Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 52011SC1353


/* SEC/2011/1353 final */


COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Migration and Development /* SEC/2011/1353 final */

Migration and Development

1. Introduction 2. Achievements since 2005

            2.1. Remittances sent by migrants based in the EU

2.2. Diasporas as actors of country of origin development

2.3. Circular migration

2.4. Mitigating the adverse effects of brain drain

3. Towards a migrant-centred approach: next steps on migration and development

3.1. Remaining challenges and new ideas to the traditional migration and development area

            3.1.1. Remittances

            3.1.2. Diasporas

            3.1.3. Circular Migration

            3.1.4. Brain drain/brain waste/brain gain

3.1.5. Ensuring better coherence and synergies between migration and development at policy and operational level

3.2. Broadening the traditional agenda: addressing the social and human impact of migration on migrants, their families and communities

                        3.2.1. Addressing the needs created by emigration flows in countries of origin

                        3.2.2. Protecting human rights of migrants during their transit process

3.2.3. Integration of migrants in countries of destination: building on good practices identified in the EU

3.2.4. South-South migration

4. The way forward: beyond the traditional agenda

5. Conclusions

1. Introduction

Since 2004 the EU has been reflecting and working with its partners worldwide in order to enhance the positive impact of international migration flows on economic, social and human development. This has been the objective of its active involvement in the Global Commission on International Migration in 2004/2005, and in the Global Forum on Migration and Development since 2007. The EU’s strong will to support the potential positive impact of migration on development has been embodied in the Communication on Migration & Development[1] of 2005 and the Communication ‘Contribution to the UN High Level Dialogue on Migration & Development’[2] of 2006. The nexus between migration and development has been integrated as one of the three equally important pillars of the Global Approach to Migration.

Maximising the positive impact of migration on the development of partner countries while limiting its negative consequences will remain a key priority of the revised Global Approach. Now it is time to assess the policy and operational initiatives of the last six years in order to further define the approach, scope and depth of what is referred to as ‘migration and development’. The actions resulting from this concept are related to ‘traditional domains’ (remittances, diasporas, mitigating brain drain) as well as to strengthened dialogue/partnership on migration issues with partner countries.

For many people increased opportunities for international migration are an essential ingredient for their livelihood strategy and future well-being. Consequently, the development impact of mobility will be stronger if the migrants’ social, financial, human and cultural capital is recognised and if migrants are better protected and integrated along their migratory routes. More generally, the introduction of an explicitly migrant-centred approach should help to strengthen the human and social dimension of migration and development policies. Both topics have emerged very strongly in political dialogue meetings with partner countries over the last few years.

Although migration and development is an important part of the Global Approach to Migration, the challenges faced by partner countries as regards the link between development and migration are much broader and more complex than those which have been addressed so far. This calls for a better incorporation of this dimension into the EU’s overall external cooperation.

There is a growing need to promote migration governance in a development perspective at all levels, from international to national, and to achieve an improved common understanding of the nexus between development and migration, including the economic, environmental and social consequences of migration and asylum policies or policies in other sectors. This argues in favour of a deepening of the current reflection process.

This Commission Staff Working Paper will first take stock of the main initiatives in the area of migration and development since the 2005 Communication on Migration and Development. It will then further elaborate the current thinking on the broadening of the agenda as reflected in the Communication ‘Global Approach on Migration and Mobility’, before making an analysis of gaps identified and introducing the way forward to make migration part of the development policy and process

2. Achievements since 2005

This issue of migration and development was addressed in a 2005 Communication that paved the way for EU action by identifying concrete orientations in a number of areas. Several commitments were also embodied in Council conclusions. Many lessons have been drawn concerning the progress made along these lines at EU level.

2.1 Remittances sent by migrants based in EU

Since 2005, the EU has adopted strong remittance-related commitments, including at the highest level,[3] and has undertaken many efforts to have them implemented. While emphasizing their private nature, the overall aim has been to promote cheaper, faster and more secure remittances, and to enhance their development impact.

Official EU data on remittance flows have been considerably improved, especially since 2009, thanks to Eurostat’s efforts based on Member States’ consolidated balances of payment data. The EU also publishes annually an Accountability Report on financing for development (formerly called the Monterrey report). It enables an assessment of the performance of the EU and its Member States in fulfilling joint commitments on mobilising domestic and international resources for development, increasing trade capacity and investment, Official Development Assistance (ODA), innovative sources and mechanisms of financing. This report also includes a section on remittances. A number of Member States have also launched studies with a view to improving their knowledge about the main remittance channels.

