Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the:#‘Proposal for a Council Directive on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for purposes of scientific research’#‘Proposal for a Council Recommendation to facilitate the admission of third-country nationals to carry out scientific research in the European Community’#‘Proposal for a Council Recommendation to facilitate the issue by the Member States of uniform short-stay visas for researchers from third countries travelling within the European Community for the purpose of carrying out scientific research’(COM(2004) 178 final – 2004/0061 (CNS))
Date: 2005-05-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU research policy, admission of aliens, brain drain, foreign national, professional career, research staff, third country, vocational training

C 120/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2005

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the:

— ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals

for purposes of scientific research’

— ‘Proposal for a Council Recommendation to facilitate the admission of third-country nationals

to carry out scientific research in the European Community’

— ‘Proposal for a Council Recommendation to facilitate the issue by the Member States of
uniform short-stay visas for researchers from third countries travelling within the European
Community for the purpose of carrying out scientific research’

(COM(2004) 178 final – 2004/0061 (CNS))

(2005/C 120/12)

On 7 April 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposals.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 22 September 2004. The rapporteur was
Mrs King.

At its 412th plenary session on 27-28 October 2004 (meeting of 27 October 2004), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 181 votes to one with three absten-
tions.

1. Gist of the Commission document

their mobility is a key element in the acquisition and transfer
of knowledge.

The subject of this Communication is a proposal for a
recommendations on the
third-country nationals to carry out scientific

1.1
directive and two proposals for
admission of
research in the European Community.

1.2
These proposals are part of the Lisbon strategic objective
for the European Union to develop research to become the
most competitive and dynamic knowledge economy in the
world by 2010. To achieve this aim it has been calculated that
the European Union will need 700 000 additional researchers.
The following interlocking measures have been identified:

— to make science attractive to young people at school;

— to improve the career prospects for researchers in the Euro-

pean Union; and

— to extend the opportunities for training and mobility.

this target

1.3
Although the target of 700 000 extra researchers will
mainly include EU nationals, it is recognised that in order to
from third countries will be
meet
needed. Therefore this Communication by the Commission
focuses specifically on the admission of high-quality research
talent from third countries to Europe by:

researchers

— facilitating the entry and residence of researchers from third

countries; and

— removing the obstacles to their mobility in Europe.

2. General comments

2.1
The EESC welcomes this Communication on the admis-
sion of third-country nationals to carry out scientific research
in the European Community.

2.2
As the Commission's target of 700 000 extra researchers
by 2010 will mainly involve EU nationals, the EESC wants to
refer the Commission to its earlier Opinion (1) in response to
the Commission's communication on the problems facing
career researchers on the European Research Area and the
proposals and initiatives to address these (2).

2.3 With regard to the interlocking measures ‘to make
science attractive to young people at school’, this opinion high-
lights that the importance of science is insufficiently reflected
in the school curricula and recommends that greater weight be
given to the teaching of science, technology and mathematics
in schools and stresses the importance of presenting these
subjects in an attractive way to students. It is also important to
target girls as they tend to be under-represented in these
subject areas. There is considerable evidence to indicate that
those seeking entry to higher education are now doing so in
non-scientific subjects so that ability of the Community to
achieve a high number of researchers is going to be under-
mined without urgent and detailed consideration.

1.4
The Commission also recognises the need to boost the
mobility of European researchers to other parts of the world, as

(1) OJ C 110 of 30.4.2004, p. 3, rapporteur: Mr Wolf.
(2) COM(2003) 436 final.

20.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/61

2.4
For the second interlocking measure ‘to improve the
career prospects for researchers in the European Union’ this
earlier opinion discusses
the dilemma facing researchers
working in academia or publicly funded research institutions
who are usually paid in accordance with public-sector pay
scales but with no job security or other benefits given to other
public sector careers such as civil servants or teachers. In fact
researchers face little or no job security as they are often given
a series of temporary contracts, following every change of job
or career move.

2.5
The final reference to the earlier opinion the EESC
wants to make is about the mobility of European researchers.
The EESC recognises that a career in Research in the European
Area necessitates mobility and flexibility within the EU.
However this should not be at the expense of personal and
family living conditions and social benefits. In addition, the
Commission needs to act against a possible one-way brain
drain, with the best young researchers leaving the EU, espe-
cially for the USA. Current problems relating to the obtaining
of visas in the USA are likely to be of short-term nature and
higher education groups in the USA are already mounting pres-
sure on the USA Government to speed up entry requirements
so that they can recruit more non-USA nationals.

2.6
Returning to the current Commission's communication
on the admission of third-country nationals to carry out scien-
tific research in the European Community,
the Committee
agrees that removing the obstacles to the mobility of third-
country researchers is vital if the European Union is to become
more attractive to researchers throughout the world especially
if it is to compete successfully against global competition for
those researchers of the highest ability.

