Abstract. Bernd Parusel PhD candidate, University of Osnabrück 30 August 2008

Transcription

1 Migrants as Agents of Development a New Dimension of EU Migration Policies? Abstract Bernd Parusel PhD candidate, University of Osnabrück parusel@macnews.de 30 August 2008 D r a f t c o m m e n t s a p p r e c i a t e d! The purpose of this paper is to analyse how the development dimension of international migration is addressed by EU institutions in recent proposals for a more coherent management of migration flows from third countries to the EU. The central argument is that receiving states and EU institutions, having implemented a range of restrictive policies, still see migration predominantly as a security threat, but that attempts to regulate migration flows are increasingly connected to other political interests, such as to enhance Europe s competitiveness, mitigate labour shortages and ease demographic changes. A well-managed migration is also regarded as an instrument of development cooperation. The European Commission expressed such preferences in its 2005 Policy Plan for Legal Migration, its 2007 Communication on Circular Migration and Mobility Partnerships and other recent policy documents. The Policy Plan focuses on the objective that new EU migration policy strategies should help to provide the necessary manpower in the Member States while at the same time ( ) contributing to the development of the countries of origin. The Commission wants to create a win-win situation for both sides, by, for instance, facilitating return and circular migration, putting in place temporary migrant schemes and avoiding brain drain. The Communication on Circular Migration and Mobility Partnerships further concretises these ideas. It proposes that EU member states conclude migration agreements with individual countries of origin. While the latter commit to combat illegal migration, European States offer certain categories of workers from these countries preferential access to their labour markets. The Heads of State and Government of the EU have expressed similar interests in December 2006, calling for country-specific cooperation platforms on migration and development and a balanced partnership with third countries adapted to specific EU Member State s labour market needs. The European Parliament has supported policies encouraging brain circulation, but it has also raised concerns about the difficulty of integrating temporary migrants into EU societies and about the danger of immigrants being treated as disposable workers who can be used and then discarded. The views of the Commission, the Council and the Parliament on the nexus between migration and development reflect debates among scholars, international organisations and NGO in recent years on issues such as remittances, diasporas and transnational migrant networks, brain drain, brain circulation and temporary migration. This is particularly true for the Commission and the Parliament, which rely on academic, NGO and interest group opinion in order to increase their authority in the policy making process. Even if serious obstacles have to be overcome before the new EU migration and development narratives can be transformed into concrete political action, the EU is already funding some pilot projects which could pave the way for circular migration schemes to be implemented by Member States, or at a later stage, at the EU level. In this context, two questions should be raised: 1. Are EU institutions really committed to make migration policies a tool of development cooperation, or are they just paying lip service to a genuine partnership with third countries while the true concerns are to wall the EU off against unwanted migrants and to attract those who are considered as useful? 2. What are the consequences of treating migrants as agents of development? Will we be witnessing, as some researchers have suggested, a resurrection of guest-worker schemes and a dehumanisation of migrants as instruments of economic progress?

2 1 Introduction: The EU framework of migration control When the Heads of State of the EU signed the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, there was a widespread expectation of changes in EU migration policies among NGO, academics and human rights groups. In previous years, European cooperation on immigration, asylum and refugee movements had been dominated by ministers and representatives for national executives. The European Commission, the Parliament and the Court of Justice had no or only a very limited say on EU migration policy objectives and measures, and the agenda was control-oriented, restrictive and security-centred. The predominant policy objective was to wall the EU off against unwanted immigrants (Huysmans 2000, Bade 2001:46, Maurer and Parkes 2007:89). As the Treaty strengthened the role of the Commission and, although to a quite limited extent, the powers of the European Parliament, there were hopes for a more balanced approach, moving beyond the ministers security-agenda and instead emphasising migrants needs and rights and opening up for more pragmatic attitudes towards economic immigration. These hopes were further reinforced by the Tampere Summit of Heads of State and Government of the EU, meeting in the Finnish town of Tampere in December At Tampere, migration was described as interconnected with humanitarian, foreign policy, economic, social and integration objectives of the EU. All of these aspects, and not only security considerations, were to be taken into account in future legislation on migration (Tampere European Council 1999). Today, with a range of asylum and immigration measures already adopted at EU level and implemented in the member states, most expectations of change have been disappointed. A majority of the directives and regulations in place (see Table 1) only determine minimum standards and failed to create the balanced approach to migration movements which many had hoped for; security interests still dominate the EU agenda. While significant progress has been made in cooperation at the EU s external borders in order to repel illegal immigrants and to restrict access to asylum, the Tampere Council s call for a comprehensive approach to migration addressing political, human rights and development issues in countries and regions of origin and transit has not been answered. Moreover, the level of policy convergence across the EU is rather low. The UK, Ireland and Denmark have negotiated special protocols, allowing them to remain outside the common EU migration policy. On a case-by-case basis, the UK and Ireland have joined most decisions on asylum and irregular immigration but opted out of measures dealing with legal immigration (Balzacq and Carrera 2006). 2

