Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on EU immigration and cooperation policy with countries of origin to foster development
Date: 2007-10-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Union, admission of aliens, cooperation policy, economic development, migrant worker, migration policy, third country

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/91

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘EU immigration and cooperation
policy with countries of origin to foster development’

(2008/C 44/21)

On 16 February 2007 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules
of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion on EU immigration and cooperation policy with
countries of origin to foster development.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 2 October 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Pariza
Castaños.

At its 439th plenary session, held on 24 and 25 October 2007 (meeting of 25 October), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 94 votes in favour, with six abstentions.

1. Introduction

take the interests of the countries of origin into account (the
regulation aimed above all to fund initiatives against irregular
immigration).

Since 2006, a new approach to migration and migration
1.1
policy has been emerging, particularly in the light of the UN
High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Develop-
ment (1). By analysing the links between migration and develop-
ment, a new way of observing migrations been conceived which
takes into account the interests of the countries of origin, over-
riding the view reigning in Europe whereby migration policy
was defined only in terms of the needs and interests of the host
countries.

the final report of

Prior to the UN High-Level Dialogue on International
1.2
Migration and Development,
the Global
Commission on International Migration (GCIM) was published
(October 2005),
in which the groundwork was already being
laid for a multidimensional approach to international migration,
paying particular attention to the development of the countries
of origin. This document was followed by a considerable
amount of work and meetings within the UN and other interna-
tional frameworks.

The EU has participated in this debate, and has taken
1.3
steps to consider migration policy in connection with develop-
ment cooperation policy. In 2002, the European Commission
issued a communication on migration and relations with third
countries (2) which painted a broad picture of the migration
issue, recommending that it not be reduced to the fight against
irregular immigration, but that it take into account the benefits
and objectives of the anti-poverty campaign. The communica-
tion referred, inter alia, to the importance of remittances, ‘brain
drain’ resulting from recruitment by rich countries (including
the EU) and the return of migrants, while taking into considera-
tion the development objectives of the countries of origin.

1.4
Similarly, the 2004 regulation establishing a programme
for financial and technical assistance to third countries in the
areas of migration and asylum (AENEAS) (3) included the possi-
bility of financing migration management initiatives that would

1.5
However, the document on this subject with the broadest
approach to date has been the Commission's communication on
the link between migration and development, issued at the end
of 2005 (4). This communication follows on from that issued in
2002, but focuses more on the links between migration and
development (leaving out other aspects such as the fight against
irregular immigration).
It develops new areas such as remit-
tances, the strengthening of the role of diaspora organisations
for development,
‘brain circulation’ (and the reduction of the
negative impact of brain drain), etc.

1.6
In addition to this communication, a Commission docu-
ment was also specifically drawn up in the light of its participa-
tion in the UN High-Level Dialogue on International Migration
and Development (5).

A new communication from the Commission (6) has
1.7
this perspective, proposing policies for circular
fleshed out
migration and mobility partnerships between the EU and third
countries. The EESC's views are set out in point 11 of the
present opinion.

The European Parliament has

1.8
also drawn up an
opinion (7), which covers the same issues as the Commission's
communications but is more incisive in its proposals. It criti-
cises ‘select migration’ policies because they encourage the brain
drain, and proposes specific measures for the return of the most
highly skilled migrants, such as the development of programmes
to cover the wage differentials for those who do want to return
to their country, and measures to ensure the transfer of pension
and social security rights to returnees. It also refers to ‘brain
circulation’,
proposes
measures for remittances, etc.

co-development

advocates

policies,

(1) 14 and 15 September 2006.
(2) COM(2002) 703, December 2002.
(3) Regulation (EC) 491/2004 of 10 March 2004.

(4) COM(2005) 390 of 1 November 2005.
(5) COM(2006) 409 of 14 July 2006.
(6) COM(2007) 248 final of 16 May 2007.
(7) 2005/2244(INI).

C 44/92

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

1.9
In this opinion and the own-initiative opinion on Migra-
tion and Development: opportunities and challenges (8), the EESC is
making a new contribution to EU migration policy by adding a
new dimension: cooperation with countries of origin in order to
boost their development.

‘modernise’ agricultural production to make it more export-
oriented, and the consequent undermining of the position of
small farmers through the increasing liberalisation of trade, who
have been pushed out of farming or into chronic ‘underemploy-
ment’, or into rural out-migration. Indeed, between 1980 and
1999 the urban share of the population rose from 32 to 41 %
in low- and middle-income countries (13).

2. The global dimension of unemployment, poverty and

inequality (9)

In recent decades there has been an unprecedented rise
2.1
in material wealth and prosperity throughout the world (at least
in terms of GDP growth). However, this prosperity has been
distributed very unevenly, for many countries and hundreds of
millions of people have seen no part of this increased wealth.

Increased GDP does not accurately reflect a society's
2.2
level. The UNDP Human Development
actual development
Index (10) aims to provide a more comprehensive definition of
development, which goes beyond GDP to include life expectancy
and education levels. However,
it does not comprise other
potentially relevant indicators, such as respect for human rights,
democracy, access to decent employment or equality.

An overriding issue is the lack of employment or other
2.3
access to means of sustenance. Unemployment is commonly a
key ‘push’ factor motivating people to move where better oppor-
tunities can be found. The world's population of 6,7 billion in
2006 is growing by about 75 million every year, mostly in
developing countries. The ILO report, Global Employment Trends
2007, estimated the world's labour force in 2006 at around
2,9 billion people (11). In the same year, there were an estimated
195,2 million unemployed, about 6,3 % of the total global
labour force. The number of ‘working poor’ — or persons living
on the equivalent of USD 2 per day or less — has continued to
grow, reaching 1,37 billion in 2007 (12).

The plight of

2.4
farmers in developing countries is a
powerful economic factor behind international migration —
now and in the future. In 2000, about 43 % of the world's
workers were employed in agriculture, and in poorer countries
they are usually worse off than urban dwellers. This is partly the
result of, among other things, public policy often reflecting
structural adjustment packages that have pushed countries to

(8) EESC own-initiative opinion of … 2007 on Migration and Development:
opportunities and challenges, rapporteur: Mr Sharma (REX/236) —
CESE 673/2007.