2.7
The Committee agrees with the Commission's statement
that the globalisation of the economy, which is more and more
is constantly increasing the international
knowledge-based,
dimension of science. However, the EESC feels that globalisa-
tion should have been made more explicit in the Communica-
tion by including comparative data on the level of resources
which countries like Japan and the USA allocate to support the
training, mobility and career development of researchers.

2.8
The EESC is also very concerned about the age structure
of the existing researchers in the EU. Many persons in this cate-
gory are now reaching possible retirement age with few new
entrants being sufficiently attracted or encouraged to replace
them. Without
this fact and action taken
urgently the EU's target will not be met. This is also the result

recognition of

of the current situation in Europe where the population is
ageing and the birth rate is reducing. Also in a number of EU
states the population is projected to begin to decline after
2010. This makes the target of 700 000 extra researchers by
2010 a very ambitious one even with a top-up of researchers
from third countries.

The EESC does understand that

2.9
this communication
focuses solely on admissions and therefore researchers from
third countries who are already in the European Union, some
of which are leaders in their field, will not come under the
proposed directive and recommendations. However, it suggests
that a future directive is needed to address the specific problem
of access of this group to highly qualified jobs as this would
help with reaching the target of 700 000 extra researchers.
Some of these researchers have refugee status in the EU and
their
talents and contribution are sadly under-utilised at
present. There is no systematic provision to help such
researchers in the EU other than by grants given by voluntary
or charitable bodies. If modest funding is provided to support
such persons it is likely that the number of researchers in the
EU will increase by at least 40 000 (1). The Committee therefore
strongly recommends that the Commission set up a process so
that
these researchers can be identified and considered as
researchers and have easier access to research jobs.

The Committee notes the definition of

researcher
2.10
provided by the Commission. Again it wants to refer to the
definition recommended in its earlier opinion 305/2004, point
5.1.1.7: ‘Experts engaged in the conception or creation of new knowl-
edge, products, processes, methods and systems, and in the manage-
ment of the projects concerned, for which they are qualified by virtue
of their training and experience’. This definition has the advantage
of recognising any management skills that the researcher has.

3. Specific comments

3.1 Proposals in line with the European Research Policy

3.1.1
The EESC believes that creating a specific residence
permit for third-country researchers, is not the only issue to be
addressed. Other issues include the immigration status of the
researcher as well as the status of the researchers within the EU
as discussed in the EESC opinion 305/2004. The Committee is
also of
the view that a key area will be movement of
researchers within the Community. Researchers will need to be
able to seek employment
their immigration
status.

irrespective of

(1) This figure is based on an estimate of current statistical information

available.

C 120/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2005

The Committee notes

3.1.2
residence
permits would supersede the need for a work permit and
welcomes this attempt to streamline this process.

researchers'

that

cles 5(2), this step is welcomed by EESC as it should prevent
abuses.

3.2 Proposals to complement Community immigration policy instru-

ments

3.4 Assumption of responsibility by research organisations

that

The Commission's recommendation, for the controlled
3.2.1
re-opening of legal immigration channels according to specific
parameters and category of migrants, is welcomed. However,
the Committee requires
these be unambiguous and
specific. Some of those admitted may well be in need of refuge
and protection under the Geneva Convention 1951. As well as
being afforded the opportunity of becoming migrants, they
may at the same time wish to apply for refugee status once
they have arrived. The Committee appreciates that it is not
possible for the Commission to give a clear view on these
issues at this time but would welcome their resolution in the
near future.

The EESC agrees with the recommendations of the
3.2.2
short-term visa for free movement of third-country researchers
around the Schengen area. It also agrees that long-term resi-
dents from third countries, who have been legally resident in
an EU Member State for five years, should have the right of
residence throughout the EU.

The Committee believes that the Commission's defini-
3.4.1
is incomplete. It should be
tion of a ‘Research organisation’
expanded to include public or private organisations that allo-
cate grants for research as well as those organisations, that
conduct research.

3.4.2
The EESC is pleased to see the reiteration of the Barce-
lona European Council commitment to increase investment in
research and technological development to 3 % of GDP by
2010, with two-thirds of that investment coming from the
private sector.

strongly

The Committee

the
3.4.3
Commission consults the private sector on this proposal
in
general and specifically on the task being recommended that
the research establishment produces the hosting agreement that
triggers the admission of a researcher to a Member State.

recommends

that

The EESC is pleased that the Commission recognises
3.2.3
that
third-country researchers being permitted to bring
members of their family to join them is an essential aspect of
the problem of mobility.

3.5 A broad interpretation of the concept of researcher, adapted to

the needs of the European Union

3.2.4
The EESC notes that this issue is dealt with in the
separate Directive 2003/86 of 22 September 2003 on the right
to family reunification and that this Communication supple-
ments the proposal COM(2002) 548 on the conditions of entry
and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of
studies, vocational training or voluntary service.

3.3 Central Role of Research Organisations

3.5.1
The EESC agrees with the Commission's recommenda-
tion, not to restrict the procedure to persons who already have
the status of researcher in their country of origin.