3 Table 1: The EU acquis on asylum and migration Document Proposal document number Date of proposal Finally adopted Main ambition or achievement Eurodac regulation COM(1999) May Dec 2000 Framework for collecting, filing and exchanging fingerprints of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. Family reunion directive Temporary protection directive Asylum procedures directive Long term residents directive Reception conditions directive Directive on legal immigration of workers COM(1999)638 1 Dec Sept 2003 Minimum standards; harmonisation of the right of family reunion of third country nationals. COM(2000) May Aug 2001 Minimum standards for temporary protection of third country nationals in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons. COM(2000) Sept Dec 2005 Minimum standards for procedures of granting and withdrawing refugee status and subsidiary protection. COM(2001) Mar Nov 2003 Unified status and rights for third country nationals who are long-term-residents in EU Member States. COM(2001)181 3 April Jan 2003 Minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in the Member States (access to labour market, housing, health care, social aspects etc.) COM(2001) July 2001 Not adopted; withdrawn 17 March 2006 Common EU procedures and criteria for admission of labour migrants to EU Member States. Dublin II regulation COM(2001) July Feb 2003 Criteria and mechanisms determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application; major instrument of migration control, practically punishing Member States with generous borders and asylum policies. Qualification directive COM(2001) Sept April 2004 Minimum standards for qualification of third country nationals as refugees or persons in need for subsidiary protection. Students directive COM(2002)548 7 Oct Dec 2004 Common criteria for the admission of third country nationals for purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unpaid training or voluntary work. Researchers directive COM(2004) Mar Oct 2005 Common criteria and specific procedure for admission of third country nationals for purposes of scientific research. Return directive COM(2005)391 1 Sept 2005 Not adopted yet Directive on admission of highly skilled immigrants Framework directive on legal immigration of workers COM(2007) Oct 2007 Not adopted yet COM(2007) Oct 2007 Not adopted yet Common standards on return of illegally staying immigrants; detention / custody conditions, use of coercive measures, conditions of re-entry. Introduction of common EU procedures and criteria for admission of highly skilled labour migrants; combined immigrationand work permit, possibility of fast track immigration procedures, EU Blue Card giving access to all EU Member Sates labour markets; facilitate circular migration. Status and rights of labour immigrants, introduction of a common EU admission / application procedure. Yet, the Tampere objectives are not entirely dead, as recent attempts to regulate labour migration into the EU and a new awareness of relationships between migration and development show. Even if a Commission proposal for a common European strategy on admission of workers from 3

4 third countries, published in 2001, met significant resistance from some Member states and finally had to be withdrawn in 2006, the issue is still on the agenda. The Heads of State and Government, the Commission and the European Parliament continue to argue for a comprehensive approach on migration, and in January 2005 the Commission revived its 2001 proposal by publishing a Green Paper on an EU approach to economic migration and initiating a process of consultations with Member State governments, national parliaments, interest groups, international organisations, NGO and scholars (Commission 2005a). These consultations resulted in another Commission paper, the Policy Plan on Legal Migration, published in December 2005 (Commission 2005b). This Policy Plan now serves as a basis for the development of common European conditions and criteria for different kinds of legal immigration, such as admission of highly skilled immigrants, seasonal workers, intra-corporate transferees and paid interns. The document advanced Europe s economic and demographic interests in the area of migration and identified preferences in terms of competition and the functioning of European labour markets. In the context of recent discussions about the Policy Plan and common rules for labour immigration, the development dimension of migration has been addressed again, too, with for instance the Commission arguing for a well-managed migration as being beneficial for both EU Member States and countries of origin. Today, the objective of walling the EU off against migration from third countries still dominates the policy agenda of both EU institutions and Member States administrations and interior ministries. At the same time, however, there is an emerging debate on how some migrants - depending on their respective qualifications - could be economically useful for both the EU and countries of origin. According to debates in some member states, immigration could enhance Europe s competitiveness, mitigate labour shortages and ease demographic challenges. Despite significant differences in national approaches, a new overall migration policy preference is taking shape in Europe, according to which migration movements must be managed in such a way that certain desirable categories of third country nationals are encouraged to immigrate while effective barriers to entry are developed in order to stave off migration of those not considered useful. In this paper, I want to analyse how the development aspect of migration is addressed by EU institutions in the context of recently debated proposals on common standards for labour immigration and other forms of legal immigration, and what has been proposed to make migration beneficial both for receiving EU countries, countries of origin and migrants themselves. I will then try to discuss why the EU-institutions have adopted such preferences, if they can be transformed into concrete political action, and what consequences this could have. 4