(9) Data obtained from the Human Development Report 2006, United
Nationals Development Programme (UNDP), and A fair globalization —
Creating opportunities for all, World Commission on the Social Dimen-
sion of Globalization (backed by the ILO) (2004).

(10) The most recent Human Development Report was published in 2006

(referring to data from 2004).

(11) ILO, Global Employment Trends, 2002 (Geneva).
(12) ILO report, Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM).

2.5
It must be stressed that there is no automatic correlation
between income and human development. Countries with lower
revenues than others may have a higher score on the human
development index (14), owing to adequate public policies or the
absence of conflict.

2.6
In today's globalised world, the countries at either end of
the human development index are Norway and Niger. People
living in Norway are 40 times richer than those in Niger, live
twice as long and have five times the schooling rate.

An analysis of human development

2.7
trends since the
1970s shows that most countries have improved their human
index, with the sole exception of sub-Saharan
development
the 31 countries with the lowest
Africa, which has 28 of
human development levels.

2.8

The following figures are also worth noting:

— In the last three decades, average life expectancy at birth has
increased by seven years in developed countries and nine
years
in developing countries. The only exception is
sub-Saharan Africa, where life expectancy is lower than it
was 30 years ago; it has dropped by 20 years in Botswana
and 13 in Zambia.

— Infant mortality rates are decreasing faster in developed

countries than in developing countries.

— In the context of a global knowledge-based economy, the
average length of schooling for a child in a wealthy country
is over 15 years; in Burkina Faso it is under four years. In
less developed countries, 20 % of children do not finish
their primary education; in Chad, Malawi and Rwanda, this
figure climbs to over 40 %.

— In Latin America, despite the more positive trends of late,
there are still serious problems of poverty and of inequality
in wealth distribution.

(13) Ibid.
(14) Most recent Human Development Report.

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/93

Poverty has decreased in the world (15), but this is largely
2.9
due to the development experienced by China and India in
recent years. The poorest 20 % of the population only enjoys
1,5 % of the world's income, with daily revenues of less than
USD 1,40 % of the global population receives only 5 % of the
world's income, and lives on less than USD 2 per day. Mean-
while, 90 % of OECD inhabitants fall within the 20 % of the
global population with the highest income. At the other end of
the scale, 50 % of the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa are
among the poorest 20 %. The income (not including assets) of
the world's 500 richest people is higher than the total income
of the 416 million poorest people in the world.

UN and which must be achieved by 2015, and which should be
pursued in tandem with the drive for decent work promoted by
the ILO.

2.16
Progress has been slow and the international com-
munity is not meeting the necessary political commitments; for
example, few Member States are meeting the commitment to
allocate 0,7 % of their GDP to development aid. The interim
assessment carried out by the UN Secretary-General in 2007 (16)
is disappointing, progress has been limited and development aid
even fell by 5,1 % between 2005 and 2006.

2.10
Poverty, unemployment and inequality are features
shared by countries from which emigration stems. The absence
of decent employment, economic crisis,
lack of development
prospects, disasters and disease, wars, the corruption and ineffi-
ciency of some governments, and the lack of
freedom and
democratic institutions drive many people to abandon their
countries in search of new horizons and better opportunities. In
its 2005 report for the UN, the Global Commission on Interna-
tional Migration stated that many of the large-scale migration
flows, which were unwelcome and difficult to manage, were the
result of structural problems and lack of sustainable develop-
ment in numerous countries.

2.11 Moreover, the criminal networks implicated in people-
trafficking take advantage of this situation to grow rich on irre-
It is therefore important that appropriate
gular immigration.
concerted action is
criminal
networks that are taking advantage of the plight of innocent
people.
that effective border
controls, including maritime borders, are properly coordinated
between countries of transit and destination.

is also equally important

taken against

such ruthless

It

2.12
The promotion of peace and democracy, of economic
and social growth and human development and the campaign
against poverty and inequality can significantly help to reduce
unwanted emigration.

it

is not

However,

the poorest who emigrate,

for
2.13
emigration is unattainable for the most disadvantaged people.
Emigrants are those with a certain level of (personal or family)
income, a higher level of education, greater enthusiasm and
better physical condition, most often young people. Emigration,
at least initially, contributes to the loss of human capital from
the countries of origin.

In some — though not all — cases, poverty and lack of
2.14
opportunities are the motivating factors for many emigrants to
Europe. The EU must actively cooperate in combating poverty
in the countries of origin, and in implementing a comprehensive
approach to immigration policy.

The EESC proposes that

the European Union and
2.15
Member States promote a fresh political drive to meet
the
Millennium Development Goals, agreed seven years ago at the

(15) United Nations Development Programme, 2006 Human Development

Report.

2.17
The Committee proposes that the European Commis-
sion adopt a precise agenda to promote the eight millennium
goals:

— eradicate hunger: reduce extreme poverty by half, in other
words reduce by half the proportion of people living on less
than one dollar a day;

— universal education: guarantee primary education for all chil-

dren;

— equality: eliminate gender disparity and empower women;

— child mortality: reduce by two thirds the mortality rate

among children under five;

— maternal health: reduce by three quarters the mortality rate

amongst pregnant women;

— pandemics: halt and begin to reverse the spread of diseases

such as malaria and Aids;

— sustainability:

reduce by half
without access to drinking water and sanitation;

the proportion of people

— trade:

establish

a multilateral

trading

system while

combating corruption and promoting good governance.

3. Trade and development

3.1
From various angles, the opening-up of trade is linked
with economic growth, development, job creation and reduced
poverty. The clearest example can be seen in the negotiations
currently being held in the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The current round of negotiations (the Doha Round) has been
dubbed the Development Round. Sharing the same aim are the
Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA), which were negotiated
as an integral part of the Cotonou agreement between the EU
and ACP countries, and the European Commission's recent
communication Towards an EU Aid for Trade strategy (17).

