Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries in the area of migration and asylum" (COM(2003) 355 final — 2003/0124 (COD))
Date: 2003-10-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU programme, cooperation policy, financial aid, immigration, third country

5.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/49

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme for financial and technical
assistance to third countries in the area of migration and asylum’

(COM(2003) 355 final — 2003/0124 (COD))

(2004/C 32/09)

On 12 September 2003, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above mentioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 October 2003. The rapporteur was
Ms Cassina.

At its 403rd plenary session held on 29 and 30 October 2003 (meeting of 29 October), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 118 votes to four, with two
abstentions.

1.

Introduction and content of the proposal

On 11 June 2003,

1.1.
the Commission published a
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of
the Council establishing a programme for financial and
technical assistance to third countries in the area of migration
and asylum. The overall budget is to total EUR 250 million
and the programme will last five years (2004-2008) (1).

The conclusions of the Tampere European Council (2)
1.2.
set out the concept of partnership with third countries in
the field of migration and stressed the need to adopt a
comprehensive approach to address political, human rights
and development issues in the countries and regions con-
cerned (3).

time,

In 2001,

for the first

1.3.
the budget authority
included a number of appropriations under Article B7-667 of
the general budget of the European Union which were intended
to finance preparatory measures in the field of migration and
asylum.

In the present document, the Commission proposes a
1.4.
legal framework and larger appropriations for this instrument

for cooperation with third countries in the field of migration.
The instrument provides for a multiannual programme (first
phase: 2004-2008) of specific and complementary aid for
third countries, in order to help them manage all aspects of
migratory flows more effectively. It is intended in particular
for
actively engaged in preparing or
implementing a readmission agreement initialled, signed or
concluded with the European Community.

third countries

2. General comments

2.1.
The EESC approves and supports the establishment of
a programme with these goals and hopes that the European
institutions will waste no time in endorsing it. The EESC would
point out that in many opinions (4) on migration it has
reiterated the need to operate on two complementary fronts:
first, to provide for organic and coherent legislation, pro-
cedures, programmes and best practice in order to encourage
the legal entry and integration of migrants in the European
economic and social context; and second, to engage in close
cooperation with migrants’ countries of origin. The EESC is
convinced that the complexity of the migration situation calls
for a clear effort to make a variety of policies work together

(1) This proposal for a regulation follows on from the Communi-
cation to the Council and Parliament on integrating migration
issues in the European Union’s relations with third countries
(COM(2002) 703 final).

(2) See points 11 and 12 of the conclusions of the Tampere European

Council of 15 and 16 October 1999.

(3) This approach was confirmed at the Seville European Council
(points 27-29 of the presidency conclusions) and at the recent
European Council in Thessaloniki (points 19-21 of the presidency
conclusions).

(4) See in particular the EESC opinions on: the Communication from
the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on
in OJ C 260, 17.9.2001;
a Community immigration policy,
Immigration, integration and the role of civil society organisations
in OJ C 125, 27.5.2002; and the Proposal for a Council Directive
on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals
for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic
activities, in OJ C 80, 3.4.2002.

C 32/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2004

to produce synergy, and welcomes and underscores the
responsibility assigned to the Commission for ensuring consist-
ency with other common policies (Article 8).

2.1.1. More specifically, the EU must equip itself with
appropriate instruments that will prevent Member States from
continually wavering between measures to protect or even
close external borders, and attempts to deal with labour
shortages on an ad hoc basis by taking on workers from third
countries (the labour situation being exacerbated by the bleak
demographic situation in EU countries). These instruments
must be sufficiently flexible to respond to diverse needs, while
at the same time having a Community dimension to ensure
they are applied fairly and openly. The absence of such
instruments has a negative impact on European workers’
perception of the migration situation, which is presented one
moment as a necessity and the next as a danger.