5 In section 2 of this paper, I will look into some relevant policy documents issued by the European Commission, the Council (both Heads of State or Government and Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers) and the European Parliament between 2005 and Section 3 explores where the political preferences and migration policy goals of those institutions come from and how they can be explained. As the European integration process and EU policy outcomes can depend on functional interrelationships (cooperation in one particular policy area triggering cooperation in another), preferences of Member States governments, debates within member states and / or institutional arrangements, all of these variables will be looked into briefly. I will also attempt to explain how the EU institutions respond to academic, NGO and interest group opinion. Section 4 points out that there are significant obstacles to transforming the migration and development narratives of the EU institutions into concrete political action, but that several projects have been initiated, which could pave the way for circular migration schemes and migration management policies to be adopted by Member States, or at a later stage at the EU level. In section 5, the paper then tries to explore what the evolution of interests at the EU level can mean in practice. I will ask if EU institutions really are committed to making migration policies a tool of development cooperation or if they are just paying lip service to a genuine partnership with third countries while the true concern remains to wall the EU against unwanted migrants and to attract those considered as useful. Another argument in this section is that overloading immigrants with too many functions (as for instance contributing to economic success in Europe, ease demographic challenges, mitigate labour shortages, contribute to development in sending countries and so on) bears the danger of dehumanising migrants and transforming them into economic units. Section 6 draws some conclusions and summarizes the paper. 5

6 2 EU narratives of migration and development That the EU-institutions make reference to the (possible) economic and social impact of European immigration policies on third countries (countries of origin and transit) and declare that they want to adopt migration policies that maximise the development benefits for those countries is a rather new phenomenon. Admittedly, terms like partnership with developing countries have been used for a long time, but when it came to migration, partnership meant in practice that push-factors for migration were to be reduced and countries of origin and transit were promised preferential trade agreements and / or development assistance by the EU. In turn, they were pressured to cooperate on readmitting illegal immigrants and rejected asylum seekers, and to secure their borders and prevent citizens from emigrating to the EU. During the 1990ies and until today, readmission clauses have been introduced into association agreements with for instance the Maghreb countries and former colonies in the ACP (Africa, Carribbean, Pacific) group of states (Parusel 1999, Peers 2003), and neighbouring countries have received financial and technical aid to strengthen their border controls and to reform their migration policies according to EU requirements (see Geiger 2007 on the example of Ukraine). As the main objective of EU migration policies in the 1990ies and at the beginning of the first decade 2000 was to erect barriers to immigration, there was no room for considerations whether and how migrants could contribute to development in countries of origin. Only when the migration debate broadened round 2005, with some EU governments and the EU Commission recognising migration as potentially positive in terms of labour marked shortages, industry needs for additional manpower and ageing populations, the migration-development-nexus started to figure in EU policy documents. The following paragraphs describe how individual EU bodies have made reference to this in recent years. 2.1 European Commission In its 2005 Policy Plan on Legal Migration (Commission 2005b) the Commission calls for the establishment of a common European policy to admit labour migrants from third countries and to manage legal migration flows. It retains that the number of economic migrants to be admitted as labour immigrants should remain an exclusive competency of each Member State s government. The Commission argues, however, that a harmonised European approach with common rules on admission and residence is needed due to the fact that, in a region where 6