(16) See the 2007 United Nations report on its website:

www.un.org.

(17) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions: Towards an EU Aid for Trade strategy — the
Commission's contribution COM(2007) 163.

C 44/94

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

3.2
In some instances, the opening-up of trade is linked with
the development of the poorest countries and the reduction of
unwanted immigration. In other instances, emigration is seen as
a consequence of developed countries protecting their markets
from the products of developing countries.

3.8
The EESC believes that the EU, within the framework of
the WTO negotiations, should facilitate the increase of interna-
tional
trade (particularly between the EU, Africa and Latin
America) and the extension of democracy and human rights in
the world.

3.3
It is useful to consider how the promotion of trade can
help to reduce poverty in the world. The EESC believes that one
key reference is the recent joint study conducted by the Interna-
tional Labour Organization and the WTO, Trade and employment:
Challenges for policy research (March 2007).

The EU has association agreements with a variety of
3.9
countries around the world: Euromed, ACP, Russia and our
eastern neighbours, Mercosur, the Andean Community, China,
India, etc. Through its opinions and joint committees, the EESC
seeks to ensure that such agreements extend beyond trade issues
to cover a range of social aspects.

3.4
In the last decade, global poverty has decreased as trade
barriers have been significantly reduced. However, this decrease
has occurred mostly in China and India, and has been limited to
certain regions and social sectors. The experiences of countries
that have opened up their economies have been varied. Coun-
tries which based their development on textile exports have not
significantly reduced poverty;
in other countries, only the
informal economy has grown. In Asia, wage differences have
decreased between skilled and unskilled workers, while in Latin
America, they have increased (18).

between

and
international

3.5
The EESC believes that, contrary to what is thought by
the elites governing certain developing countries, there is no
human
contradiction
rights.
development
Studies (19) have shown that
investment and
exports increase in countries which democratise their political
systems, promote labour rights and improve social protection.
Complying with the international standards of
the ILO on
promoting decent work, and supporting dialogue with the
social partners and with civil society organisations are examples
of good governance which the Committee endorses.

Furthermore, the opening up of markets by industrialised
3.6
nations can help boost development, although this does not
always have a positive impact on all countries, for only those
countries with a certain level of development — with strong
national markets, efficient export infrastructures and stable poli-
tical systems — are able to benefit
from the reduction in
customs and non-customs barriers in order to increase develop-
ment and cut poverty.

3.7
The effects of globalisation on development differ from
country to country, depending on the policies they apply:
greater democracy and respect for human rights, and improve-
ments in education, healthcare, infrastructure and employment
policies are policies that drive growth and reduce poverty and
social inequalities.

4. Development cooperation

In the context of development cooperation,

the EU
4.1
implementation of public
should support recipient countries'
education and employment policies,
in cooperation with the
social partners and civil society organisations. These policies are
key to development, together with the promotion of peace and
good government.

4.2
Until now, the EU's development cooperation policies
have focused little on the role of migration as a factor to
combat poverty.

4.3
Official Development Assistance is based on the princi-
ples of social justice and redistribution of wealth. Development
cooperation policy aims to combat poverty and allow every
person to lead a life of dignity. Although it does not directly
aim to boost or control migratory movements, the fight against
poverty and inequality is one way to help reduce the underlying
causes of forced emigration (20).

4.4
It is unacceptable for development aid policy to be used
as an instrument of pressure in international negotiations on
migration, as it was by some leaders at the Seville European
Council.

4.5
The EESC believes that the EU could promote the invol-
vement of diaspora communities in cooperation projects, as
they could make a significant contribution when it comes to the
drafting of proposals and assessment of results, often carried
out by experts from donor countries with only a partial knowl-
edge of the recipient areas.

Democracy and human rights, education and training,
4.6
promoting the empowerment of women, healthcare and the
environment are the priority goals of EU cooperation. The EESC
believes that the reinforcement and promotion of civil society
organisations is also very important.

(18) Report quoted by the ILO and WTO.
(19) Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank, Annual Review of
Development Effectiveness 2006. Getting results, and OECD studies on
trade and labour.

(20) Oxfam — Intermón: Migraciones y desarrollo: el papel de la cooperación
(‘Migration and development: the role of cooperation’), Estudios, No 8
(2001).

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/95

4.7
EU aid could be provided for the creation of networks
and joint committees between social partners and civil society
organisations from the source and host countries. For example,
awareness-raising is an important part of development coopera-
tion policies. The public in the European host countries should
be informed about the culture and working, living, social and
political conditions of countries from which migration stems.

5. A European immigration policy in cooperation with the

countries of origin

5.1
It is surprising that EU Member States have yet to ratify
the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all
Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, which was adopted
by the General Assembly of the United Nations in Resolution
45/158 of 18 December 1990 and which has been in force
since 1 July 2003. The EESC (21) once again proposes that the
EU and its Member States ratify the Convention. In line with the
objectives of the Tampere and Hague European Councils, the
Committee believes that respect for human rights and equal
treatment should form the basis of the European immigration
policy.

5.2
The EESC proposes that the Commission, the Parliament
and the EU Council promote, within the framework of external
policy, an international legal framework for migration, on
the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This international
legal
framework should include:

— the UN International Convention on the Protection of the
their

Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of
Families;

— the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimi-

nation against Women (CEDAW);

— the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial

Discrimination (CERD);

— the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC);

— the ILO conventions on migrant workers (C 97 and C 143);

— the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights

at Work;

— the ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration;

— the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action of the
2001 United Nations World Conference against Racism.

5.3
Immigration policies have hitherto focused on aspects
which are appropriate, and have received the EESC's support,

but which are geared to the interests of European nations only
as receiving countries: combating irregular immigration and
trafficking in human beings, meeting the needs of our labour
markets and economic development; this is how social or iden-
tity problems are viewed and admissions policies for attracting
(highly skilled) immigrants while rejecting others are defined.
On the basis of these considerations, Europeans set up immigra-
tion policies which may be more open or more restrictive, but
always focus exclusively on the effects of immigration on Euro-
pean societies.

