Preliminary observations by NGOs active in the
migration, refugee protection and the development field on the
European Commission’s Communication on “Integrating Migration
Issues in the European Union’s Relations with Third Countries”,
COM (2002) 703 final of 3 December 2002
One of the major
challenges faced by the European Union today is to link a fair development
policy aimed at eradicating poverty and the EU’s declared aim of
integrating developing countries into world economy with a clear and
comprehensive migration policy. This is especially true in the context that
many elements of a comprehensive migration policy have not yet been developed.
Non-governmental organisations active in the related fields of migration, refugee protection and development welcome the European Commission’s Communication on “Integrating Migration Issues in the European Union’s Relations with Third Countries” (December 2002) as an effort of laying down initial considerations in this regard.
The organisations
signing up to this letter aim to contribute their comments, concerns and
recommendations outlined below to the discussions initiated by the European
Commission’s Communication.
We are concerned that
the Communication has ultimately failed in its goal with regard to the
interrelation between migration and development. Although the analysis reflects
the relevant points of concern, the conclusions fall far short from
expectations by limiting the focus only on return policies and border control.
Furthermore we fear that the Communication seeks to justify the extension of
the impact of the fight against irregular migration beyond overshadowing the
international protection regime to also taking hostage of the development
sector. The signatory organisations regret that the Commission lost an
opportunity and shifted the EU policy’s focus to only short-term
repressive and punitive measures rather than to balance this with refugee
protection and development assistance. The EU’s partnership with countries of origin
should pave the way to develop a better balance between measures combating
undocumented migration, measures protecting those in need of international
protection and measures providing development assistance.
We welcome the
Commission’s acknowledgement that the major impact of migratory flows,
both voluntary and forced, is found in the countries of the South, many of
which are developing countries. We consider it a crucial step that the European
Commission recognizes that the vast majority of refugees, 85 % of the total of
13 million refugees, are hosted outside the EU countries – with 9 million
refugees living in developing countries.
Although some projects
aimed at the integration of refugees in developing countries are supported by
EU funds (Tanzania, Zambia are mentioned), this is not addressed as a matter of
policy priority in the Communication.
In the European Union
there are on-going discussions about the concept of protection in regions of
origin and about the resettlement of people in need of international
protection. We welcome the intention to increase programmes for resettlement to
the EU that provide the possibility for persons in need of protection who have
no access to effective protection nor durable solutions in their country of
first asylum to reach Europe in a safe and legal manner. We stress, however,
that this can never replace the duty of Member States to examine in a fair
manner applications for asylum by claimants arriving spontaneously in Europe.
These debates are not satisfactory when it comes to channelling necessary
financial support to UNHCR and host governments to strengthen their capacity to
provide effective protection in regions of origin.
A system of sharing
responsibility and providing protection in an effective and fair manner on a
global level is needed. Since the major impact of refugee and migratory flows
is in certain less developed countries, the EU should work closely with UNHCR, host governments
and civil society to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to
provide protection and assistance to refugees and internally displaced persons
in developing countries. We encourage the EU to increase its efforts towards
creating a fair system for sharing responsibility on a global level, especially
in favour of poorer countries. This should involve provision of financial
support to countries of first asylum and provision of protection for refugees
in Europe.
We would welcome if the EU Council supported in its
conclusions, which are presently negotiated, positive elements on the
development-migration nexus particularly for finding durable solutions for
refugee protection including local integration and developing comprehensive
approaches to addressing protracted refugee situations.
Whilst many countries in
Sub-Saharan Africa are among the most important recipients of development
funds, and range among the poorest both in UNDP and World Bank statistics, they
are not found among the highest migrant generating countries. We share the
analysis of the Communication that the countries generating migration are to a
great extent not the world’s least developed countries (LDCs). We are,
therefore, very concerned that this analysis is not at all reflected in the
conclusions of the paper.
The Commission rightly
points to this fact in its analysis, but fails to adequately acknowledge in the
proposed actions.
The Communication further fails to acknowledge the impact of internal
rural-urban migration on poverty in developing countries. In many poor
countries internal flows of migrants within countries are far more significant
than international flows.
On the contrary, the
reader gets the impression that there is a real risk of making development
funding conditional on migration prevention measures. We call upon the
Commission to put far greater emphasis on ensuring that developing countries
receive sufficient development aid from the EU in line with the EC’s
Development Policy.
We totally reject any
conditionality in linking development aid to countries’ willingness to
cooperate on readmission clauses. We are convinced that investing in short-term
prevention actions instead of long-term programmes of sustainable development -
will prove disastrous for development policy objectives, and certainly for the
poor and marginalised.
Economic globalisation
has led to further marginalisation of those countries that are unable to
compete effectively in the global marketplace. In the absence of fair and just
rules, globalisation has limited the space for developing countries to control
their own development, as the free market-oriented system makes no provision
for compensating the weak. The gap between rich and poor is widening and the
EU’s policies and programmes have so far not changed this trend.
