to lawful restriction. I identify here a sum of the most basic related rights associated with migration, right to leave any country, familiar unification, prohibition of arbitrary detention, freedom of movement within the territory of the states. So let's hear again. Even if these rights can be lawfully restricted, there are some conditions to be fulfilled. I mean, this is an emergency that doesn't mean the end of the rule of law on the contrary. Rule of law is needed than ever in situations of emergencies like the COVID-19. And to build full restriction to a human rights must make four cumulative conditions that I listed here in this slide. Legalities, so legal basis. So restriction is provided by legal basis. Second, necessity. So restriction is necessary for the protection of public health, not for other purposes. Third, proportionality. So restriction is proportionate to the protection of public health and constitutes the least intrusive means to achieve his objective and false comparability with other rights. Restriction is consistent with other rights, including non-restriction. So against these backgrounds, restriction of human rights to protect public health must be specifically end up preventing disease or injury or providing care for the sick and injured. So a result of this nominating framework is useful as a toolbox for action because on the one hand, mitigating the spread of the contagion may justify restriction to freedom of movement within the territory of states. But in other circumstances, and in fact, in most circumstances, restrictions are simply unable to protect public health. These objectives may be achieved in implementing human rights as a whole. So a typical example, the prohibition of arbitrary detention, the duty to provide alternatives to detention is further required to avoid the contagion in immigration detention centers. So clearly, human rights work provides a toolbox in order to address the pandemic and while ensuring the protection of migrants. Of course, the future spread of contagion and its impact on nobility are at the table. It remains a waiver that could be 19 may be an opportunity to restate and reinforce the sound, coherent, and human rights-based approach to migration policies alongside public health objectives. And the three layers, the three normative levels identified should be the starting point for any safe action in these areas, simply because they are legally committed by these norms and they are legally committed to protect public health and human rights in managing the borders. But of course, integrating health and protection consideration at the borders requires much more than implementing international law. So the 19 is likely to become the new normal. So integrating health and protection consideration is an opportunity to rethink immigration policies through innovative solutions in due respect with human rights. Taking seriously public health means at the end more than less rights for migrants, simply because protecting persons of the move is protecting everyone. And that is why many stakeholders have also adopted non-binding recommendations to increase the protection of migrants with the view of metagallic teams' impact of COVID-19. And I put here a very short list of some non-binding recommendations also going beyond binding duties of states. So you can talk on migration, for instance, as a recommended suspension of forced return of migrants and full access to basic services for all migrants and without regard to the documentation. So there is a need for adaptation. IOM among, again, other instances has also identified several non-binding recommendations with the view of merging immigration and health imperatives and find a non-exhaustive list of states' recommendations. So to conclude, of course, non-binding recommendations are not exhaustive. And there are many other innovative solutions, mobility corridors, immunity passports, and so on. International human rights law is a starting point, but this is not the final point. In the sense that states must adapt their migration policy with your regard to both protection of migrants and public health. And the two can be reconciled in legal and policy terms. And this is very extremely important because addressing the challenges of COVID-19 will require a rethink of migration policies so that they can be responsive to the changing evolution of the pandemic, while maintaining consistent adherence to human rights. And to finish, because it will summarize the need for protection for migrants and for the benefit of all, I will finish by a quotation from the UN Secretary-General. The UN Secretary-General underlined, and I quote, no one is safe until everyone is safe. This crisis is an opportunity to reimagine human mobility for the benefit of all, while advancing our central commitment of the 2030 agenda to leave no one behind. And I prefer to finish on this rather optimistic message in a context that is not so optimistic generally speaking. Thank you very much, Mary. Thank you so much, Vonsang. Taking us through the key issues very succinctly and clearly and fantastic. I've got lots of questions, of course, popping up and I can tell that others are thinking about these things through. I would certainly point to your very, very sort of clear message to all of us in regards to using the toolbox fact in terms of a human rights and migrant-centric sort of approach, and that quote from the Secretary-General. And I think you're absolutely right in terms of COVID-19 maybe seen as one pandemic, but this is our future as we know the human kind of natural world environmental aspects and the increase in kind of zoonotic. Coronaviruses is certainly on the agenda and has been for some time. As we know, many people have been heralding the big one, so to speak. It's now here, but it is going to be more prevalent in our futures, unfortunately. So now it's a perfect time to turn to Susan Martin to hear about some of the mobility dynamics that will need to be interwoven into, as you said, the public health aspects more and more integrated into the future. So I will hand over now to Susan who will be presenting her paper on the really big thinking around some of the trends in regards to mobility systems. I would also point out to, and I'm sure that Susan will do it as well, a big thanks also to her co-author, Jonas Bergen, who worked with her on this high-level advice paper. Over to you, Susan. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for inviting me to this webinar, and I'm really delighted to be here. I hope everyone can hear me. Sometimes my internet connection is not great where I live, but I think a lot of other people have the same problem. Let me share my screen and continue from here. As Marin said, Jonas Bergen and I have been working on a number of different cuts into the issue of the effects of pandemics, particularly COVID-19, but more broadly, on the trends in both mobility and immobility, trying to understand what happens during pandemics to the ability of people to move as well as their desire to move. And we've been doing research on the history of pandemics in order to be able to see what the prevalent patterns have been and what the impacts of those patterns of mobility have been, and looking at also what the public health guidances are over time with regard to this. We start with the fact that there is a two-way relationship between infectious disease and human mobility. They're intrinsically linked. So human mobility obviously affects the spread of infectious disease. And it's not a new phenomenon. You go back to pandemics in the ancient Greece and Rome or during the medieval period, we see a lot of examples where the movements of people, swells the movements in trade, have allowed infectious diseases to spread well beyond the borders