The EU also adopted a common legal framework on payments — the 2007 Directive on payment services[4] — which created a level playing field with harmonised licensing provisions for payment service providers throughout the Union, including money remittance. Member States were required, amongst others, to set up a register of all authorised payment institutions (including money transfer operators and smaller operators benefiting from a lighter regime), updated on a regular basis and publicly available for consultation, in particular online.

While it focuses on payment services provided within the Community,. the above-mentioned Directive has led to improved transparency in the provision of payment services, including the remittance market, although only about half of the Member States decided to apply its Titles III (on transparency)  and IV (on rights and obligations), or only some of their provisions, to so called ‘one-leg payments’.[5] Although it is still too early to assess its impact upon competition and transfer costs, the Directive has improved the level of consumer protection by, inter alia, establishing a set of rules on transparency (total price of a transaction, transfer fees charged, exchange rate applied, speed of the service), forbidding implicit fees, and laying down rules on the execution of payments. In addition, a number of Member States have set up their own remittance price comparison websites on costs and quality of services.

In terms of cooperation programmes, the European Union’s Thematic programme on migration and asylum provided financial support to projects fostering the use of new technologies. It also used microfinance funds to support projects to improve access to banking and financial services and access to credits in developing countries.

The 2005 Communication emphasised that remittances were private money and would only flow to ‘productive investment’ if beneficiaries were able to make informed choices and if there were appropriate incentives in place. Developing such incentives and improving choice in the receiving countries has been part of a more comprehensive and long-term development approach.

The 2005 Communication also put forward the idea of looking into partnerships with the countries concerned and — where relevant, in cooperation with the EIB — possibilities to enhance financial intermediation in partner countries, by facilitating partnerships between micro-finance and mainstream financial institutions, for example. General cooperation has been achieved on financial intermediation between the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB)– e.g. the EIB’s risk capital activities in the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP region), which use Commission funds. Furthermore, most of the EIB’s activities (financial intermediation or not) in FEMIP and ACP countries are guaranteed by the EU.

Since 2005 the EU policy on support for micro-finance initiatives has developed and the Commission has made great efforts in the area of microfinance activities, although stronger links with migrants remain to be established. Nowadays the EU may provide grants for capital to finance credit lines or guarantee funds under certain conditions, namely if credit is a constraint and there is a lack of alternative resources in a given market.

Lastly, the EU has successfully included the issue of facilitating remittances in its political dialogues with third countries (e.g. the EU-ACP dialogue on migration, the EU Africa Strategic Partnership) and has been organising training sessions on remittances for officials from third countries. The collection of data on remittances is also included in migration profiles sponsored by the EU to assess the migration situation of partner countries.

2.2. Diasporas as actors of country of origin development

The 2005 Communication on Migration and Development recognised the potential of diaspora organisations to become prominent actors for development and called for stronger involvement of voluntary diaspora members in the development of their countries of origin.

Some achievements have been made along these lines. The EC has supported efforts initiated by source countries at national and regional levels to set up databases where members of the diaspora communities interested in contributing to the development of their countries of origin can register. In addition, the EC worked to strengthen the source countries’ capacities to link with their respective emigrant communities in coordination with other donors and has funded studies on the potential of diaspora organisations as partners in development cooperation.

At both EU and Member States level, the contribution of diaspora organisations to development policy and practice are increasingly valued. As initiators of development projects in countries of origin, they have established themselves as agents for development vis-a-vis both policy makers and donors. As a result the latter have been gradually adjusting their funding requirements to the needs and capacities of diaspora organisations. Hence, the budget line for Non-state actors and Local Authorities in Development [6] is also open to diaspora organisations.

Diaspora-related issues are also mainstreamed into the migration and development items of the political dialogues with partner countries, for instance in the context of the Prague process, the EU-Africa Migration, Mobility and Employment Partnership, the EU-ACP dialogue and the EU-LAC migration dialogue to name but a few.

2.3. Circular migration

Whereas the 2005 Communication on Migration and Development highlighted some components of circular migration, the guiding source at EU level was the 2007 communication (COM 248/2007) on mobility partnerships and circular migration, where circular migration was defined as ‘a form of migration that is managed in a way allowing some degree of legal mobility back and forth between two countries’. Circular migration encompasses two different forms of movement:

• Third country nationals settled in the EU who engage in a temporary activity (business, professional, voluntary or other) in their country of origin, while retaining their main residence in one of the Member States;

• Persons residing in a third country who come to the EU temporarily, mainly for work or study, but re-establish their main residence and activity in their country of origin when their residence title expires.

