Chapter 7: the future of the global approach
to migration and mobility |
A useful framework
127. Most of our witnesses were positive about
the adoption of a global approach by the EU in principle. Professor Keith
stressed that "the necessity of having a framework for co-ordination
is almost self-evident"
while Peter Sutherland believed that it was fundamentally important
for states to cooperate on migration policy rather than developing
their own policies in isolation as "no state is or can be
an island". In the EU context, he believed that the Commission
could act as a catalyst for a more constructive approach.
128. Ralph Genetzke from the ICMPD stated that
the GAMM provided a coherent framework.
Peter Sutherland regarded it as "the most outward-looking
and co-operation-oriented approach to migration that exists in
the world today" and while it did not address every migration
challenge and opportunity its basic premise was fundamentally
Clarke also considered the GAMM to be useful but considered that
it did "not sufficiently prioritise and strategise".
Hugo Brady praised the GAMM as a concept but considered that it
suffered from a "poverty of ambition",
stating that it had achieved few concrete results and was a "journey
rather than a destination".
129. Other witnesses were less positive about
the GAMM. While Sir Andrew Green considered it useful for
the GAMM to provide a "broad framework" he criticised
its assumption "that migration is a good thing, more or less
without any hesitation" and that it barely mentioned the
potential downsides of migration.
Christopher Chope told us he found the document "impenetrable"
and that it was "filled with jargon and wishful thinking,
and seems to be a million miles away from what is actually happening
on the ground".
Open Europe referred to it as a "confused" document
and remarked that the EU's support for third country law enforcement
agencies and stronger borders sometimes undermined its commitment
to other principles, such as human rights.
130. The Minister for Immigration told us that
the GAMM was a helpful "framework" for looking at a
number of issues and considered its focus on practical cooperation
with other Member States and third countries to be its most useful
element. He also stressed the continuing role of bilateral accords
between the United Kingdom and third countries and did not believe
that the EU should assume a more significant role in formulating
migration policy on behalf of the Member States.
The Government considered that the GAMM needed to adopt a more
strategic approach, including a more systematic, evidence based
approach to geographical priorities, particularly countries that
presented the greatest risk such as Turkey.
Mixed competences and effective
131. Professor Geddes thought that it was
difficult for the EU to speak with one voice on migration because
it was an area of mixed competences between the EU and the Member
States. In this
respect, he considered that the GAMM had been most successful
in areas which accorded more with the interests of the Member
States. Professor Keith
stated that any overarching EU framework and policy design had
to recognise the major differences between the welfare systems,
labour markets and economic cycles of each Member State and seek
to accommodate them in any future approach. He also emphasised
the importance of subsidiarity in EU migration frameworks in order
to take account of these differences.
However, Christopher Chope expressed doubts about the feasibility
of developing a global approach when each Member State had its
own migration policies.
Hugo Brady remarked that as it was not possible to achieve a single
approach across all 27 Member States, the focus should instead
be on cooperation on a regional basis.
Professor Skeldon supported this and stated that, as migration
moved through particular corridors, adopting regional approaches
would make more sense than an EU-wide one.
132. A recurring theme in the evidence we received
was the need for the EU to offer non-EU countries more incentives
in return for better controlling migration from their countries
to the EU. Stefano Manservisi admitted that the EU needed to present
a more balanced package of opportunity, telling us "we have
learnt the lesson that in order to have a meaningful dialogue,
we cannot just discuss things in general terms. We need also to
put on the table a certain number of concrete actions, which could
be projects to finance".
However, Open Europe commented that it was difficult for the Commission
to implement the GAMM in a tangible manner because the relevant
tools, including how many migrants were allowed in, was still
a Member State competence; a situation which was unlikely to change.
Therefore it was an "exercise that is almost doomed to fail".
In the meantime, to become more effective the GAMM needed more
deals, or "carrots", to put on the table, as well as
prioritising a couple of key objectives and encouraging cooperation
on a voluntary basis.