of the countries in which they're identified. And very often, it's been difficult to track back exactly where these diseases began. And that's been true of even the 20th and 21st century infectious disease. But when, through this process of human mobility, the diseases spread worldwide, then they eventually become known as pandemics, as has been the case with COVID-19. But then we've also been looking at the impact of infectious diseases in resulting pandemics on further mobility patterns. And it's identified that some of the impacts are direct. They're specifically related to the disease. But many of them are indirect, for example, through the economic impacts that occur as a result of pandemics. And as a result, it's the responses to pandemics. And all of us, of course, are familiar with the massive cancellation of flights that occurred starting in March and continuing to the present day. So we have been very much inspired by the work of Jurgen Carling, Hans DeHaus, and others, who have been trying to set out the different forms of mobility and looking at both voluntary and involuntary patterns. And then to take that interest in looking at voluntary and involuntary mobility and immobility and understanding two facets of the problem. One are what are the aspirations of people towards movement, towards migration? Do they want to leave where they are and go to some other place? And then secondly, what are their capacities in order to be able to act on their aspirations? And we see in situations where people's aspiration to move is very low and their capabilities are very low. They're sort of acquiescent in deciding that they will be immobile. It's not that they want to move, but they also don't have the capability season if they wanted to do so. But on the other hand, if the aspirations are very high, and this is now the bottom right-hand quadrant, if your aspirations are high and your capabilities are high, then we have what we would normally think of as fully voluntary mobility, because people really want to do it, and they have that capability. On the other hand, if their aspirations are low, but their capabilities are high, it may be that they are definitely involuntarily immobile. They're staying at home because they want to. They could have moved, but they don't. But they can also be involuntarily mobile if the conditions around them are such that they have to get out of harm's way. So it's not because of their decisions, but because of the circumstances that they're facing. And that's really how we think about refugee movements displaced persons, their involuntarily moving elsewhere. Then the final quadrant is involuntary immobility. This is where their aspirations are high. They really want to get out from where they are, but their capabilities are so low that they can't do it. In the context of crises, this involves people who are trapped in place. By all estimations, they should get out of where they are, but they can't. And this issue has gotten increased attention, largely in the context of both conflict, but particularly in natural hazards, in Hurricane Katrina, for example, have people in nursing homes or extremely poor people who just didn't have the ability to get out of harm's way and death rates tended to be much higher in those circumstances. I think, unexpectedly, the travel restrictions to combat the spread of COVID-19 occurred not quickly, but within the first couple of months of the pandemic and multiplied beyond what has been the case in many previous pandemics. So according to IOM zone data, as of June 2020, when some of these started to be relaxed, governments had issued about 45,000 travel orders, mostly restricting movements, either into or within their countries. Many of them were comprehensive travel bans and they applied to either everyone within the country or to anyone trying to get into or out of the country. Other bans, I think more often the bans were aimed at specific countries or regions. They emerged when the disease flared in China, for example, initially, or then in other parts of the world and then travel bans or restrictions were imposed on those particular places. Often there were border closures with contiguous countries or sometimes all contiguous countries within a particular region. Others about travel, but they had mandatory quarantines on travelers. So as people came into a new country or into a new part of the country they lived in, they would have to quarantine typically for 10 to 14 days before they would be able to move more freely around. There were also restrictions on new visas and renewals. Some cases that process was made easier, particularly for renewals for people, but in other cases it was made more difficult, particularly if there was considered to be an immediate threat of the transmission of the disease. And then there were also new documentation requirements. There were differences in the application of travel restrictions to citizens versus non-citizens. So we ended up with situations in which citizens could return home, but non-citizens were not allowed to enter. And so some people who were in a place where the pandemic had already reached crisis proportions could travel, but others could not. Refugees were exempt or asylum seekers were exempt in some cases, but not in others. And that gets to back to Vincent's points about the international law and how countries applied it. Some applied only to entry into the territory or to a new location within countries, others to exit as well. And the timing differed in terms of when in the pandemic it was, they were issued, but also importantly when they went into effect, whether it was an immediate effect or whether there were several days in which people could potentially relocate if they wanted to. Screen is frozen. Sorry, my screen was frozen for a minute. There were benefits and detriments to travel restrictions. The benefits included, and this is based on research that has been done on multiple pandemics and looking what the impact of travel restrictions were. The benefits were generally a very short delay in the spread of diseases. That could be from a few days to a few weeks. And restrictions were beneficial if they were used to put normal public health interventions in place, meaning screening, testing, quarantine, isolation. But the consensus of the research on past pandemics is that travel bans don't work in the absence of other interventions. They also don't work if they're put in place after the disease has already spread within a particular community. They don't write a wrong that's already happened. And there are a lot of detriments to imposing travel restrictions. An additional spread of disease if people are very rushed to return or enter before the ban goes into place. So that's why the timing is so critical. And in the case of COVID, we saw in many parts of the world, particularly in the United States, when travel bans were put in place, there's a rush of return of citizens, many of whom carried the disease back home before there were screening process in places at airports and other locations. Obvious negative economic impact, risk to vulnerable populations, particularly asylum seekers if they then apply to them as well. Also a full sense of security, leaders saying, we have a handle on this because we've put in these travel restrictions but being slow to put other interventions in place during that short period in which it was critical to get them there. And human rights violations enforcing the travel restrictions. Some of the directly related ones for this day at home measures, there there was a high level of voluntary or acquiescent in mobility related to these orders with few exceptions. There were very few enforcement measures to require compliance, but people did so anyway. And this led, of course, to a