5.4
However, the EU and most of its Member States have
very active development cooperation policies, and Europe also
has neighbourhood and association agreements with many
countries around the world. Yet these policies have previously
to immigration
been implemented without adequate links
policy, as
the
misguided idea that migration policy is possible without the
cooperation of the countries of origin.

though they were separate entities, under

5.5 Many studies have been carried out on the effects of
migrations on developing countries. Every report leads to the
general conclusion that the contribution of migrants is positive
for the economic and social development of the countries of
origin but that,
for some countries, there are also negative
effects. The positive effects include the importance of remit-
tances, while the brain drain and the loss of human resources
are among the negative ones.

The EESC supports a new approach for European poli-
5.6
cies: immigration policy should be managed in cooperation with
the countries of origin, so that migration can be a factor for
their development. This would require the review of many
aspects of these policies, including those relating to admission
criteria and the possibilities for mobility of immigrants.

6. Migration is positive for both countries of origin and

host countries

The benefits deriving from immigration for the receiving
6.1
countries have been set out at length in other EESC opinions. In
the case of the European countries, immigration has successfully
met labour market needs generated by demographic change (22).
Immigrants occupy posts unfilled by local workers, and contri-
bute to economic development, job creation and social progress.
As pointed out in the UN Secretary-General's report marking
the High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Devel-
opment, ‘… migrants … maintain viable economic activities that, in
their absence, would be outsourced. By enlarging the labour force and

(21) EESC own-initiative opinion of 30 June 2004 on the International
Convention for Migratory Workers (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños
(OJ C 302 of 7.12.2004).

(22) See the EESC opinion of 9 June 2005 on the Green paper on an EU
approach to managing economic migration (rapporteur: Mr Pariza
Castaños), OJ C 286 of 17.11.2005.

C 44/96

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

the pool of consumers and by contributing their entrepreneurial capaci-
economic growth in receiving countries’ (23).
ties, migrants boost
Furthermore,
the EU
strengthens integration policies (24). Migration can be beneficial
for all: for migrants themselves, for the host societies and for
the countries of origin.

the Committee has proposed that

For developing countries, emigration enables excess
6.2
labour to be evacuated, thereby reducing unemployment, and
acts as a major mechanism for alleviating poverty given the
scale of the remittances sent by emigrants to their families.
Moreover, when they return, migrants play an increasingly
important role as economic catalysts, becoming employers or
promoting small businesses, and transmitting new skills and
technologies. But there are also harmful effects, such as the loss
of the most highly-trained and enterprising young people.

6.3
The EESC proposes that the positive effects be maxi-
mised, and the negative ones minimised, by means of coopera-
tion with the countries of origin. This is one of the challenges
of our times. The final report of the Global Commission on
International Migration stressed that today's challenge was to
formulate policies that maximise the positive impact of migra-
tion on countries of origin while limiting its negative conse-
quences.
form part of
national, regional and global development strategies and that, to
achieve this objective,
the receiving countries must clearly
acknowledge that migration is beneficial for them too (25).

It also argued that migration must

6.4 Migration cannot be a catalyst for development in a way
that is isolated from other political, economic and social factors.
For this reason, the EESC believes that the EU should adopt a
new approach to immigration and development policy, in coop-
eration with countries of origin, promoting development
through structural change which fosters democracy and good
governance, helps
reduce inequality, and improves human
capital and the infrastructure necessary for sustainable develop-
ment.

7. The benefits of remittances

7.1
Remittances are the personal resources of immigrants,
but for some countries of origin they have taken on major
importance as a source of income. The figures speak for them-
selves:
in 2005 the developing nations received remittances
totalling some USD 167 billion (compared to estimates from
the same source of 69 billion in 1990). The UN Secre-
sent
tary-General has confirmed that

in 2006 emigrants

(23) See United Nations document A/60/871, 2006: International migra-

tion and development. Report of the Secretary-General
http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/60/871.

(24) EESC own-initiative opinion of 21 March 2002 on Immigration, Inte-
gration and the Role of Civil Society Organisations (rapporteur: Mr Pariza
Castaños, co-rapporteur: Mr Melícias (OJ C 125, 27.5.2002) and the
EESC own-initiative opinion of 13 September 2006 on Immigration in
the EU and integration policies: cooperation between regional and local
governments and civil
(rapporteur: Mr Pariza
Castaños (OJ C 318, 23.12.2006)) and the conference on integration,
organised in conjunction with the European Commission, and held in
September 2002.

society organisations

(25) See Global Commission on International Migration, 2005: Migration

in an interconnected world: New directions for action,
http://www.gcim.org/en/.

264 billion dollars home. This is almost four times the volume
of official development aid. In some countries, it also outstrips
foreign investment.

Remittances provide uninterrupted, stable support

for
7.2
It is immigrants and their families who
family maintenance.
carry out most of
In
these international money transfers.
Europe, between 60 % and 70 % of immigrants send money to
their families. They are mostly converted into direct consump-
tion, although not only of
tangible products: a significant
proportion of remittances is spent on education and health,
enhancing human capital as a consequence. The economies of
the places to which remittances are sent benefit from increased
consumption and investment in small businesses. The increased
amounts of money in circulation also foster the development of
the financial sector. Income in European currencies also contri-
butes to the financial balance of the countries of origin.

Problems as well as benefits can however arise: the price
7.3
of some consumer goods may rise,
increasing hardship for
families not receiving remittances; certain crops and production
sectors (the less profitable ones) are abandoned, as are some
jobs, because the income they generate is very small compared
to that from remittances.

7.4
These problems must be taken into account, although
the Global Commission on International Migration concludes
that, overall, migration is a major plus factor for developing
countries:
‘Remittances that are transferred formally can provide an
important source of foreign exchange to recipient countries, boost the
capacity of the financial sector, help to attract subsequent investment
and provide some leverage for sovereign loans’ (26).