7 people can move freely across national borders, each Member State s decisions on admission of third country nationals also affect other Member States and their labour markets. A pragmatic approach to the immigration of labour migrants is described as a necessity, both with regard to the demographic development in the EU (ageing populations) and to a needscenario on EU labour markets. Immigration is, according to the Commission, crucial to satisfying current and future labour market needs and thus ensure economic sustainability and growth (Commission 2005b: 5). Hence, the Commission proposes to define common conditions and procedures of admission for selected categories of economic immigrants, such as highly skilled workers, seasonal workers, intra-corporate transferees and paid interns. In late 2007, two concrete draft directives were presented. One of them aims at shaping common conditions for entry and residence of third country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment. It also proposes to introduce a EU Blue Card, granting highly qualified workers attractive conditions for family reunification and the possibility to move and work freely in all EU Member States. (Commission 2007, Guild 2007) The other draft directive aims at harmonising the status and the rights of third country nationals in order to create similar conditions of stay throughout the Union, thus contributing to integration and nondiscrimination. In a section entitled cooperation with countries of origin, the Policy Plan states that the public consultations on its Green Paper on an EU approach to managing economic migration (Commission 2005a) had shown that there was a need to enhance collaboration with third countries on economic migration and to develop initiatives offering win-win opportunities to countries of origin and destination and to labour immigrants (Commission 2005b: 10). To this end, the Policy Plan proposes some possible measures: One possible action is monitoring migration of skilled workers from developing countries to the EU so as to identify sectors and countries of origin subject to significant brain drain. Discussions within the EU and with these countries should take place to seek possible solutions. Furthermore, the Commission, mindful of the importance of providing more comprehensive information in the Countries of origin on the possibilities and conditions for legal immigration to the EU, intends to take the necessary steps to enlarge the sources of information presently available. In addition to action in order to combat the development obstacle of brain drain, the Commission wants to facilitate circular migration and return migration. It argues that the EU could, for instance, create long-term multi-entry visas for returning migrants (Commission 2005b: 10). This idea means in practice to enable migrants to move to a EU country in order to work, then go back to their countries of origin, then move to Europe again and so forth. Another idea is that migrants who have resided legally in a EU Member State and then returned to their country of origin could be given priority when the Member State in question recruits labour migrants again at a later stage. For these migrants, there could also be a simplified procedure of 7

8 admission. In this respect, an EU database of third country nationals having left the EU at the expiration of their temporary residence/work permit could be set up. Furthermore, the EU could actively participate in designing temporary migration schemes, helping to maximise benefits for all interested parties by responding to labour needs in Member States, while contributing, through eventual return, to the development of countries of origin and offering skills and other gains to participating migrants (Commission 2005b: 11). As another way of addressing the development dimension of migration, the Commission proposes to establish training facilities in countries of origin, including professional training, pre-departure integration measures and language courses. The main idea behind this is that such structures to be set up in countries of origin could make it easier for potential migrants to find legal employment in the EU. Another Commission paper issued in May 2007 further concretises some of these ideas and introduces two new approaches to improve the management of legal movements of people between the EU and third countries (Commission 2007: 2). The first idea is that one or more EU member states conclude migration agreements with selected countries of origin ( mobility partnerships ) on a voluntary basis (see Table 2 for details). The core principle is that the EU Member States concerned offer nationals from the partner countries preferential access to their labour markets, while the latter, in turn, commit to serve the EU interest of combating illegal migration. Table 2: Possible components of a mobility partnership (according to Commission 2007: 3-8). Commitments expected from the third country concerned: - Readmit its own nationals and cooperate in identifying them; - Readmit nationals of other countries and stateless persons who arrived in the EU through the territory of the country concerned; - Discourage illegal migration; - Combat migrant smuggling and human trafficking; - Improve border control / management; - Improve security of travel documents against fraud or forgery; - Cooperate and exchange information with EU Member States on border management issues; - Promote productive employment and decent work. Commitments by EU Member States: - Improve opportunities for legal migration for nationals of the third country; - Help third countries develop their capacity to manage legal migration flows; - Help facilitate the economic and social reintegration of returning migrants; - Facilitate the transfer of migrants remittances; - Measures to address the risk of brain drain by, for instance, excluding migrants from sectors under stress from preferential treatment; - Improve the procedures for issuing short stay visas to the nationals of the third country. 8

9 The second idea is to facilitate return and circular migration. According to the 2007 communication, circular migration is increasingly recognised as a key form of migration that, if well managed, can help to match the international supply of and demand for labour, thereby contributing to a more efficient allocation of available resources and to economic growth (Commission 2007: 8). It is necessary, though, the Commission states, to ensure that migration thought to be circular does not become permanent settlement. An adequate policy in this regard would be to offer third country nationals settled in the EU (business persons, doctors, professors and other professionals) an opportunity to engage in an economic activity in their country of origin while being able to retain their main residence in the EU. It would also address persons residing in third countries, offering them to come to the EU temporarily for work, study, training or a combination of these, on the condition that, at the end of the period for which they were granted entry, they return home (Commission 2007: 9). Measures to encourage circular migration could be incorporated into some of the future EU legislative instruments on legal migration, as for instance the draft directive on the admission of highly skilled migrants or a future directive on seasonal workers, the Commission suggests. For example, multi-annual EU work- and residence-permits could be issued, allowing seasonal migrants to come to work in the EU several years in a row - on the condition that they return to their country of origin after the assigned periods of legal stay and work in the EU. Another option would be to allow specific categories of foreign nationals to leave the EU country where they have taken residence for a certain period of time (12 months, for example) without losing their legal status. Besides, the EU could offer fast-track-procedures for entry and residence to persons who have formerly worked in the EU and then returned home. In order to make sure that circular migration meets its objectives, the Commission proposes that persons who do not overstay when temporarily working in the EU are rewarded by being promised continued mobility. Migrants returning home should also receive support with reintegration, finding a job or by being granted a reintegration premium. The issue of brain drain and measures of avoiding it are addressed again, too. Even if circular migration, to a certain extent, could limit the long term risks of brain drain, EU Member Sates might, according to the Commission, be requested not no actively recruit in job sectors indicated as being under stress. There should also be mechanisms to make it easier for people to split their working life between two countries. Countries of origin should get help from the EU to create sufficiently attractive professional opportunities locally, especially for the highly skilled (Commission 2007: 12), thus discouraging emigration. 9