Professor Boswell was of a similar view, telling us that
the "EU has only limited leverage to provide some of the
incentives that it is talking about, such as increased mobility
or access to labour markets".
Tobias Billström's view was that the EU's real role was to
agree and enforce Directives and Regulations rather than acting
as a "referee" between the Member States. In this vein,
the Minister for Immigration saw EU activity in this area as an
"adjunct" to national activities which should neither
undermine nor eclipse this balance of competences over time.
133. We agree that the GAMM is a useful framework
for the EU to approach the external dimension of migration. We
also welcome the extension of its scope to cover mobility.
134. However, we believe that the current
approach in the GAMM is too diffuse and that in reforming it the
EU should adopt a more focused approach, concentrating on the
EU's geographical and strategic priorities, as well as focusing
on a smaller number of key objectives and instruments, which have
a sound evidence base.
135. We believe that Turkey should become
one of the GAMM's main geographical priorities, in tackling irregular
migration, alongside more general engagement in tackling terrorism,
transnational organised crime and promoting judicial cooperation
in civil and criminal matters.
136. The EU does have a significant role to
play in migration policy, but if the GAMM is to be effective it
must accommodate rather than disregard Member States' different
approaches in this area. We believe that facilitating voluntary
cooperation between Member States with an interest in particular
projects will yield the most results.
Funding, evaluation and monitoring
137. The GAMM states its successful implementation
will depend upon adequate funding. A monitoring and evaluation
report will be adopted every second year, starting in June 2013,
based on information provided by Member States, EU Delegations,
EU agencies and partner countries. The report will assess progress
made on the four pillars of the GAMM, including progress with
the various dialogues, Mobility Partnerships and CAMMs.
138. Charles Clarke considered that the EU currently
spent too little on migration and mobility and that they should
raise the overall level of resources allocated to this area, as
should every Member State.
Professor Geddes remarked on the lack of evaluation in the
GAMM. Hugo Brady
also considered that the various EU funding instruments should
139. We consider that despite its stated intention
the current iteration of the GAMM has not evaluated effectively
the EU's progress to date in achieving its objectives. Therefore,
we believe that a full and detailed evaluation of the GAMM's different
pillars and the funding instruments that support their objectives
should form a core part of the forthcoming report in 2013, in
order to ensure the GAMM's future relevance and efficacy.
140. The GAMM confirms that dialogues on migration,
mobility and security have been launched with Tunisia and Morocco,
with similar initiatives planned for Egypt and Libya. It is hoped
that more formal Mobility Partnerships will be established with
these countries in due course. It also states that Mobility Partnerships
should be upgraded and promoted as the principle framework for
cooperation on migration and mobility between the EU and third
information about Mobility Partnerships is contained in Box 6.
|The aim of Mobility Partnerships between the EU and
third countries is to facilitate better management of migration
flows. These voluntary partnerships will be tailored to the requirements
of the third country concerned, depending on its relations with
the EU and the level of its commitment towards tackling irregular
migration that it is prepared to take on. The commitments that
third countries could expect to take on include:
Initiatives to discourage irregular migration through
targeted information campaigns;
Efforts to improve border control including through
operational cooperation with Member States and/or Frontex;
Efforts to improve the security of travel documents
against fraud or forgery;
Commitments to promote employment and decent work;
Agreeing to readmit their own and third country nationals
through the conclusion of Readmission Agreements and facilitate
the reintegration of returnees.
In return, third countries can expect to benefit
from some of the following forms of assistance:
Financial and technical assistance in developing
their capacity to manage legal migration flows;
Assistance in combating irregular migration;
Conclusion of visa facilitation agreements (now usually
negotiated simultaneously with Readmission Agreements);
Improved opportunities for legal migration, including
consolidated offers by several Member States to facilitate access
to their labour markets;
Measures to reduce brain drain and to encourage circular
or return migration;
Promoting legal migration and strengthening the positive
contribution of migration to development; and
Assistance to facilitate the return and reintegration
An alternative framework, a step below a Mobility
Partnership, is the Common Agenda on Migration and Mobility (CAMM),
which could be upgraded to a Mobility Partnership at a later stage.