disruption in international and domestic travel. Exceptions were made for essential workers and activities, but then we saw some differential and quite bad impact based on income race, immigration status, gender, and disproportionate number of essential workers in many industries were migrants themselves and were affected by the crisis not just in terms of the pandemic, but in terms of the type of occupations that they held. But then the economic drivers of mobility were also pandemic related and extremely important in thinking about forms of mobility. There's the contraction, of course, of the economy and the prolonged recession. There's less need for workers, visas weren't issued. High levels of unemployment and fewer people had financial resources needed for mobility. There were remote work opportunities, along with the stay at home orders, that further really reduced mobility. And online platforms and tools, that's about exactly what we're doing right now, having a webinar or a conference in effect that is involving people all over the world who are not moving in order to get there. We also saw some shifting patterns of internal mobility. And this is from the New Delhi bus terminal, where people were attempting to get back home before the travel restrictions went into effect. We've seen some apparent increases in urban to rural movements, the same apparent because there are few empirical studies yet of this phenomenon. The one from Senegal, though, that was taking took place in early March to mid April, showed that there was a loss of population in Dakar and regional capitals, but an increase in net migration into villages in more rural areas. This was the result of the phone survey that took place during that period of time. So we saw migrant workers returning. We saw elderly seeking safe refugees, people going if they were fortunate enough to do so. And this relates to the economic disparities, but people going to second homes in remote areas. And remote workers could, of course, function from anywhere. And so there was an impetus to make these changes. International migrants also sought to repatriate. Many of them had lost their jobs or they had no health insurance. And I'll talk a bit in a minute about the migrants in countries in crisis phenomenon and the guidelines there. Often these migrants experienced involuntary immobility. If they were able to return, there was still difficulties in reintegration back home, particularly given the context of the pandemic. And for refugees and IDPs, potential dangers of conflict continued or if they were trapped in place. Now, I want to talk about two frameworks. One is the NICIC framework, but the other is the international health regulations. These were identified unanimously by, you know, World Health Organization member states in 2005. They are not binding international laws, but they have the effect of being universally accepted guidance. And states agreed to respect the dignity of human rights and fundamental freedoms of travelers and minimize their discomfort or distress. And that meant including measures at sea ports, airports, ground crossings to limit the spread of health risks to other countries, but by the least invasive means possible. And preferably by vaccination or other prophylaxis or established health measures, such as the quarantine isolation, public health observation. And of course states retained their right to deny entry if the traveler refused to comply. But the idea was that there wouldn't be the massive type of travel restrictions that governments nevertheless put into place in the context of COVID-19, knowing and having already adopted regulations that were to the contrary. There also were needs for contingency planning. And states could adopt additional measures, but they needed to be supported by relevant scientific information and a public health rationale, particularly if they interfered with international travel. Like many human rights provisions, however, there were no enforcement mechanisms. And so governments did, for the most part, were not compliant. Oops, I'm frozen again. Here we go. So as I mentioned before, it's not just citizens who are affected by pandemics, but there are also migrants who are already in the country that are affected, who may be in need of help from their country of origin, help from the country of destination where they're working and help from the international community in this context. And I think that the guidelines that were developed with the idea of conflict and natural hazards are actually very much applicable in the context of pandemic. And I think we need to be doing more work in figuring out at which stages we need to do which actions in order to have better policies related to migration in these contexts, both in terms of the preparedness that we know is so important for being able to incorporate migrants into the plans for whether they're public health plans or emergency preparedness, but also in the emergency response phase to ensure that migrants are getting the assistance and help that they're needed. But then in the post crisis stage to support their recovery and the recovery of the host communities. So something that was developed not fully with pandemics long though it was discussed in the early stages of the migration process I think could be used more extensively in dealing with the issues of migration and once more frozen in terms of my PowerPoint but I think this was my last oh no I have my recommendations. If I can get there. I'm going to come out of the sharing. Okay, so let me just go through some of the conclusions and recommendations. I won't show the slide because I'm afraid that it'll freeze again. But state should be cautious in the use of broad travel bans and border closures. They should anticipate the unintended but predictable side events of travel bans if they're poorly conceived they can do more harm than good. They shouldn't ensure that travel restrictions don't violate the right to seek and enjoy asylum or the non free full month obligations. They should divide by these international health regulations to make sure that the policies regarding mobility are based on successful epidemiological and public health practices. State should plan for the effects of pandemic responses on human mobility to address the economic impact that can prompt harmful patterns of mobility and immobility. National authorities should anticipate and plan for urban to rural migration and the migrants in countries in crisis principles guidelines effective practices should be used in responding to the needs of foreign nationals who are affected by pandemics. So in some there's a lot that can be done and hopefully some of these issues will be taken into effect. And I will end there. Thank you very much. Indeed Susan and we've managed to get that last conclusions and recommendations slide up. Thank you very much to the team for pulling that one up. Thank you for our participants and our attendees. And really you've highlighted very, very clearly that a lot of a lot of kind of our governance framework and even the kind of the state processes such as the migrants in countries in crisis initiative from a few years back, I think which came out of the 2011 Libya crisis was the real impetus to get that up and running more sort of bespoke for small scale or smaller scale and localised types of events such as Katrina as you mentioned and so forth. We now turn to Faleen who really is looking at what it means for the big picture and the longer term and looking at more systemic and sustainable kind of shifts that come from pandemics and really making the case for utilising a range of different policy options as the normal rather than as the exception. So very interested to hear from Faleen as you take us through your paper. It is a nice segue from Susan's overview in terms of the governance arrangements and some of the key issues that came up in particularly regards to mobility restrictions and their implementation and imposition by state. So I will hand over Faleen now to you and we've already got quite a few questions coming through. So Faleen to you. Perfect, Mary, thank you so much. It's such an honour to have been invited to contribute with this short think piece and also to be presenting here today. Thank you so much for Susan and Vincent for their presentations. You can see my presentation. Is that correct? Is that working? Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you and it was working. I think you might just have to turn to the screen again and then we'll see if we can... If it's sort of breathing from your end, we might be able to pull it up. Now I couldn't hear you for a moment there, but you can hear me and you can see the presentation, correct? Yes, we can. Great, so thank you for two excellent presentations and I think with what I'm trying to walk you through today, there are actually connections to both of the previous presentations both theoretically and I could also relate very well, Susan, to your presentation because I'm currently still in voluntary, immobile in Peru because the Peru borders have been closed for the last seven months and are now just in the last couple of days reopened, but so far only for very few regional flights here within South America. So I'll be talking about the need to really rethink legal pathways to mobility and the need to take human security seriously and I will relate to, I will talk in my presentation about the problem of travel restrictions in the sense of the problem of travel restrictions causing new inflows of irregular mobility on the one hand side and thinking a little bit about the results presentation, really this tension between human security and national security and how regularization sits or is situated somewhat in tension both with this concept of national security and the tension between national security and human security. So as Susan, so Excellency presented to us, COVID-19 related travel restrictions were imposed by many countries across the world and are still in place in many countries in the world. But we did not only see restrictive travel policies or travel restrictions, we also saw a shift towards more restrictive immigration policies more generally. And just to give you a few examples from around the world, South Africa for example, debated to build a 40 kilometer fence in the border or on the border towards Zimbabwe as a measure to fight the virus. And in Chile to give an example, one example here from South America, once humanitarian flights started to take off, there was an attempt to make returning migrants, returning humanitarian migrants sign an affidavit that they would not return to Chile for a time span of nine years. This was then challenged by the Santiago Court of Appeals and the policy was taken back. In Peru to give you one more example from South America, we currently have five projects debated and presented by Congress which are highly problematic and one of them was presented within the context of the COVID-19 crisis and actually suggested the mass deportation of Venezuelan immigrants and refugees back to Venezuela. But we've also seen these developments for example in the United States with the temporary halt on the issuing of green cards and the attempts to increase the requirements necessary to seek asylum and perceived refugee status in the US. Now something we all know as migration scholars and something that we've seen across time and across different world regions is that restrictive migration policies do not dissuade people from leaving their countries. Instead what they do is they push migrants towards irregularity. And irregularity has negative impacts both for the human rights or the migrants rights and human rights of migrants but also for the host communities. And what I'm arguing in this think piece that this is something we have known but we have not really focused in this debate on the importance of this issue in the context of public health. So that's why when we spoke about the necessity for regularization both regular pathways to migration and regularization programs or mechanisms for irregular populations in host countries we really focused on three main arguments. We spoke, as you do in your work about the rights so the need to protect the rights and well-being of migrants and to honor international commitments. A second argument is the self-interest of states and here I feel really this argument of national security still comes into the discourses or the sense-making of immigration policies in countries throughout the world. In the States and Europe but we also very clearly see this in South America and sort of the tension between human rights and national security is almost treated as a given but there is a tension. The next argument are the economic and social benefits again both for migrants themselves and also for host societies so the idea that if migrants are regularized and can for example in the case of Venezuelan displaced work as doctors, as engineers they'll be able to pay taxes and thus contribute to the economic development of host countries and also the countries of origin. And what I'm arguing in this thing piece is that similar to both Susan and Vicente that the COVID-19 crisis really is an opportunity to reframe the need for regularization in the context of global public health but not only in the context of the crisis because irregularity is an obstacle for accessing services such as vaccines and accessing information on diseases that goes beyond the current COVID-19 crisis and here I would like to give you one more example from South America. In Venezuela given the political, social and economic crisis in Venezuela the health system has long collapsed. There's very little reliable data but we know that commutable diseases are increasing and have been increasing in Venezuela for a very long time. In the current context there's also COVID-19 but in past years there's been measles malaria, tuberculosis and also HIV-AIDS for example. So there was a good practice in South America of a regional vaccination passport. Unfortunately already in the last two years legal pathways to migration for Venezuelan migrants and refugees has become increasingly difficult to access and migrants have evaded formal border crossings and could thus not take advantage of this program of a regional vaccination program and of the vaccinations that were administered for free at official border crossings. Another important argument to understand the need for regularization or the threat and I want to be very clear that I put this threat in inverted comments that irregular status of migrants for public health is a situation and the vulnerability of people with both irregular and precarious legal status in the countries of destination. So we can think about COVID-19 but we could also think about other commutable diseases. Vulnerable migrants are more prone to contracting these sort of diseases because they might work in unsafe conditions. They are more likely to live in crowded homes and very important they might be and in fact very often are afraid to contact official ministries institutions and even hospitals in the case of falling ill. I can again give you one example from Peru we know based on a representative survey that we conducted in April that over 70% of Venezuelans in Peru would have been afraid to contact hospitals in case of falling ill with COVID-19 symptoms. So I think both do that and you mentioned in your presentation of course there is an interdependence between all members of a community if we think in terms of public health and if we have irregular