7.5
Informal channels for transfers should be limited, since
they involve higher costs and risks. Informal networks are often
created as a result of the absence of competitive financial institu-
tions in more remote areas. The EESC believes that in order to
maximise the benefits for the countries of origin, the cost of
financial intermediation in remittances should be lowered. These
costs are often excessive, and are not in line with the cost of
other international economic transactions. Experts calculate that
the costs vary considerably from one region to another; for
example, transfers from Spain to Latin America and the Carib-
bean cost 2 %, but between 8 % and 10 % from Europe to the
majority of countries in Africa. European financial sector autho-
rities and supervisors should urge European banks to act ethi-
cally and in a socially responsible manner in order to reduce the

(26) Idem.

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/97

cost of remittances. The efficiency of banks in the countries of
origin also needs to be increased, as their structures and the
guarantees they offer are often insufficient. Europe should
promote agreements between the financial sectors on each side,
mediated by governments and international organisations, with
a view to reducing the final cost of
transfers. Banks can
promote systems of good practice through social responsibility
agreements.

7.6
The Commission has announced it is to prepare a direc-
tive requiring financial service providers to display more trans-
parency regarding the commission they charge their customers.
The directive should be very strict with regard to remittances, in
order to put an end to the present excesses. Furthermore, finan-
cial system regulators should be vigilant, ensuring that inap-
propriate exchange rates are not applied to transactions, which
unfairly increase the final cost of remittances.

The EESC proposes that remittances be used to promote
7.7
investment in economic and social activities.
In cooperation
with the local authorities, the banks can build up new credit
systems linked to remittances in order to fund economic activity
and entrepreneurial initiatives. To this end, the financial sector
needs to be equipped with proper structures and sufficient
liquidity.

7.8
Spending on education and health are the major invest-
ments of families that receive remittances. Financial, insurance
and credit instruments linked to remittances must be promoted
with a view to raising achievement in the fields of education
and health.

8. Diasporas as transnational networks

tions can now network much more closely and easily than in
the past.

8.3 Migrants' networks are playing an increasingly important
role in migration processes: such networks help people to
decide on their own migration plans, they facilitate travel and
transit, and make arrival in the country of destination easier,
together with access to housing and job-seeking.

8.4
Emigrants promote businesses in their places of origin.
Many of the businesses that immigrants set up in host countries,
import products from their countries of origin,
for example,
encouraging production and marketing. Increasing travel boosts
their transport businesses. When migrants attain an economic-
ally-strong position in their country of destination,
they
frequently make direct investments in their country of origin:
many businesses are built up in this way in certain regions of
China and in the IT sector in India and Pakistan. Furthermore,
many immigrants promote economic activities and business in
Africa and Latin America.

are

companies

8.5 Multinational
increasingly employing
people of immigrant origin to introduce their businesses to the
countries of origin. A large number of European multinational
companies recruit
from
among immigrants, with a view to internationalising their activ-
ities.

their managers and technical staff

8.6
Diasporas, organised into transnational networks, can
also help to ensure that a portion of remittances are channelled
into economic activities and entrepreneurial projects. The EU's
cooperation policies can cooperate with migrants' networks, as
such networks provide opportunities to channel aid effectively
and amplify the investment capacity of the diaspora commu-
nities.

8.1
International migration has increased significantly over
recent decades, against a backdrop of globalisation. The number
of migrants has risen sharply (27), the number of countries of
departure has grown, together with the number of receiving
countries and those which are countries of origin and host
countries at the same time. This upsurge in migration has been
facilitated by cheaper transport and communications. Interna-
tional travel is now easier (apart from border controls), even
between the most remote parts of the world.

In some places migrant diasporas, acting as networks,
8.7
invest in their countries of origin. Some projects can serve as a
model: one such is the ‘three for one’ programme in Mexico,
under which associations of migrants from the same area invest
in projects to develop their place of origin, with each dollar
they send being matched by another from each level of govern-
ment — federal, state and municipal (28).

Cheaper

travel, especially air

travel, combined with
8.2
today's telephone and electronic communications,
is opening
the doors for unprecedented communication and links between
people, and between migrants' places of origin and destinations.
People who emigrate and spread out over a range of destina-

8.8
The EU must support transnational diaspora networks as
a way of fostering the development of the countries of origin.
Network associations from a single town of origin can together
channel amounts of investment that can be multiplied by Euro-
pean and national contributions.

(27) There were 155 million migrants in 1990; this figure had risen to

191 million by 2005.

(28) See United Nations A/60/871, op cit.

C 44/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

8.9
The European Commission and Member States, in coop-
eration with countries of origin and civil society organisations,
must promote favourable conditions enabling diasporas to opti-
mise the impact of their activities on development. The EESC
proposes that a portion of EU and Member State public funds
be channelled to development activities promoted by diaspora
communities. Public-private cooperation is key to the success of
economic and social activities. Some examples of good practice:

IntEnt, which is based in the Netherlands, has over the
8.9.1
past ten years supported almost 2000 entrepreneurs from the
diasporas of Surinam, Ghana, Morocco, the West Indies and
Turkey, providing EUR 12.5 million to create 200 businesses,
which have employed 840 persons in these countries of origin.

8.9.2
Established in Marseilles in 1986, Migrations & Dévelop-
pement supports various Moroccan immigrant organisations
(including young French people of Moroccan origin) in order to
harness support for their places of origin in Morocco. Thou-
sands of immigrants of the diaspora have contributed financially
to various projects, and 300 of them were directly involved in
the implementation, benefiting more than 50 000 persons in
Morocco.