The European Union should
direct its efforts towards reducing the inequalities that are exacerbated by
globalisation: reinforcing strategies aimed at globally eradicating poverty,
improving living and working conditions, creating employment and improving the
coherence between the EU’s various policy fields (development, trade,
agricultures, foreign policy…); strategies that in the long term help to
create a more equal world and to reduce forced migratory movements worldwide.
Any expansion of the
mandate of development cooperation must therefore be based on the principle of
burden sharing between developed and developing countries. This will require
that the industrialised countries fulfil their commitment to contribute 0,7 %
of the GDP to development.
We agree that root
causes for forced migration need to be fought, however, we think that the
concept of fighting the root causes of migration is over-simplistic and does
not address the complexities inter alia of protracted refugee situations. The
Communication rightly highlights development potentials in migration, like
remittances of migrants, but proposes little action to improve and expand this
potential. E.g. the development of trade through engaging migrants is only
touched upon briefly, but not further developed. No suggestion is made of how
immigration and legal status requirements might be used to foster the
involvement of migrants in bilateral or multilateral trade and development. We
underline the necessity of continued research in order to develop concrete actions
to promote the positive aspects of migration particularly in the link to
development.
In this context, one
should not overlook the fact that the migration of skilled workers can
constitute a continental “brain-drain” problem, as it is often
those people with a good education and potential that migrate internationally.
We recommend that further proposals on the problems of brain drain be developed
particularly for developing countries. These measures might include the
development of incentives for national experts to stay in their country.
We believe, furthermore,
that greater emphasis must be placed on the prevention of some of the key root
causes of migration, including improved measures for conflict prevention and
preventing forced migration. This should appear as a priority recommendation in
the communication.
We recognise the need
for a joint approach regarding return measures as a part of a comprehensive
migration policy. We thus welcome the opening up of this debate further to the
Commission’s Green Book on a Community return policy. We would like to
support the principle of the priority of voluntary return, as stated in the
Commission’s communication. We therefore regret that this principle was
omitted in the Council’s Action Plan on Return.
With regard to readmission
agreements, we would warn against the use of such agreements that aim at
returning asylum seekers to countries where there might be a direct or indirect
risk of refoulement. We call for the implementation of necessary legal safeguards
that ensure respect for human rights law and international principles of
refugee protection including the principle of non-refoulement.
Regarding another guiding principle
in this field we would equally like to support the Commission’s statement
that “before the negotiation of any readmission agreement, the political
and human rights situation in the country of origin or transit should be taken
into account” and would like to express our concern that this principle
was also omitted in the Council’s decision.
While the analysis
provided would warrant a vast field of programmatic action, the integration of
justice and home affairs issues is limited to return and readmission policies.
As we have stated above, the Commission has proposed immigration legislation,
but this is not yet in place. As long as no legal alternative, be it short or
long-term, is offered, potential migrants will easily be trapped by smugglers
and traffickers, which offer an alternative way out of desperate situations.
The establishment of
legal immigration is a prerequisite to promoting the development impact of
migration. Only if migrants can travel safely and freely between their country
of origin and country of destination will their potential to contribute to social
and economic development be set free.
We are particularly concerned that,
although the criminal organisations operate and recruit also in developing
countries, the protection of victims of trafficking is not raised in this
communication. Particularly with regard to a return policy for victims of
trafficking, safeguards need to be internationally agreed. We would like to see
components for protection of victims, reception and integration of migrants to
be addressed with the same vigour as policing and control elements.
Development policy would benefit if
it elaborated programmes addressing internal as well as international migration
phenomena and supported possible benefits of migration and unfold the
development potential of migrants. Only if migration policy is expanded and a
European immigration policy is developed, these policy fields can adequately be
combined.
Conditionality does not make sense,
as the countries most in need of development assistance are not the most
migrants generating countries.
Development aid should
go to the countries most in need, and, foremost, to the people most in need.
Any compromise on this principle is totally intolerable.
ActionAid Alliance, Brussels, Belgium
Africa-Europe Faith and Justice Network,
Brussels, Belgium
APRODEV – Association of World
Council of Churches related development agencies, Brussels, Belgium
CARITAS Europa, Brussels, Belgium
CCME – Churches’ Commission
for Migrants in Europe, Brussels, Belgium
Church and Society Commission of the
Conference of European Churches, Brussels, Belgium
CIMADE, Paris, France
CORDAID, Netherlands
Commission Justitia et Pax, The Hague,
Netherlands
ECRE – European Council on Refugees
and Exiles, London, U.K.
Eurodiaconia - European Federation for
Diaconia, Brussels, Belgium
ICMC – International Catholic
Migration Commission, Geneva, Switzerland
ISCOS-Cisl, Brussels, Belgium
Pax Christi International, Brussels,
Belgium
Quaker Council on European Affairs,
Brussels, Belgium
Save the Children, Brussels, Belgium
For further information please contact:
Rob van Drimmelen,
APRODEV, Tel: +32-2-234.56.60, e-mail: rob@aprodev.net
Bruno Kapfer, Caritas
Europa, Tel: +32-2-235.03.96, e-mail: bkapfer@caritas-europa.org
Doris Peschke, CCME, Tel: +32-2-234.68.00, e-mail: ccme@wanadoo.be