migrants especially or a highly vulnerable population in this context it affects the entire host community and can be considered a public health risk so not the migrants him or herself but his or her irregular situation. In the context of COVID-19, sorry not 10 over 20 countries across world regions have automatically extended the ability of temporary visas most countries in South America for example but also other world regions have been very flexible in relation to expiration dates. They have been innovative in implementing online services going online with their migration services accepting expired documents and so forth. Portugal for example went a step further and gave a permanent residence status to all applicants with pending applications for a limited amount of time. So initially I think this was up to June or July and a couple of days ago this was extended to at least the end of this month. In Italy the government decided to temporarily regularize migrants working in certain sectors such as the agriculture sector or domestic workers in order to provide them access to healthcare and thus protect them and the host communities in context of the COVID pandemic. Some other countries have taken also special measures in the context of the current crisis such as incorporating foreign professionals in their national healthcare services relaxing the requirements that are usually in place in order for doctors and nurses to have their degrees registered. Now the problem with many of these practices in the context of the current crisis is that they're temporary and they're selected and I think what we need to do is to really take this opportunity you also mentioned this understanding this pandemic as an opportunity to rethink the need the urging and pressing need for regularization not only in the current context but in general. We think about it in those terms regularization becomes necessary to cover all migrants and to not be limited in time. There are very few positive examples thus far that go into that direction and second year one in the case of Spain where the government has actually relaxed the requirements for migrant regularization and particularly so regarding the extension of resident permits and in case of family reunification and this brings me a little bit not to this paradigm shift really that I feel that needs to take place. I think this is an opportunity or I would I hope to believe that this is an opportunity to push narratives and to change this paradigm from this discourse that we still see across the world on this tension between migrant regularization yes but not this big but of national security very often when you actually ask officials what they mean with national security that is not even that clear and maybe replace that with a clearer understanding of what we mean and want to convey with human security in the sense of or in the context specific context of global public health. So here the question to reframe the regular migration as vulnerability in terms of public health and legal pathways as a key instrument or a key weapon if we want to use this kind of terminology to not only fight but to prevent future pandemics and in this sense we really have to emphasize that what is needed are not only and this might be a first step short-term and sector-specific regularization programs but we should rather really encourage states to reconceptualize the need for sustainable long-term regularization mechanisms and I can again give you one example from Peru in Peru we have over half a million asylum applicants who will not be granted refugee status in the short-term the state is trying to find ways to regularize or they're not irregular but they're precarious legal status because in most cases they have not even received an identity document as asylum seekers but for political reasons thus far we'll probably look at regularization program which will regularize all Venezuelans currently in the country. The problem is and this again is related to COVID-19 and the longer-term effects that Susan also mentioned although there has been some return to Venezuela although flows have flowed out somewhat because of the travel restrictions and border closures they have not ceased to exist so we actually have seen an increase in irregular mobility across the region and past bumps and experts agree that once travel restrictions are lifted these outflows from Venezuela will continue and to increase once more which will sort of leave us in a similar situation in the months or years to come if we do not think about sustainable long-term regularization mechanisms. So with this I end. I thank you for your attention and I hand the microphone over to Marie again. Many thanks. Thank you so much indeed Belenina went through I think quite beautifully in terms of a logical flow and some of those innovative policy solutions that we're already seeing unfortunately it's a pretty short list in some respects and I think that's where we have to kind of work as an international community to try and extend and then to build on it. I have quite a few questions in the chat I'm very conscious of time too so what I would like to do is ask three general questions and they have been sent through for all of the panellists so I'll go to Vonsonk first and then to Susan and then to you Belenina and then I have some specific ones that have come through for presenters but I will do those if we have time. So the three questions that are kind of quite sort of generic in nature that have come through relate to whether people have seen whether any of you have seen in your research and analysis of COVID-19 and your particular areas. Whether we've seen any differences in terms of the protection of migrants during COVID from developing and developed countries, that's one that has come through. We've also had a question through on this next sort of issue of the definition of migrants and are we really talking about international migrants being the carriers of COVID-19? Aren't we really talking about travelers who may or may not be citizens of particular countries and have various statuses? And the third question for everybody is if you could really step us through briefly some of the research priorities that you think we really need to be focusing on to try and fill those knowledge gaps around COVID-19 and fully understanding that we are still in the middle of it in many respects but from your insights and from your initial research and analysis and reflections what do you think are some of the really big kind of priorities for us? So with those three sort of generic questions I'll hand over to you first. Thank you very much Mary. I will be quite short on his interesting question but we're getting the very first at my knowledge but of course Susan maybe have more expertise but at my knowledge there is no clear evidence regarding the difference between developing and developed countries in protecting migrants during the period of COVID-19. My recollection is that the policy adaptation of states has been quite I mean I've been adopted at the national level. There is a lack of coordination and it is even abuse when we look at the EU during at least the first four months during the first ways of the pandemic. So clearly I think that the answers are adopted by states where more adopt and adopted on a pure internal domestic basis. And clearly this is these reasons but clearly this is not the way to do because the pandemic is global by nature and accordingly there is a need for more international cooperation in order to have a common answer on some basic measures to be taken because if each single state is adopting its own measure it is going to fail because the pandemic is truly global and needs a truly global answer. So to my knowledge there is no clear evidence of differences between