Both are established by a joint political declaration between
the EU and interested Member States and the third country concerned.
Both are also based on mutual commitments that are non-binding.
Within this framework, dedicated Migration and Mobility
Resource Centres can be established in the partner countries to
facilitate pre-departure measures focusing on skills matching,
skills upgrading and proficiency in EU languages.
The first Mobility Partnership was established with
Moldova in 2008. Since then another three Mobility Partnerships
have been established with Cape Verde (2008), Georgia (2009) and
141. Confronted by the Arab Awakening, Stefano
Manservisi told us that the Commission suggested to the European
Council that "instead of having a migration policy inspired
by the closing of doors, it would be better to have a migration
and foreign policy inspired by the opening of doorswith
As a result, the European Council agreed in June 2011 to pursue
Mobility Partnerships with the countries of the Arab Awakening.
The Commission identified Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and, where possible,
Libya. He remarked that so far the dialogue with Egypt had been
extremely timid and the necessary conditions had not yet been
reached in Libya due to continuing instability there. Subsequent
Conclusions adopted by the European Council also added Jordan
to the list of target countries in the region and exploratory
talks began last December. Tentatively the Commission had also
started discussing the possibility of establishing a Mobility
Partnership or CAMM with countries such as Nigeria and Ghana,
as well as Bangladesh and the Philippines, both of which had large
communities living in the EU.
Discussions with India on establishing a CAMM were at a more advanced
stage and included discussions about Indian migration policy and
India's contribution of specialists in IT, and other sectors,
to the international labour market.
142. Charles Clarke considered that Mobility
Partnerships could be valuable but required a lot of effort and
bureaucracy for not much in the way of results and the numbers
of people involved. He suggested that more substantive arrangements
should be put in place in order that they can work properly.
Hugo Brady considered Mobility Partnerships to be one of the more
concrete GAMM initiatives, and suggested that Turkey, as a candidate
country, should be a priority in this regard, as should Pakistan,
rather than small countries like Moldova. However, he stated that
expectations about what could be achieved with less advanced countries
should be tempered and it was also important to realise that not
all third countries were desperate to conclude agreements with
the EU about migration.
Claude Moraes MEP and Baroness Ludford MEP were less convinced
about the merits of Mobility Partnerships.
143. The Minister for Immigration was positive
about Mobility Partnerships because of their non-binding nature.
The Government's written evidence mentioned that it had been involved
in drafting the text for the Mobility Partnership with Tunisia
and was closely involved with the negotiations on the proposed
CAMM with Ghana.
144. We note that none of the existing Mobility
Partnerships are with major sending countries. We recommend that
Turkey (as a candidate country) and Pakistan, as major corridors
for irregular migration into the EU, should be priorities for
future Mobility Partnerships.
145. However, it is important to be realistic
about what can be achieved between the EU and third countries
regarding migration and mobility. To this end we support the development
of looser, more informal, forms of cooperation with other important
third countries before moving on to more formal agreements such
as Mobility Partnerships.
146. Hugo Brady remarked that the existing Mobility
Partnerships had not yet been evaluated.
However, Stefano Manservisi told us that the Commission was in
the process of finalising an evaluation of the Moldova Mobility
we were grateful that this was subsequently made available to
us. We considered it in great detail.
147. The evaluation report's assertion that the
Mobility Partnership has been "a clear success" does
not, in our view, appear to be supported by the reports own analysis
of various shortcomings. It notes that "Little can be inferred
... about how much the Mobility Partnership benefits the target
beneficiaries", such as migrants, diaspora organisations
and refugee groups, because there was almost no consultative structure
in place to gauge their views. It further notes that there was
a lack of migration information available about crucial themes
in the Mobility Partnership. The report makes it clear that quantitative
evaluations should have been conducted from the very beginning
of the Mobility Partnership.