8.9.3
Diaspora organisations in the United Kingdom have
been at the forefront of the RemitAid (29) campaign for tax relief
on collective remittances sent to develop countries of origin.
RemitAid provides support for the development initiatives of
diasporas through a joint fund comprising tax refunds from
remittances (similar to the gift aid scheme which provides tax
relief for charitable donations in the UK).

direct investment projects in the country of origin, represent a
form of
that European countries should step up
through their cooperation policies.

support

9. Return and greater possibilities for movement, as a way

of recovering human capital

Some international migrants are skilled or highly quali-
9.1
fied workers. This ‘brain drain’
is one of the most harmful
effects of migration for the developing countries. Not all coun-
tries of origin experience its impact in the same way, but it is
nothing less than a disaster for some. As indicated in the
SOPEMI report, between 33 % and 55 % of the best-educated
people from Angola, Burundi, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozam-
bique, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Uganda are living in OECD
countries (30). In Africa, the health sector is one of the worst
affected, along with education.

9.2
The effect of emigration of graduates and highly-skilled
workers is less negative in some countries of origin. The depar-
ture, for example, of highly specialised information technology
workers from India and Pakistan, has not had any harmful
repercussions, since these countries have a very robust educa-
tional and training system for computer specialists, of whom
there is no shortage.

9.3 When not on a large scale, the brain drain may even be
of benefit to countries of origin as a certain degree of return
and movement is constantly in play, bringing in new know-
how,
is
happening in countries such as Brazil or India. In very many
countries, however, the brain drain entails an irreplaceable loss
of specialists and qualified professionals.

technologies and business ventures. This

is what

8.9.4
The Philippine organisation for migration and develop-
ment (Philcomdev) is a recently formed network of organisa-
tions for emigrants and their families, NGOs, cooperatives, trade
unions, microfinance organisations, social enterprises, networks
in the Philippines and abroad, which are active in the area of
migration and development in their country.

8.10
Using European development aid, support should also
be given to exports to Europe of products from the countries of
origin, and they should be channelled through fair-trade systems
by diaspora networks.

8.11
The EESC also proposes that direct investment, by both
individual migrants and their associations, be supported. Invest-
ment in, for example, tourism or agriculture can generate major
development opportunities in many places of origin. Credits,
granted to migrants or diaspora associations for commercial or

(29) See www.remitaid.org.

9.4
The brain drain is advantageous to the European host
countries. Immigration legislation has been amended in certain
European countries since 2002 in order to facilitate the entry of
highly skilled workers.

The European Union too intends to promote a policy of
9.5
selective immigration: the Policy Plan on Legal Migration (31)
proposes a specific directive on the entry of highly skilled
workers, to be presented by the Commission in September and
on which the Committee will draw up an opinion. There are
however no plans to draw up a general directive on entry. In
spite of the criticisms levelled by the EESC and the European
Parliament (32), such ‘selective immigration’ policies are set to
spread throughout Europe, at the risk of worsening the difficul-
ties experienced by some countries. The Committee however
believes that this legislation should be of benefit to all: to the
countries of origin, the host countries, and immigrants them-
selves.

(30) See SOPEMI 2005, OECD.
(31) COM(2005) 669 final of 21 December 2005.
(32) 2005/2244(INI) and EESC opinion of 9 June 2005 on the Green Paper
on an EU approach to managing economic migration (rapporteur: Mr Pariza
Castaños (OJ C 286, 17.11.2005)).

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/99

9.6
Consistency between migration and development coop-
eration policies requires the host countries to deal with the
brain drain issue firmly and decisively. The first aspect
for
consideration in this regard is that the problems which, in the
countries of origin, trigger the departure of skilled workers,
could be turned into benefits if the workers concerned return
with new know-how of use to companies, the economies or the
public services of their countries. Returned migrants can serve
as a vector not only for transfer of know-how and technology,
but also for investment.

9.7
Seen in this light, encouraging migrants to return will
help the development of the countries of origin. Return must be
entirely voluntary, once the conditions are right for workers to
continue their occupation in their country of origin. The chal-
lenge is therefore to create such conditions.

9.8
If skilled workers are to be encouraged to return volunta-
rily, such a move must not entail the loss of their work and resi-
dence permits in Europe (or of any new citizenship they may
have acquired). This is the only way to bring about circular
migration.

Return can also be promoted by transferring returnees'
9.9
social entitlements to their countries of origin.
It must be
ensured that the transfer of pensions and social security entitle-
ments, including healthcare, works properly. The UN Secretary-
General's report on international migration and development
described the vast majority of international migrants as facing
obstacles in transferring their pensions; although many bilateral
agreements have been concluded, it proposed devising an inter-
national framework offering more certainty.
ILO Convention
No 157 concerning the establishment of an international
system for the maintenance of rights in social security (1982),
has only been ratified by three countries (Spain, the Philippines
and Sweden) (33). The Committee proposes
the other
Member States ratify ILO Convention No 157.

that

9.10
Programmes need to be adopted, by means of European
cooperation development policies, to prevent brain drain and to
facilitate the voluntary return of skilled workers, and to invest in
skills-intensive sectors and activities in the countries of origin.

9.11
The EESC agrees with the Commission's proposal that
the Member States should draw up codes of practice for mana-
ging the entry of highly skilled migrants, in cooperation with
the countries of origin.

The EU must play a very active part in training young
9.12
people in immigrants' countries of origin. These countries lose a

(33) See United Nations A/60/871, op cit.

large part of
their best-trained human capital, which is
harnessed by European companies. Training cooperation is a fair
way of compensating these countries, which can thus in the
future count on the human capital they need for their develop-
ment.

9.13
The EESC emphasises the importance of agreements
and associations with countries of origin, which European
universities, hospitals, companies and technology and research
centres could conclude with the countries of origin, the aim
being for some very highly skilled workers to work in their
countries of origin, with pay, social rights and occupational
resources comparable to those in Europe.

10. A migrants' entry policy in keeping with development

aims: allowing entry contributes to development

The European Union and its Member States should
10.1
adjust their entry policies to allow legal immigration by means
of flexible and transparent procedures. In its opinion on the
Commission's Green Paper (34), the EESC argued that there was
a need for open policies on the entry of both highly skilled and
less skilled workers. While understanding the position adopted
by some governments, the Committee has also proposed that
Member States end the transitional period which limits the
freedom of the citizens of some new Member States to reside
and work in their countries.