global north and global south regarding the protection of migrants during COVID-19 but interestingly there are a lot of best practices on across different regions and and probably but clearly the north south divide here seems not very relevant in terms of policies policy reactions to the protection of migrants. The second question yes I mean do not migrants think that international migrants are superior source of COVID? Probably at least the populist think so but here this is not an issue I mean the spread of the contagion is is more about internal mobility than transnational mobility right so clearly I don't think of course the typical answer of state NTCs we can understand is the first reaction of state was to close or at least limit essentially the borders because of course this is the first typical instinct of states in case of crisis we try to close the border but of course first of all it doesn't work in the sense that we are known that this is quite easy to cause irregularity borders and this is counterproductive regarding the need to mitigate the spread of the contagion and second is the wrong battle in the sense that the pandemic is everywhere not this is not something from I mean today at least this is not something from outside we can stop simply by closing borders I mean we need a strong reaction but the strong reaction is more about keeping their own territories than closing their external borders even if this is part of the picture but in reality the impact is quite trivial is fighting against the COVID and in terms of research priorities well I would tend to say that research priorities is to find a vaccine to the COVID but first of all because clearly NTC is the most urgent need for all of us but yes there is clearly NTC while exemplified by also the other speakers I mean there is a need to be innovative but of course we should be careful because typically in times of crisis all stakeholders are used to revisit crisis through the neopic lens of their own interest, mandate and so on so we must be careful about that there is a need for innovative solution but there is a need also for an evidence-based approach to innovative solution the sense that it cannot be another opportunity to sell the typical ideas for free movement we consider that this is the answer anti-migrants consider that the pandemic is to stay used to simply use it as an excuse to recycle the usual arguments there is a need for an open-minded and evidence-based approach in terms of innovations corridors mobility corridors immunity passport could be interesting I think but I mean there are many other areas to be developed further we need to take seriously the need to adapt migration policies with your idea too else consideration too the sense that I mean this is a serious issue and we must address the T's even if again the answer is not only to address the issue as a border but more broadly within the territory of things Thank you very much indeed Vonson and you've really touched on a number of different sort of T issues there I think we could probably spend quite a bit more time talking about some of those issues with international border restrictions that have certainly been put up very very quickly in terms of the international border restrictions within the internal coming in sort of slightly later I will hand over now to Susan and then go to Felene and then if we've got time we'll come back to Susan because I have a couple of questions that have specifically come through for you so Susan on those three kind of I mean they are very big and broad questions posted by participants but also quite interesting I think in terms of the particular takes These are really interesting questions and difficult to respond to in terms of any differences between developing and developed countries I can answer a bit with regard to the travel restrictions because we did go pretty systematically through all of the different ways in which countries have been addressing travel restrictions as that relates to protection of migrants and I was actually started off thinking that there would be a big difference based on the economic level of the countries but the extent to which these travel restrictions can be found across the globe no matter what level of economic development is really striking and I think what happens is that a lot of it is reciprocal actions so one country puts in or one region decides to go with a certain route and there's a lot of pressure to either join the bandwagon or to reciprocate with similar a set of policies so I found a lot more consistency and I was actually I had initially thought that the US policies would be amongst the most restrictive because they have been enforced in a quite restrictive way and it turned out that there were a lot of countries that were even more global in their scope in terms of the travel bands and were restrictive in their applications so it was a surprise to me that there was this little difference although there were all of these different ways in which governments approached it and what I thought was interesting is some of the countries that had been very much affected by H1N1 or SOARS did it took a different take than countries that hadn't been as affected by those pandemics so I think experiences with previous epidemics and pandemics do have an impact. Mexico for example put fewer restrictions on movement because they had slapped on a lot of restrictions in H1N1 and found that they didn't help at all so they were more cautious this time around than other countries and I think the countries that had been particularly affected by SOARS knew how to do it in a way that would be more effective in dealing with the spread of the disease but beyond that I can't really, I haven't looked dramatically at other protection issues in terms of what do people think about migrants and whether they're really thinking about travelers versus migrants in the way in which we might use the term I think that clearly many members of the public do associate the pandemic with particular nationalities I think the backlash against Chinese in some countries including the United States went beyond the travelers to not only migrants but also citizens of Chinese descent and so I think some of the xenophobic reactions that we've seen in various places don't make any distinction in between somebody who's a traveler coming in might be spreading COVID versus somebody who's actually living in the community and is going to be affected by whatever spread there is and I think I agree completely that the issue really is more with regard to whether community spread has already begun or not in a country in terms of the extent to which migrants may or may not be people who are spreading and we know that these super events that have occurred where we've had masses of transmission have occurred amongst every group that you can imagine from the president on downward within countries clearly some of the travel restrictions that were more related to temporary movements and affected particularly the airline closures would affect business travel, vacation travel family travel, things of that sort and not just movement for residents in another country in terms of the research priorities that I would talk about two different aspects to them one is how we do the research because I think we've discovered that a pandemic affects tremendously how one actually does research on these issues the first thing is I think that we need many more collaborative research efforts between public health experts and migration experts I think the research has tended to be in silos I've read a lot of the public health research now gone through it it's very very good but many parts of it were totally not understandable to somebody who is not in the public health field and many of it many of the