148. We urge the Government to press the Commission
to accept the need for a thorough evaluation of the existing Mobility
Partnerships. We welcome the recent evaluation of the Moldovan
Mobility Partnership as a positive step in this regard but consider
that considerable progress is still required in this area. Due
to their bespoke nature there cannot be a "one-size-fits-all"
approach to Mobility Partnerships and separate evaluations of
each are therefore required.
149. Looking ahead we also believe that any
future Mobility Partnerships should contain clear provision for
integrated monitoring or evaluation mechanisms to assess quantitative
benchmarks, including the views of the target beneficiaries. These
mechanisms should play a prominent role from the very beginning
of the process.
The Global Forum on Migration
150. The GAMM also wants to allow the EU to speak
with one voice on migration and mobility matters at global level,
in particular in the GFMD, while starting to build broad alliances
towards the UN High-Level Dialogue in 2013 and beyond.
Further information about the GFMD is provided in Box 7.
Global Forum on Migration and Development
|The United Nations Member States established the
Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) in 2007 to address
interconnections between migration and development in practical
and action-oriented ways. It is an informal, non-binding, voluntary
and government-led process, which acknowledges the limits of a
strictly national approach to migration questions and implications
at a global level in an intergovernmental framework. Representatives
of civil society have been involved in the work of the GFMD from
The objectives of the GFMD are:
To provide a venue for policy-makers and high-level
policy practitioners to informally discuss relevant policies and
practical challenges and opportunities of the migration-development
nexus, and engage with other stakeholders, including non-governmental
organisations, experts and migrant organisations to foster practical
and action-oriented outcomes at national, bilateral and international
To exchange good practices and experiences, which
can be duplicated or adapted in other circumstances, in order
to maximise the development benefits of migration and migration
To identify information, policy and institutional
gaps necessary to foster synergies and greater policy coherence
at national, regional and international levels between the migration
and development policy areas;
To establish partnerships and cooperation between
countries, and between countries and other stakeholders, such
as international organisations, diaspora, migrants, academia,
among others, on migration and development;
To structure the international priorities and agenda
on migration and development.
160 countries now attend and conferences are held
alternately in countries of destination and origin. The United
Kingdom is a member of the Steering Committee, which progresses
matters between the conferences, and helps to prepare and develop
papers and proposals for the annual meetings, as part of a 'troika'
with the GFMD and the general membership of the UN. While the
GFMD brings together countries of origin, transit and destination,
and often leads to the creation of bilateral connections and policies,
it is not a decision-making body.
151. Peter Sutherland told us that the GFMD member
states seemed satisfied with how the GFMD was working so far.
He added that the United Kingdom and other member states have
supported the GFMD financially, on a voluntary basis. The Commission
has also been helpful in this processfinancially and in
terms of ideasprobably seeing it as something that naturally
fits in with its GAMM.
However, a key element of the GFMD is that it is member state-led
and directed and he told us that some member states did not support
the Commission attending meetings as an observer. This is currently
Tobias Billström seemed cautious about the idea of the Commission
having greater involvement in the GFMD but seemed to support it
having observer status.
The Minister for Immigration emphasised member states' preeminent
role in the GFMD and was uncomfortable with the idea that the
EU should attend and adopt a formal or common position on particular
152. Stefano Manservisi told us that while it
was the Commission's ambition for the EU to speak with one voice
in such forums this was not yet a reality. He also acknowledged
that there was resistance to the EU taking a single view or being
represented in the GFMD and attributed this to its state-led nature
of the organisation and the mixed competence regarding migration
matters between Member States and the EU. He expected that the
strong opposition from the member states to Commission representation
at the GFMD would reduce over time as mutual trust increased.