10.2
Irregular immigration must be reduced through policies
with an internal European focus, such as combating the employ-
ment of irregular immigrants by means of Community legisla-
tion (35), which the Committee will examine in another opinion
currently being drawn up, border controls and combating
human trafficking, and cooperation with countries of origin and
transit. The EU must show support for the countries of southern
Europe, sharing the costs they incur in having to manage the
massive influx of irregular immigrants and carry out numerous
sea rescue operations and reception activities and provide huma-
nitarian assistance. Under exceptional circumstances, it will also
be essential that the legal situation of many people ‘without
papers’ in the EU is regularised, people who are the victims of
labour exploitation and who are unable to participate in integra-
tion policies.

10.3
As a part of more flexible entry policies, temporary
migration systems and circular migration should be promoted,
for both highly skilled and less skilled workers.

(34) See the EESC opinion of 10 December 2003 on the Communication
from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions on immi-
gration, integration and employment (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños),
OJ C 80 of 30.3.2003.

(35) See the draft directive of 16 May 2007 on Minimum penalties for
employers who employ irregular immigrants (COM(2007) 249 final).

C 44/100

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

10.4
If a temporary immigration system is to be realistic,
Community legislation must offer highly flexible short-term
permits, combined with return arrangements and guarantees of
In this way, many
further employment in subsequent years.
immigrants will use legal channels, and will not remain in
Europe under irregular conditions when their residence permits
expire.

10.5
The EESC urges the EU and the Member States to agree
circular migration procedures with the countries of origin, to
promote migration mobility through flexible, transparent proce-
dures. Such agreements must be balanced, serving the interests
of both parties so that immigration can also be a factor for
development in the countries of origin.

Temporary entry arrangements which include training
10.6
commitments and recognition of vocational qualifications may
also be useful, since temporary immigrants working in Europe
would be able to enhance their qualifications and, after
job opportunities and contribute to the
returning, boost
economic and social development of their countries.

The current inflexibility of

10.7
legislation in Europe is a
major barrier to circular migration. In order to facilitate migrant
mobility, return and business initiatives in the countries of
origin, European immigration laws must allow the right
to
permanent residence to be kept over the long term.

10.8
To this end, the EESC proposes that the Directive on
long-term resident status be amended to extend the period that
residents can keep their permanent rights from the current one
year to three years. In its opinion (36), the EESC argued that a
year (or two years, as in the Commission's original proposal)
was too short a period for many immigrants to take up the
challenge of returning to their place of origin based on career
plans.

10.9
At a time when the EU is promoting a global focus for
immigration policy, and in view to consistency between immi-
individuals who are
gration and development policies, all
long-term residents in a Member State must be able to return to
their countries of origin without losing their residence rights for
at least five years.

11. Promoting circular migration and mobility partner-

ships

11.1
In May, the European Commission published an impor-
tant communication (37) on circular migration and mobility
partnerships between the European Union and third countries.
Although this is an own-initiative opinion, it also represents an
EESC contribution to the debate initiated by the Commission.

(36) See the EESC opinion of 17 October 2001 on the Proposal for a Council
Directive concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term
residents (rapporteur: Mr Pariza Castaños), OJ C 36 of 8.2.2002.

(37) On circular migration and mobility partnerships between the European Union

and third countries, COM(2007) 248 final.

Certain sections of the opinion contain EESC proposals on ques-
tions raised by the Commission in its communication.

The Communication is divided into two parts: the first
11.2
sets out
the advantages of developing mobility partnerships
with third countries, and the second looks more specifically at
circular migration.

The Committee supports the proposal

to establish
11.3
mobility partnerships, so that the EU and the Member States
provide opportunities for legal immigration through flexible and
transparent procedures. The partnerships are based on agree-
ments
signed by immigrants' countries of origin and EU
Member States.

security of

Countries of origin are required to make the same
11.4
commitments as those asked in relation to combating irregular
immigration, which are very precise (readmission, border
controls,
travel documents, combating migrant
smuggling and human trafficking, etc.). It is important that such
the
countries honour
Cotonou Agreement, in particular the provisions of Article 13.
The Committee believes that certain countries with ‘weak’
government will have great difficulty meeting these conditions,
and therefore proposes that mobility partnerships be flexibly
adapted to suit the situation of each country of origin.

international obligations under

their

11.5
the following four.

Types of agreement for the Member States may include

The first are those offering improved opportunities
11.5.1
for legal migration, while respecting the principle of Community
preference for EU citizens, which the Committee endorses. The
EESC supports the idea of several Member States (reinforced
cooperation) making a consolidated offer to countries of origin,
as an EU offer in the form of quotas and instruments to match
European job markets.

11.5.2
The second type of agreement involves the European
Commission and the Member States providing technical and
financial assistance to manage legal migration flows. The
Committee believes that Community funding available under
the thematic programme on migration and asylum will be
inadequate, and therefore proposes to the Commission,
the
Parliament and the Council that this funding should be signifi-
cantly increased in the future.

11.5.3
Thirdly, the Committee shares the view that mobility
partnerships, by agreement with the countries of origin, can be
used to discourage immigration from certain sectors in order to
avoid a brain drain (among health professionals in certain Euro-
pean countries,
for example). The agreements should favour
circular migration and the return of temporary immigrants.

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/101

Under the fourth type of partnership, the EU and the
11.5.4
Member States will
improve procedures for issuing short-stay
visas. In a number of opinions, the EESC has pointed to the
need to improve the organisation of consular services in the EU
Member States and countries of origin. The Commission delega-
tions should cooperate with the Member States on migration
matters, and the EURES network should be used to identify
existing employment offers in the EU. The Committee endorses
the Commission's proposal to enhance cooperation between
several Member States by opening common visa application
centres, to strengthen common consular instructions in order to
issue multiple-entry visas for third-country nationals who need
to travel frequently, and to facilitate the issue of visas for certain
categories of person defined in the mobility agreements.