2.2.
The EESC would stress the need to ensure that measures
taken in the two spheres (transparent migration policies and
cooperation with the countries of origin) are synchronised and
coherent and are geared towards a set of goals embracing both
the values and policies of the EU. Unfortunately, there are still
gaps in the framework for a common migration policy, owing
to the difficulties encountered in winning approval for certain
provisions (for instance in the fields of family reunification,
visas and long-term residence). These difficulties arise mainly
from the refusal of Member State governments to abandon
their own migration policies. The EESC regrets this state of
affairs and would stress the need to act consistently and
responsibly in implementing the decisions made at Tampere,
Seville and Thessaloniki. In truth, a lack of procedural certainty
and appropriate reception policies do far more than inadequate
border controls to encourage illegal immigration. (1) In the
absence of a clearly defined visa, entry and integration policy,
it is difficult to interpret the proposal for a cooperation
programme with migrants’ countries of origin in a balanced
way, particularly when it comes to the setting of priorities.

The proposal appears to give priority to readmission
2.3.
procedures (which include enforced repatriation, voluntary
repatriation and the return of people who have enjoyed

temporary asylum), to the detriment of other measures. A
clear information policy is especially important, regarding
both legal emigration procedures and the requirements and
nature of labour markets in EU countries. Another crucial area
is vocational training for potential migrants, particularly when
conducted in the context of European companies investing
and/or relocating in migrants’ countries of origin, without
forgetting the need to support social development in these
countries and promote respect for basic social standards.
Furthermore, the fact that the one proposal covers very diverse
aspects of the mobility of third country nationals (economic
migrants, refugees, people enjoying temporary protection,
illegal immigrants) does not serve to improve its clarity.

The result of all this is an imbalance in the concept of
2.4.
‘flow management’, which is a lot more complex than simply
keeping potential migrants in their country of origin or setting
up schemes or programmes for returnees. In various opinions
on migration (2), the EESC has stressed the need for the
dynamic and integrated management of migratory flows (both
inward and outward), involving various measures and players.

the chances of

2.4.1. More specifically, clear information is essential on
finding work,
expatriation procedures,
vocational and administrative requirements for working in the
EU, labour market requirements in host countries, contractual
conditions, and measures and opportunities for individual and
family integration. It is worth noting that if the prospect of an
upsurge in economic growth in Europe becomes a reality, not
least through a new move to develop the major infrastructure
networks, it will create demand for a large number of workers,
a significant proportion of whom might be non-EU nationals.
It would therefore be short-sighted to attempt to meet that
need under the current diverse and sometimes contradictory
national laws. At the same time, it is also possible that the use
of subcontracting systems which are not
(or cannot be)
properly monitored could mean that major Community
projects end up employing large numbers of third country
workers illegally and with no protection. This would be
unacceptable.

(1) Furthermore, the above-mentioned Commission Communication
(COM(2002) 703 final) points out that:
‘In those cases where
comprehensive immigration policies are not yet in place — which
is also the case for the EU — workers will find their own (illegal)
way to enter the globalised labour market’ (point 4.2).

(2) See in particular the EESC opinions on the: Green paper on a
Community return policy on illegal residents,
in OJ C 61,
14.3.2003; and on the Communication from the Commission to
the Council and the European Parliament on a Community return
policy on illegal residents, in OJ C 85, 8.4.2003.

5.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/51

The proposed programme could come into play
2.4.2.
here, however, in the interests of the Community and of third
country nationals interested in emigrating to the EU. The EESC
therefore calls for the proposed measures to include at the
very least the launch, if only on a trial basis, of a system similar
to EURES (1), and involving the social partners in the EU and
in the migrants’ countries of origin.

Equally crucial

2.5.
is what can be done in terms of
providing potential migrants with training, ranging from
language courses to proper vocational training, arranged with
the direct involvement of companies that need third country
labour. Furthermore, the possibility of traineeships in Europe
could mark a major step forward, both providing skilled
workers for EU companies and helping the countries of origin
to improve their competitiveness so as to be able to attract
foreign direct investment.

2.5.1.
The EESC understands that the proposed measures
are designed to provide direct support for third countries, but
it believes that the text can also be interpreted in such a way
that certain initiatives could be carried out within the Member
States, providing they further the programme’s objectives. The
Committee feels that this point should be made clearer in the
proposal. In any event, it hopes that it might be possible to
develop joint training schemes in Europe or other measures
designed specifically to underpin repatriation measures by
setting up economic initiatives in the third countries con-
cerned, so as to offer job opportunities to returning emigrants.
The Committee is aware that a few programmes — based on
other joint instruments — already offer some opportunities in
this respect, but calls for them to be bolstered and implemented
in close synergy with the present programme.