153. The most recent meeting of the GFMD took
place in Mauritius on 21-22 November 2012 and we note that, apart
from a keynote address by Peter Sutherland, another of our witnessesStefano
Manservisialso delivered a statement at the conference.
154. We believe that the Commission should
be welcomed to future meetings of the GFMD as an observer so long
as it is clearly recognised within the EU that this will not indicate
any transfer of responsibilities from the Member States.
OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
WITH A ROLE IN MIGRATION
155. According to the GAMM, the Commission is
also conducting a number of joint initiatives with UN agencies,
the IOM and the ICMPD to address a wide range of international
Stefano Manservisi emphasised that the EU was aiming to become
a stronger actor on the international stage. He indicated that
good progress was being made on achieving a unified EU position
ahead of the UN's High-level Dialogue in 2013, particularly between
the Commission and EEAS, and that they were also liaising with
Peter Sutherland and the IOM. He also referred to the Commission's
strategic partnership with the IOM on returns, particularly the
Pakistan Readmission Agreement, which was not considered to be
working well despite the high number of irregular migrants from
this country living in Europe.
Christopher Chope spoke positively about the role of the IOM and
the UNHCR but was less enthusiastic about relations between the
EU and the Council of Europe, stating that "It is not just
an issue of cooperation; it is a question of whether the EU is
willing to recognise the expertise, where it already exists, without
seeking always to try to duplicate it".
156. Hugo Brady was less impressed by developments
at the international level, telling us that at a "time when
countries worldwide have an almost desperate need for a global
infrastructure for migration to manage migratory flows, that desperate
need is measured or equalled by the lack of serious political
will to agree on concrete initiatives that could make something
like that happen".
157. We also considered international cooperation
in our report on the EU Drugs Strategy and concluded that this
"should involve and encourage direct cooperation between
cities, local authorities and organisations across national boundaries".
We believe that the same approach would have merit regarding migration.
158. Increased coordination and reduced duplication
between the various international organisations involved in migration
policy is necessary.
159. We also consider that co-operation and
the sharing of expertise between cities and regions in different
parts of the EU could be every bit as important as inter-governmental
and international co-operation on migration.
171 Q 179 Back
Q 14 Back
Q 346 Back
Q 6 Back
Q 149 Back
Q 175 Back
Q 176 Back
Q 207 Back
Q 207. As did the Minister for Immigration-see Q 235. Back
Q 107 Back
Q 235 Back
UK Government Back
Q 221 Back
Q 222 Back
Q 179, Q 183, Q 201 Back
Q 207 Back
Q 192 Back
Q 222 Back
Q 303 Back
QQ 102-105, Q 115, Q 118 Back
Q 219 Back
Q 236 Back
GAMM, pp. 20-21 Back
Q 155 Back
Q 222 Back
Q 195 Back
GAMM, pp. 14-15 Back
See Commission Communication, A dialogue for migration, mobility
and security with the Southern Mediterranean countries, COM
(2011) 292, 24.5.2011 Back
Q 308 Back
Q 302 Back
Q 150 Back
Q 180 Back
QQ 334-335 Back
QQ 254-257 Back
UK Government Back
Q 176 Back
QQ 305-306 Back
European Commission, The European Union-Republic of Moldova
Mobility Partnership 2008-2011: Evaluation Report, November
GAMM, p. 9. The General Assembly will hold a High-level Dialogue
on International Migration and Development during its sixty-eighth
session in 2013. This follows on from the first High-level Dialogue,
which took place on 14 to 15 September 2006. Further information
is available here:
Q 1 Back
Q 24 Back
Q 1 Back
QQ 38-39 Back
QQ 238-242 Back
Q 312, Q 314 Back
For more information about the GFMD Mauritius meeting, including
papers and statements, see:
GAMM, p. 10 Back
Q 302, QQ 315-318 Back
Q 209 Back
EU Committee, The EU Drugs Strategy (26th Report of Session
2010-12, HL Paper 270) Back