articles don't really understand migration systems and how they work and what are the drivers of migration and how they intersect so I think that if we had collaborations we'd get a whole lot further in understanding both the role of movement in the spread of the disease and the impact of the disease on migration issues so I would certainly argue for that and then I think clearly we need new research methods because the kind of surveys that many of us do just are really difficult to understand in the travel restrictions and the pandemic itself and the threat for that I think we need to be really looking much more extensively at the use of the we tend to call big data social media for example as a way of getting information about how pandemics are perceived how they spread the migration responses mean that also cell phone data about data can be a very powerful way of looking at mobility patterns when you can't do interviews with people their privacy and security concerns with the use of their types of data and I think we need more attention to how they can be used and analyzed more effectively in that area and then I think in terms of topics we need we need to know more about the internal movements because as in almost every other form of migration there are also a lot more people moving or being forcibly immobile within countries and there are those who cross borders so we need to know more about within countries and these issues but also how what is happening within countries may be affecting cross-border movements. The second is that we do need to know more about return whether it's returned within countries from the urban to rural areas but there have been a few notable examples of massive cross-border return of people who were seeking to get home before the borders closed and they wouldn't be able to do so we need to know much more about what happened there and the third area is that I think that we need to really up in the search on the impact of the pandemics on migrants who are already in countries of destination or who were in countries of transit at the time of the pandemic hit to find out more about what's happened to them and what their experiences are, what their needs are and what we can learn from those situations so those are just a few areas where I think better research priorities. Great thank you very much Susan there's a lot to think about there and certainly I'm sure that that was just your shortlist rather than the longlist exactly. I will now I'm very conscious of that too and Felene if it's okay would we be able to turn to you now? We're kind of up in terms of time but if that's okay with everybody in terms of the panellists and attendees I would like to give you a few minutes to offer your insights Felene in terms of those three questions. I don't think we're going to be able to get to the specific questions but at least Felene I would like to hand over to you if that's all. Thank you I'll try to be very brief so in terms of the north south divide or developing countries divide my impression would be and I have not looked at this systematically that there were more complete lockdowns in the global south and in the global north so in Peru for example there was a complete lockdown for three months and I would say that that affected migrants specifically because these are countries where migrants are already in an especially vulnerable situation we had a complete lockdown release and the military were regarding that lockdown and migrants were not included in any kind of bonuses paid by the state to you know over half of the Peruvian population to be able to survive that lockdown so we had a lot of situations ranging from evictions to simply Venezuelans coming outside trying to work trying to beg in order to survive and I think those very dramatic situations probably were different and I would relate them to my impression of seeing more lockdowns complete lockdowns in the global south Travellers versus migrants I would agree that the virus mostly spread through global travellers but once again migrants and more vulnerable irregular or maybe migrants in a low socioeconomic condition are not the ones that are you know flying around the globe as many of us very often do were the ones most affected by the restrictions that followed and there I would like to re-emphasize this point that if we have travel restrictions and border closures that leads to more irregular migrations more vulnerability, less access to social services, higher risks in terms of public health for everyone so it's all related what do we need? We need research on legal status and the effect of legal status for the inclusion of migrants and not only in economic terms because we usually focus on incorporation in the formal labour market we need to look more at the global south where we have economies such as Peru where over 70% of the economy is informal so the issue maybe isn't that much the inclusion in the formal labour market but inclusion in terms of services and the safeguarding of other human rights such as health and education and also from a global south perspective research on COVID-19 trust, xenophobia those issues are unfortunately taking it was already an issue before COVID unfortunately we see very concerning developments in that regard and we need to understand these issues better especially in countries where there is no welfare system and where there perhaps is a more severely felt competition for limited services, public services. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed and you touched on the issues around the social protection kind of mechanism we have really focused today in terms of the specific aspects in regards to human rights and regular pathways and mobility and immobility regimes but they do interconnect with broader socioeconomic policy frameworks as well as the socioeconomic policy responses and the recovery kind of plan going forward that's really there's a couple of specific questions that have come through for particular speakers Susan if you can stay on the line it's really actually your time but in terms of and it's very early days when we're talking about changing trends and changing patterns of mobility but we have one question in regards to what do you think might be some of the projections around the urban to rural shift and what might be some of the factors related to people either staying in rural communities or seeking to go back to cities or go even further afield to other countries so some of it I know it's very difficult to talk about numbers but some of the key aspects in terms of migrant decision making I think would be particularly useful and then I also have a question for Felene really in regards to regularization and the question is it's a really difficult one I know but how could we seek to influence some of the policy discussions to promote the benefits of regularization and I think your paper kind of clearly outlines the case for more sustainable and systemic regularization programs rather than just these very short-term temporary kind of mechanisms but if you can provide any insights in terms of some of the policy dialogues and some of the discussions or other innovative tools that might be able to be utilized that would be great so first over to you Susan, thanks. Thank you as you said the numbers really aren't in in any systematic way these are a lot of it is anecdotal I think we'll see two different trends I think at the lower end of the labor market where people went back in mass like the India photo that I showed I think that will be more less temporary return as the economy begins to improve the same drivers that led to the rural to urban migration will kick in again and not everyone but a lot of people will return to where they had been working and either the same employers are looking