11.6
The Commission is in favour of facilitating circular
migration. The EESC considers that current immigration legisla-
tion is very rigid and not satisfactory either for immigrants, the
countries of origin, or the European host countries. In various
opinions the EESC has recommended more flexible rules in
order to facilitate circular migration systems that would respect
individual preferences. The fundamental rights of immigrants
must be fully protected, especially social and employment
rights, and a person's right to live with their family.

11.7
The Commission proposes two types of circular migra-
tion: (1) migration of third-country nationals settled in the EU,
so that they can develop activities in their country of origin
while retaining their right to residence in a Member State, and
(2) circular migration for people residing in a third country, so
that they can come to the EU for work, study or training, or all
three, on condition that when their permit expires they return
to their country of origin, with the possibility of returning to
the EU under simplified admission procedures.

11.8
The Committee believes that a system of circular migra-
tion can be developed only when migrants, temporary or other-
wise, who have returned to their country of origin, have the
option of returning legally to the European country in which
they were residing. Strengthening circular migration means
above all
introducing measures to ensure that return to the
European country is flexible.

The EESC agrees with the Commission's proposal to
11.9
develop an EU legislative framework facilitating circular migra-
tion. This will entail changing some existing Directives and
agreeing on appropriate criteria for drawing up the new Direc-
tives provided for under the legislative programme,
including
those discussed below.

Proposal for a Directive on the admission of highly
11.9.1
skilled immigrants: the Committee endorses the Commission's
proposal to further facilitate admission procedures for people
who have already resided legally in the EU for a certain length

of time (for highly qualified work, study or other forms of
training).

11.9.2
Proposal for a Directive on the admission of seasonal
migrants: the Committee recommends that a multi-annual resi-
dence/work permit be created for seasonal migrants, allowing
them to come back for five years in succession, which may be
extended for a further five years, to do seasonal work.

Proposal for a Directive on the admission of remuner-
11.9.3
ated trainees: the Committee considers that making it easier for
nationals from third countries to come to Europe for a period
of training, which will help to promote circulation of expertise
and knowledge transfer, is a positive factor for their training and
the
their
proposal could make it possible for former trainees to return
for limited periods (1-5 years) in order to improve their qualifi-
cations.

country's development. To enhance

circularity,

that

The EESC suggests

11.9.4
the Commission should
promote some changes to various existing Directives in favour
of circular migration. Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the
status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents
currently stipulates that, as a general rule, long-term residents
shall no longer be entitled to long-term resident status in the
event of absence from Community territory for a period of
12 consecutive months. The Commission is proposing to
extend this period to two or three years, and the Committee
considers five years to be a more appropriate length of time.

Directive 2004/114/EC on the conditions of admis-
11.9.5
sion of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil
exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service and
Directive 2005/71/EC on a specific procedure for admitting
third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research:
the Committee agrees that these Directives should be amended
to introduce multiple-entry residence permits allowing the
holder to leave EU territory for long periods without losing his
or her right of residence. It would also make sense to convert
the optional provisions of these Directives, which allow Member
States to provide simplified or fast-track admission procedures
for persons who have formerly worked as researchers or studied
in the EU, into a right for such persons to have access to quick
procedures, provided they subsequently return to their home
country at the end of their permit. The Committee also favours
linking the two Directives, by allowing easier admission as a
researcher (with fewer conditions attached) to non-EU nationals
who have previously been admitted as students and who, after
their studies, duly returned to their country of origin. This
concept might be extended to allow students to apply for admis-
sion as researchers while still residing in the Member State
where they are studying, provided the application is submitted
before their study permit expires.

C 44/102

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

The EESC believes it

11.10
is necessary to ensure that
circular migration meets its objectives and brings long-term
benefits through incentives to promote circularity, guarantee a
successful return, evaluate the application of procedures and
reduce the risk of a brain drain through cooperation with third
countries.

11.11
Circulation of expertise requires resolution of one of
the main problems facing many immigrants in Europe, namely
non-recognition of educational and occupational qualifications.
Mobility of such people between their countries of origin and
the host countries will improve when qualifications are recog-
nised in Europe. The Committee proposes that, in spite of the
real difficulties, progress be made in negotiating agreements on
the recognition of qualifications between the EU and the coun-
tries of origin of the bulk of migration flows.

11.12
For a system of circular migration to work it is also
necessary to guarantee the pension and social security rights
acquired by immigrants. This will entail negotiating mutual
agreements between EU Member States and countries of origin,
and ratifying ILO Convention No 157.

The Committee proposes that

the EU should put
11.13
forward these chapters in the future mobility partnerships, in
order to facilitate the recognition of vocational qualifications
and offer guarantees on pension rights.

Brussels, 25 October 2007.

12. Global Forum on Migration and Development

12.1
On 10 July the Global Forum on Migration and Devel-
opment was held in Brussels, chaired by UN Secretary-General
Ban Ki-Moon. More than 800 delegates from 140 countries
took part, continuing the United Nations summit of 2006.

12.2
The EESC took part in the Civil Society Day on 9 July,
represented by the rapporteur for this opinion. The conclusions
of the forum, which the Committee broadly endorses, can be
found on the conference website (38). Next year the Global
Forum will take place in Manila, and should be attended by the
Committee.

The Committee encourages the governments of

12.3
the
European Union and the Commission to actively pursue their
efforts through the United Nations to ensure that the issue of
migration features prominently on the international agenda, so
that the human rights of migrants are guaranteed under an
international legislative framework and that shared administra-
tion of migration processes between countries of origin and
host countries supports global economic and social develop-
ment.

The Committee addresses

12.4
migration for the first
opinions will examine it further.

time in the present opinion:

the question of circular
future

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(38) The conclusions are available in English (at http://smooz.gfmd-civil-
society.org/gfmd/files/Final_CSD.pdf) and Spanish (at http://smooz.
gfmd-civil-society.org/gfmd/files/Final_CSD_espanol.pdf).