3.5.2
However the EESC does not concur with the restric-
tion with regards to the purpose of admission. This is because
there are cases where persons meet the minimum requirements
for a researcher, as set out in the directive, but their original
purpose of admission to a Member State is not to carry out a
research project. Such researchers may have obtained a qualifi-
cation in the EU and may wish to seek a corresponding posi-
tion.

The EESC understands that the hosting agreement is
3.3.1
inspired by the hosting protocol
in France. The Committee
notes that the division of roles between the research organisa-
tion and the Member States' immigration authorities would on
the one hand make it easier for highly skilled third-country
nationals to enter the EU while at the same time satisfy the
security measures of EU Member States.

3.3.2
Also as Member States have the power to check
whether a hosting agreement satisfies the requirement of Arti-

The EESC is pleased that

3.5.3
the requirements with
regards to the qualifications of persons for whom admission is
sought and the scientific value of the research planned are clear
and unambiguous. Although not part of the remit of this
communication, the EESC feels it is necessary, to have some
scope for qualities of researchers to be assessed, so that the EU
is responsive to changes within research requirements as they
develop. This is because new technologies are being developed
all the time and the EU must aim to recruit researchers that
can develop and extend such techniques.

20.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/63

3.5.4
The Committee draws the Commission's attention to
an earlier opinion (1) that highlights a further obstacle to mobi-
lity, namely the lack of
transparency in qualifications and
competences. This has resulted in numerous examples of quali-
fications not being accepted, particularly from developing
countries. Researchers are made to requalify or take post-
doctoral qualifications again in order to become a researcher in
the EU. The Committee suggests that the Commission's Action
Plan (2) to facilitate mobility within the EU; namely the imple-
mentation and development of
instruments supporting the
transparency and transferability of qualifications and the estab-
lishment of a one-stop European Mobility Information site,
should be used to address this issue.

3.6 A resident permit not linked to the status of the researcher

3.6.1
country researchers with a uniform status throughout the EU.

The EESC welcomes the proposal to provide third-

3.6.2
It also welcomes the recommendation that researchers
admitted on the basis of an employment contract will not need
to obtain a work permit in Member States.

3.7 The mobility of researchers in the European Union

3.7.1
The EESC is pleased with the Commission's recom-
mendation to simplify the admission procedure to promote
mobility so that third-country nationals can pursue a research
project in several different Member States without encountering
admission difficulties.

3.7.2
It also notes that
nationals who are long-term residents.

this will apply to third-country

3.8 Choice of legal base for the proposed directive

3.8.1
The EESC agrees with the legal base chosen, but
regrets that the directive is not binding on Denmark and the
United Kingdom. It notes Ireland's decision to opt-in to this
directive and hopes that the United Kingdom decides to do the
same. It is strongly of the view that this matter be re-examined
as the research base, especially in the UK, is such that the EU
efforts to attract such researchers in the number required will
be severely hampered without their participation.

Brussels, 27 October 2004.

3.9 Other matters

3.9.1
The EESC believes that the issue of attracting potential
researchers to the EU has to be recognised and that the issue of
the ‘brain drain’ from some third countries needs to be exam-
ined in great detail. These are not unrelated. The issue of
training researchers in the UK warrants very particular consid-
eration. Some potential researchers may need some further
course work or period of study. In numerous cases they could
quickly apply for a research position in the EU once such work
has been completed. The directive needs to be considered with
this in mind.

The Committee is very concerned about the conse-
3.9.2
quences of a ‘brain drain’ from certain developing countries
and believes a detailed debate on how the quantum of
researchers throughout the world may be increased. It should
be noticed that some governments encourage researchers to go
abroad and gain experience of benefit to the country of origin.
It is noted that the Dutch Presidency is hosting a conference in
The Hague entitled ‘Brain Gain The Instruments’. The issue of
the impact to developing countries of the brain drain or brain
gain is being addressed at the conference and the Commission
is producing a report on this subject by the end of the year.
The EESC believes this is a start in addressing a very serious
issue.

One of the topics from the previous Commission's
3.9.3
Communication on researchers –COM(2003) 436 final - that
the Committee wants to highlight is gender. The under-repre-
sentation of women researchers especially in management and
leadership roles needs to be highlighted. This is especially the
case with third country researchers. The Committee wants to
reiterate the Commission's recommendation for a code of
conduct for the recruitment of researchers based on best prac-
tice, especially in the area of equality of opportunity. The
Committee strongly believes that there is gross inequality in the
treatment of female researchers in that not nearly sufficient
female researchers are offering themselves for appointment and
that when they do they are required to take up less senior posi-
tions than they are qualified to undertake. There is a need to
improve the transparency of
the recruitment process and
increase the proportion of female applicants.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(1) EESC Opinion 658/2004 of 28 April 2004, rapporteur: Mr Dantin.
(2) COM(2002) 72 final.