10 Apart from these ideas, which could be introduced into the overall EU migration policy strategy, the Commission has proposed further measures aiming at maximising positive effects of migration on development in sending countries. In a Communication titled Migration and Development: Some concrete orientations (Commission 2005c) it recommends, for instance, to facilitate the flow of migrants remittances and to enhance their impact on development. Transfers should be made cheaper, faster and safer, and the EU should contribute to an improvement of the investment climate and good governance in development countries in order to encourage migrants to invest some of their money in business activities. The Commission also finds it important to help developing countries to map their diasporas and build links with them, as they can be interlocutors in development policy and/or possible initiators of development projects (Commission 2005c: 6). The ideas of facilitating remittances and to activate diasporas do not necessarily require EU legislation, but the Commission encourages Member States to build on best practices developed by Member States or non-state actors. 2.2 Council The General Affairs and External Relations Council of the EU, representing the foreign ministers of the Member States, expressed support for some of the ideas of the Commission at a meeting in December The Ministers particularly retained that mobility partnerships could be capable of bringing added value to the EU s global approach to migration. The Ministers invited the Commission to negotiate pilot mobility partnerships with Moldova and Cape Verde and, if possible, further states. It stressed, however, that the contents of individual mobility partnerships may vary considerably from one country to another, reflecting the specific characteristics of each situation and the respective objectives, priorities and security concerns of both the EU, its Member States and individual third countries. (Council 2007: 25). The Ministers also supported the concept of circular migration, stating: Circular migration can be useful in promoting the development of countries of origin or mitigating the adverse effect of brain drain. In further developing policies and launching initiatives to this end, circular migration could be understood as the temporary, legal movement of people between one or more Member States and particular third countries, whereby third country nationals take up legal employment opportunities in the EU or persons legally residing in the EU go to their country of origin. Where this meets the identified labour needs of countries of origin and destination, this can be beneficial to all involved and can contribute to co-development. This may include, for example, voluntary service, periods of study or training in the EU, and exchanges of different kinds. Well managed, incentive-based movements between countries of origin and destination can foster the positive effects of the contribution to development provided by migrants and members of settled diaspora when they visit or return to their country of origin, on a temporary basis. Safeguards, which prevent overstaying and ensure return, are key elements in order, as a rule, to prevent temporary stay from becoming permanent. Circular migration can be facilitated by a legal framework that promotes mobility and voluntary return. (Council 2007: 26) 10

11 Ministers also invited the Commission to support concrete circular migration projects and programmes financially (Council 2007: 27). Even if the Council clearly makes reference to the development dimension of migration, it has to be recalled that the idea of concluding mobility partnerships and fostering circular migration originally goes back to the Interior Ministers of France and Germany at that time, Nicholas Sarkozy and Wolfgang Schäuble. In October 2006, they launched their idea of a European immigration pact. It mentions a need of encouraging circular migration, but rather presents it as a measure of controlling migration flows and reducing illegal migration to the EU than as a measure to foster brain circulation or to contribute to development in third countries. The two ministers declared that they did not want any unregulated immigration into their countries labour markets and social welfare systems (Angenendt 2007: 2). Thus, in this context, the concept of circular migration must not be seen as an instrument of development policies only, but also as a component of a generally restrictive immigration framework, which wants to ensure that migrants return to their countries of origin after a certain period of stay in the EU. At several summits of the Heads of State and Government of the EU throughout the past few years, the development aspect of migration was brought up, as well. At a summit in Brussels in December 2006, for instance, the European Council declared that the European migration policy required a genuine partnership with third countries, including - Deepening and broadening dialogue with third countries on migration; - Strengthening practical cooperation; - Sending specific EU missions to key African countries; - Addressing the root causes of migration; - Integrating migration and development issues into aid policies and programming; - Encouraging countries of origin to incorporate migration issues into their national development plans; - Supporting capacity building for effective migration management; - Establishing country-specific cooperation platforms on migration and development; - Placing migration and development issues on the agenda of the international community; - Improving cooperation on return and readmission with third countries, including effective identification, documentation and reintegration; - Stepping up concrete work along migratory routes in partnership with third countries in particular with a view to preventing and combating trafficking and smuggling of human beings. The Heads of State and Government also declared a willingness to explore how to facilitate circular and temporary migration and how legal migration could be incorporated into the 11