for new work on that I think that the higher end of the labor market this may be a more permanent shift and that's because of the relative success of the remote work environment from any high high skilled professionals and others who have been able to work from home and I think that for them there may be a different form of mobility where rather than clustering around where their work site is I think we may see a more dispersed work market and people living in places that wouldn't normally be seen as you know hotbeds of economic life I don't think it's going to be the pattern that we see but I suspect that there will be increasing movements towards this pattern and companies finding that the physical properties that they have are too expensive to maintain in light of what they can be doing in a more remote way on that and I think that will affect both internal and international migration so I think we're going to see different patterns coming and but I don't see that the urban to rural movements are going to be sustainable for the most part and can accept in very specific situations. Great, thank you very much. The argument would be know that irregular migration or keeping people in an irregular status is a public health risk now when we have to be careful because the risk there is to say irregular migrants are the threat and I think we have to be very careful to say not the regular migrants are the threat but their regular status and this argument has to be presented with a second step saying irregular migration cannot be prevented we know that so that is not an option even if we want it to, even if we close borders people will cross, there will be irregular mobility and legal pathways so the only option we really have if we're interested in human security for all and human security of our own communities and our own voters is to regularize migrants and to let them move in regular pathways in the first place to regularize them in case they've fallen into a regular status in the host communities in order to be able to include them in public health policies and in the context of pandemics we have to include everyone otherwise we will not be successful that would be the argument, it's a little bit tricky I'm not sure what to do about that trap or falling into or being misread as saying irregular migrants are the problem so it has to be always presented jointly with the argument that irregular migration is not preventable and that we just have to offer regular pathways to migration and to regularization thank you that's an age old issue really for a lot of migration researchers in terms of the utilization of the evidence as Montsaint pointed out to inform policies often goes to value systems within particular countries or cities or local authorities so on and so forth now we are way over time but we still have quite a few people online so what I would like to do in terms of closing is really give each of the panellists sort of one minute just in case there are pressing things at the top of their minds that they didn't get a chance to say or to present or to offer our participants do a round table and more finally close if that's okay so Montsaint I will hand over to you thanks, I think you're remuted still Montsaint thank you very much for this very interesting description so I will be short and will simply repeat the need for an evidence-based policies the risk is that the old answer will be used and there is no the risk is too important to continue recycling the old habits old answers there is the need to think openly about this issue and establish without partisan clans political bias the need for a truly collective answer this pandemic is truly global and it is a question of this is now the need for common good for common policy based on solidarity cooperation and evidence-based data I will stop that fantastic sounds like you're quoting from the global compact actually but we haven't really mentioned that much actually today but you know it does set up the framework as you have certainly made the case for in previous papers and previous webinars and discussions Susan a final minute from you who are able to share your last insight I'm actually going to use my minute to thank you for organizing this webinar and your stuff and also at IOM for having both produced and collated so much information on COVID-19 and its impact on the migration thinking in light of Vincent's comments which I agree with completely I think that the getting the research community together to talk about these issues and figure out what are the research issues has made a tremendous contribution I wish I could say that this is going to be the last time we have to deal with these issues but if you refer to this as the big one it's actually reading the public health literature it's not the big one the expectation is for not only more to come but even more destructive pandemics ahead of us so it's really important that we figure out how to do this right in protecting the public health but also protecting the rights of migrants and identifying their needs and so thank you again thank you very much Susan and yes I completely agree what I meant by the big one was in the last 100 years and there's certainly it's very clear that the interaction between you know urban settlements and human kind of encroachment on environment is a key issue in terms of the zoonotic coronavirus it's a key lesson for all but that lesson has been around and unfortunately some powers that we haven't really taken on board I will hand over now to Felene and then we can wrap it up thank you so much thank you again to Vistance, to Susan and Marie maybe the key word you mentioned at the end lessons maybe we have to try to really look for those good practices throw more light onto positive examples maybe have a look at some of the countries that now have regularised migrants and kind of compare their experiences with countries that have done the opposite so always presenting not only criticising as academics but as civil society but presenting governments with positive examples that hopefully had more positive outcomes and in the conversation with governments we need to focus on rights absolutely but we also have to we package and kind of present this in the sense of self-interest of states and really include public health in that sense thank you thank you so much indeed and thank you to our fantastic panellists and for staying online as well we are 15 minutes over time but honestly we could have kept going because it's such a rich and interesting discussion with some really pressing issues and Susan has mentioned we've been doing a lot of work on this and lots of different parts of IOM and it won't be the end we will be obviously coming back to key thought leaders and experts to share their insights well into the future so we thank you very very much for your collaboration for your time and especially for your papers because they are being widely accessed and widely read so thank you very much I would also just finally like to thank the team especially Josiane and Adrian for helping with the WebEx technicalities and putting together all of the support mechanisms as we're going we're learning and it's going a little bit more smoothly every time so thank you very much for that and also to the people who have participated we have had a very large number of questions we haven't been able to get to them but that's another lesson for us we might make the webinars a little bit longer so that we can have part of the Q&A extended because there is obviously such an appetite for the discussion and for some thoughts in terms of some of the key issues in regards to COVID-19 and migration and mobility so thank you again we shall sign off thanks again to everybody and we will look forward to the next webinar thanks bye