implementation of a readmission agreement initialled, signed
or concluded with the European Community’. The EESC would
stress that this reference to third countries that have initialled,
signed or concluded a readmission agreement must not be
interpreted as an indication of exclusive priority. It notes that
the greatest need for assistance may well
lie in precisely
those countries that have not or not yet signed readmission
agreements: for there is often a strong pressure to migrate
from countries that are in a state of economic and/or
democratic transition, where there is legal uncertainty and
where welfare systems and social structures are weak or non-
existent. Under these conditions, support aimed at strengthen-
ing democracy, by upgrading administrative structures and
implementing policies designed to establish fair and efficient
social systems that respect basic social standards and encourage
the development of organised civil society, would have a
particularly positive impact.

3.2.
The Committee would suggest amending the third
indent of Article 2(2) as follows: ‘Structured dissemination of
information — modelled on the EURES network — on the
possibilities of working legally in the European Union and on
the procedures to be followed to this end, and on the
contractual, administrative and reception conditions in the
various Member States;’. In the ninth indent of Article 2(2)
(actions), the EESC calls for an explicit indication that regional
and sub-regional dialogue should involve not just the adminis-
trations in the countries concerned, but also the social partners.
In other respects, this article is to be welcomed as it sets a
series of priorities for objectives and actions with which the
EESC concurs.

3. Specific comments

3.3.
Article 4 is crucial and should be positioned accord-
ingly. The Committee would suggest either putting it in the
place of or combining it with Article 1.

The programme is aimed at

3.1.
third countries, but
Article 1 (2) states: ‘It is in particular intended for the third
countries actively engaged in the preparation or in the

(1) EURES is a system of employment services designed to facilitate
the free movement of workers in the European economic area. It
operates by means of a network of advisers trained by and in
constant contact with the European Commission. They provide
workers with information on expatriation, living conditions (cost
of living, tax system, school system, etc.) and working conditions
(contracts, hours, pay, etc.), and employers with information to
facilitate the recruitment of staff from abroad. EURES interacts
and cooperates with national employment services and with
workers’ and employers’ organisations.

3.4.
Article 5 lists the partners eligible for financial support
under the programme. The EESC calls for a specific reference
to the social partners, which cannot be simply included in
the term ‘NGOs’. They have specific responsibility in the
management of economic migration, which is by far the most
common type. In confirmation of the above, Article 6 seems
to refer implicitly to the social partners. The EESC finds the
predominantly administrative approach taken in Article 6 to
be slightly restrictive, however:
in the field of migration,
adherence to the values listed in the current Article 4 is equally
important.

C 32/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2004

The EESC notes that Article 7 (3) states that: ‘The co-
3.5.
financing of an action under this programme shall be exclusive
of any other financing by another programme financed by the
budget of the European Union’.This does not preclude other
measures financed by other Community programmes from
working towards achieving the objectives of the proposal, as
stated in Article 4: ‘If necessary, and as far as possible, the

actions financed under this Regulation are associated with
measures aiming to strengthen democracy and the rule of law’.

3.6.
Article 11 provides for the Commission to present a
report by 2006 and a final report by 2010. The EESC asks to
be consulted accordingly.

Brussels, 29 October 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European
Parliament and Council Decision establishing a Community action programme to promote bodies
active at European level and support specific activities in the field of education and training’

(COM(2003) 273 final — 2003/0114 (COD))

(2004/C 32/10)

On 27 June 2003 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above
mentioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 October 2003. The rapporteur was Mr Panero
Flórez.

At its 403rd plenary session of 29 and 30 October (meeting of 29 October) the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 124 votes to one with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
For several years now, the European Commission has
co-financed a variety of bodies active in the field of education
and training via a series of agreements signed with the
following institutions:

— College of Europe

— European University Institute, Florence

— European Law Academy, Trier

— European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht

— European Inter-University Centre for Human Rights and

Democratisation

— International Centre for European Training

— European Agency for Development in Special Needs

Education

Similarly, the Commission has funded Community

1.2.
operations in the field of education and training, including:

— preparatory measures in connection with the follow-up
of the concrete future objectives of education and training
systems;

— activities seeking to disseminate information on European
integration in higher education circles, in particular by
means of the Jean Monnet Project.