12 Union s external policies in order to develop a balanced partnership with third countries adapted to specific EU Member States' labour market needs. (Council 2006: 8-9) The Council Conclusions demonstrate that there is awareness among the Heads of State of a relationship between migration and development and of a need for cooperating with countries of origin. However, the document also shows that the security orientation in EU migration policies still dominates and that the envisaged partnership with third countries is not only understood as a need to manage migration flows in a way that would be beneficial to both the EU and countries of origin. While possibilities of opening up for legal migration are merely to be considered or explored, restrictive policy components such as cooperation on return and readmission (including identification and documentation) or the strengthening of practical cooperation are much more tangible. At the ministerial level, the Council has proved to be even more cautious regarding possibilities of legal migration to the EU. Even if most European States agree on the objective of improving the EU s ability to attract highly qualified third country nationals, Member State Governments still have objections to the transfer of national powers to the EU. When the Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs discussed the Commission proposal on highly qualified workers and the EU Blue Card Scheme at a meeting in July 2008, there was disagreement on the definition of a highly qualified worker and on the question if such workers would have to earn a certain minimum salary in order to qualify for preferential access to EU labour markets (Council 2008:11). Some Member States have even more fundamental objections to a common EU regulation on economic migration. The German Parliament of the Länder (Bundesrat) declared in March 2006 that the EU did not have the authority to regulate third country nationals access to Member States labour markets (Bundesrat 2006). It will certainly be interesting to see if there will be an agreement between Member States on that sensitive issue. If the EU fails to create possibilities of legal immigration, this would also put any progress in addressing the development dimension of migration into question. If the EU wants to conclude mobility partnerships with third countries, it must be able to offer at least some opportunity of labour immigration to the nationals of these countries. 2.3 European Parliament The European Parliament has produced extensive amounts of paper on the issue of migration, and it has offered some interesting considerations on relationships between migration and development. However, Parliaments leverage to advance its positions is still quite limited. The Amsterdam treaty assigned it the right to be consulted on all migration policy matters and 12

13 defined a transition period of five years, after which Parliament should have the power of codecision. Even if the transition phase ended in 2004, Parliaments legislative competencies still only apply to asylum and illegal immigration. On measures of legal migration, it still only possesses the right to be consulted, with no obligation of the Council of Ministers to respect Parliament s positions. The Lisbon Treaty, signed in December 2007, would have extended the co-decision procedure even to issues of legal migration, but the treaty s entry into force is blocked since the Irish turned it down in a referendum in During the past few years, Parliamentarians often expressed a need for a comprehensive approach on migration, not only focusing on issues of asylum, restrictive policies to reduce illegal immigration and increased border protection but also establishing, among others, a common policy for legal economic immigration. If illegal immigration into the EU was to be reduced, Parliament stated in 2004, policies of managed migration needed to be developed: ( ) without more legitimate economic migration opportunities, the abuse of, and the pressure on, asylum policy and on all illegal forms of migration will not decrease (European Parliament 2004). MEPs also justified the need for opening up the EU labour markets for legal migration by referring to a predicted population decline, especially between 2020 and 2030, and to a fall in total employment, with negative effects on economic growth. Parliament retains that migratory flows are an inescapable reality that can and must be harnessed to the mutual benefit of host countries and countries of origin. With regard to development, Parliament states that legal economic migration not necessarily causes a brain drain in countries of origin, since many workers return to these countries using their new experiences for the benefit of their home economies and communities. However, cherry-picking certain skilled workers or entrepreneurs from third countries should be avoided. MEPs express support for temporary or circular migration schemes ( brain circulation instead of brain drain), which are seen as potentially beneficial for development objectives, but also some scepticism. Temporary migration should not result in labour migrants being treated as disposable workers who can be used and then discarded. Focusing on temporary and circular migration could also lead to integration goals to be neglected, Parliament fears. Even if MEPs identify a conflict between the political interest to integrate migrants as well as possible on the one hand, and shaping incentives for return or temporary migration on the other hand, they call for the establishment of migration partnerships with certain third countries, with a view to drawing up agreements on readmission, management of migratory flows, and the combating of illegal immigration. In a resolution of July 2006 titled Development and migration (European Parliament 2006), referring to the Commission communication on migration and development published in 2005, 13

14 the Parliament further elaborated its preferences in migration and development. MEPs stated that the EU Member States had not jointly and consistently responded to increased migration since the 1980s. There was, however, a need for a global policy response by the EU. MEPs expressed concern about policies of chosen or selective migration, which have been considered or already implemented in several member states, such as the UK, France, Germany and Sweden (Parusel forthcoming). Such policies tend to encourage brain drain, thus undermining the supply and quality of essential services in various sectors of the economy in developing countries, Parliament fears. The resolution quotes the Chairman of the Commission of the African Union, Alpha Oumar Konaré, saying that policies of chosen migration amount to a denial of Africa s right to development (European Parliament 2006). Instead of such policies, Parliament describes circular migration as offering major opportunities for the development of host countries and countries of origin. It also argues for co-development approaches, meaning the fulfilment of the potential represented by migrant communities in developed countries in the service of the development of their country of origin. As interesting concrete examples for political action, Parliament calls on the Commission and Member Sates to develop programmes in order to involve skilled people in the diasporas in the process of development by covering the costs of wage differentials for highly skilled migrants prepared to return to their countries, or by setting up dual post systems for public sector employees in southern countries, as for instance teachers, doctors and researchers. To combat brain drain in developing countries, the EU actors should, for example, redirect training to sectors suffering from labour shortages and finance co-investment programmes between partners in the North and South for countries and sectors particularly affected. Moreover, student and graduate exchange programmes such as Erasmus or Leonardo da Vinci should be promoted and extended to persons from developing nations in order to encourage circular migration and transfer of knowledge. On migrants remittances, a major opportunity for development, Parliament demands to make transfers cheaper and more transparent, although it regrets that remittances were principally directed towards consumption whereas only a small proportion were channelled towards investment and development. Therefore, policies should be developed in order to direct transfers of migrants funds towards productive investment. One paragraph in the 2006 resolution makes particularly clear that Parliamentarians point of view on migration deviates from the security and migration control agenda of the Council and the tendency in many Member States to open the labour markets only for highly skilled or otherwise economically useful migrants: Parliament reiterates its support for the idea of mobility of human beings as a human right, which therefore cannot be understood in terms of 14

15 commercial logic; emphasises that any policy in this area must be committed to promoting mobility by choice rather than by necessity. Interestingly, MEPs also express scepticism about the appropriateness and effectiveness of agreements and readmission clauses aimed at linking financial and technical aid to the performance of third countries in terms of readmission. Such policies of demanding something in return threaten to impoverish countries of origin, Parliament criticises. 15

16 3 Explaining the EU narratives of migration and development Studies of the dynamics of the European integration process have highlighted different possible explanations for the evolution of migration policies at EU level. A classic and well-established approach is the neo-functional idea of cooperation between states in one particular political field spilling over and encouraging cooperation in related areas due to functional interrelationships. This idea can also help to understand why attempts to manage migration flows in the EU are not exclusively a competency of sovereign nation states any more, but an area of mixed competence where supranational law has been put in place and national actors interact with European ones: The establishment of a single market, the realisation of free movement of goods, services, capital and people and the abolishment of internal borders between EU Member States has challenged the ability of national governments to control migration movements across their borders. As a result, they attempted to restore their control capacity by creating overarching, supranational frameworks, as for instance joint controls at external borders or common standards of refugee protection and asylum (Uçarer 2002, Geddes 2003). The EU actors themselves support such a functional explanation. The Commission, for instance, has frequently argued that the EU is a common market without borders where only a truly supranational migration regime can guarantee burden sharing and effective management of migration flows (European Commission 2006). Other explanations highlight the advantages of supranational cooperation on migration for Member States by either emphasising that common policies can reduce the costs of border control (Messina 2007) or that the EU institutions have allowed member states to impose restrictive and security-centred policies, which they were unable to do in the respective national framework due to juridical constraints (Guiraudon 2001). Maurer and Parkes have argued that the establishment of EU migration policies is a tool for national governments to overcome domestic legal restrictions to their freedom of action (Maurer and Parkes 2007). There is also evidence of EU policies responding to national debates in Member States (Cram et alt. 1999). Whereas many of these approaches suggest that EU policies are predominantly shaped in the interest of and according to national executives, it has also been recognised that the institutional construction and dynamic of the EU has some relevance for policy development and outcomes. Supranational actors (Commission, European Parliament), seeing themselves as truly European, strive for more influence and powers. In order to reinforce their influence on the policy making process, they look for allies, scientific and empirical support for their positions, or they make reference to international agreements or organisations. When proposing new legislation, the European Commission usually points towards previously agreed policy objectives, 16

17 such as Conclusions by the Heads of State or Government, already existing legislation or opinion of other EU bodies. This ensures a certain amount of continuity in EU policy goals. Many proposals are further underpinned with statistics, and the Commission often organises public consultations with NGO, international organisations such as the UNHCR, Brussels based Think Tanks, scholars and interest groups. This enables the Commission to make use of external knowledge and opinions, thus achieving a stronger negotiating position vis-à-vis the Council (Wallace 1996). The European Parliament, in turn, has also attempted to increase its weight and credibility in the policy making process by appointing rapporteurs among MEPs. Rapporteurs try to acquire specialist knowledge on specific political issues, and they accompany the handling of policy proposals through Parliaments committees until final adoption in plenary sessions and negotiations with the Council and its preparatory bodies (Kohler-Koch 1996). The fact that the development aspect of migration has been highlighted in some recent communications, conclusions and resolutions by EU actors can be interpreted both as a result of functional interrelationships between policy areas and as a consequence of actors responding to external knowledge and opinions. The EU bodies have acquired a lot of areas of competence over the years, one of them being economic and political relations with third countries, including development aid and negotiation of trade agreements. There might not be an automatic spillover from development cooperation to migration management policies, but if there is an interest in contributing to stability and development in third countries, this interest also touches the EU s migration policies, as it is obvious that a relationship between migration and development exists. Moreover, there are international forums such as the EU-ACP Parliamentary Assembly, where policy makers from development countries can give their views on the consequences of European migration policies on their countries. The EU-ACP Assembly has repeatedly spoken out on issues of migration and development. To what extent interest group, academic, Think Tank and NGO opinions and findings matter, is very hard to quantify due to the fact that both the EU Heads of State and Government and the Council of Ministers only publish minutes of their meetings and so-called Presidency Conclusions. These documents do usually not contain any references or quotes, which could reveal what or who has influenced discussions among ministers and Heads of State or Government. The European Commission, by way of contrast, does usually openly refer to Council conclusions, treaties, already existing EU legislation, European Parliament resolutions and other internal policy documents whenever a new communication or proposal is published. As Table 3 shows, two Commission papers which address migration and development also refer to external knowledge produced by international organisations such as the UN and the WHO, policy examples from individual member states, empirical studies and a hearing at the European 17

18 Parliament. This shows that the Commission tries to substantiate its arguments by taking into account knowledge and empirical findings produced by others. Table 3: References to internal and external knowledge in resolutions by the European Parliament European Parliament 2006: European Parliament 2004: - Commission communications and proposals, Council Presidency Conclusions - UN General Assembly resolutions, UN conventions, reports by UN Secretary General - Cotonou Agreement - Declaration by ACP ministers with responsibility for asylum, migration and mobility - ACP-EU Council of Ministers decision - World Bank report - Global Commission for international migration (GCIM) report - EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - ILO recommendations and publications - Declaration by EU-Latin America-Summit - Tampere European Council - EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - Council directives, Commission communications and proposals - Conference organised by Greek EU Presidency 2003 (including papers presented) - Opinions of European Economic and Social Committee - Study by the European Foundation on Living and Working Conditions - Newspaper Article (Financial Times) In a similar fashion, the European Parliament makes references to external knowledge, too. Table 4 lists such references, taken from both resolutions recitals ( having regard to ) and the rapporteurs explanatory statements. Table 4: References to internal and external knowledge in Commission papers European Commission 2005c: European Commission 2007a: - Countries and international organisations increasingly perceive migration as a phenomenon whose positive impacts in development terms can be substantial - Global Commission on international Migration (GCIM) - High Level Dialogue on Migration and Development in the framework of the UN - Public hearing at the European Parliament (March 2005) - Tampere European Council (1999) and Hague Programme (2004) - Policy examples and studies published in some EU Member States (e.g. UK survey on remittances, French, Italian, Dutch and Spanish policies of co-funding migrants remittances, among others) - Earlier and forthcoming Commission papers and draft Council directives - Inter-American Development Bank report on remittances - Study on remittances by the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership - World Health Organisation resolution - Earlier Commission papers and proposals and European Council Conclusions - Existing EU legislation on the movement of persons to the EU - Examples of EU-funded projects to facilitate the management of legal migration flows in third countries and circular migration (projects financed by the EU and run by IOM, Municipalities in EU Member Sates, NGOs, Member Sates Government agencies, Government agencies in third countries, ILO, UNIFEM) 18