Circular migration can be encouraged by means of a wide range of measures, including legislative measures and targeted programmes or schemes. The two options can co-exist, and even be combined.

The EU legal migration framework incorporates measures to facilitate circular migration. The long term resident’s directive (2003/109/EC) allows periods of absence from the EU without forfeiting long term residence rights. Long-term residents can leave the country for a period of less than 12 consecutive months without losing their legal status. The EU Blue Card directive on the admission of highly qualified migrants (2009/50/EC) allows Blue Card holders to be absent for up to 18 months without losing their long term resident status as a means of further encouraging circular migration. The Commission’s proposal for a directive on seasonal workers, which was presented in July 2010, also incorporates provisions to facilitate circular migration.[7] Provisions in national legislation in some EU Member States complement these efforts. In addition, at least fourteen Member States apply national legislation under which temporary work and residence permits may be issued for the purposes of employment. Four Member States issue permits targeting seasonal employment, which facilitate repeated back-and-forth mobility over a period of time.[8]

Circular migration schemes run by EU Member States or supported by the EU through specific projects enable some lessons to be learned from past practices.[9] These projects have usually been of a pilot nature, mostly small-scale, and mainly involving low skilled seasonal and agricultural workers. Many of them are therefore unlikely to make any significant development impact in source countries confronted by problems of high unemployment and poverty. Nevertheless, they can still contribute through the genuine empowerment of migrant workers and help to meet a clearly identified demand for labour. Often embedded in bilateral cooperation frameworks, these schemes remain a useful complementary tool to facilitate legal frameworks and other policy options to promote circular migration. A broader range of measures, which are equally important and effective, is listed in part 3 of this document.

Numerous EU funded interventions have led to a significant improvement in labour migration management capacities and tools in countries of origin, as shown by a recent evaluation of EC-funded labour migration projects (finalised in June 2011). However, it appears that the considerably improved capacity of third countries to provide information about legal migration rules and to accompany potential migrants is somehow frustrated by the current narrow avenues of legal migration towards the EU.[1] In accordance with the Stockholm Programme, a large-scale study on circular migration was undertaken by the European Migration Network and made available in 2011.[10] The study covers 24 of the EU Member States and indicates that, although there is still a lack of relevant data capturing this phenomenon, there is some evidence of actual flows, changes in legislation and projects showing that circular migration can play a role in responding to EU labour market needs, as well as benefitting migrants and the countries of origin.

2.4 Mitigating the adverse effect of brain drain

The 2005 Communication made some recommendations to help fight brain drain, especially in terms of human resources in the health sector.

The Commission published in 2007 a Communication on ‘Addressing the Crisis in Human Resources for Health’,[11] which proposed innovative responses to human resource crisis in developing countries. The subsequent EU Programme for Action to tackle the critical shortage of health workers in developing countries (2007 – 2013) produced a clear set of actions to be supported, aimed at enhancing developing countries’ capacities to train, manage and retain their health workers. The EU supports 51 out of the 57 countries that have been identified by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as facing an all out HRH crisis. Support includes regional research, capacity building and knowledge-generating initiatives as well as circular migration and other initiatives at global level.

The 2010 Communication ‘the EU role in global health[12]’ brings out the HRH issue: ‘On migration, the EU Member States should ensure that their migration policies do not undermine the availability of health professionals in third countries whilst respecting the individual freedom of movement and personal and professional aspirations. (...) EU Member States should step up their efforts to ensure that everyone — including migrants — in the EU has access to quality health services without discrimination’.

With regards to disciplining recruitment, the 2005 Communication encouraged Member States to develop mechanisms to limit active recruitment when it may harm certain targeted developing countries. Since then, the EU line has been to support the voluntary adoption and implementation of the WHO Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel, and a number of Member States have made advances in that field. The Commission also strives to persuade other important destination countries to work towards similar arrangements.

3. Towards a migrant-centred approach – next steps on migration and development

Based on six years of practice in migration and development, and on the views, comments and ideas received through the consultations to prepare for this document, it is now time to reflect on how to adopt a more migrant-centred approach.

The need for a migrant-centered approach has emerged on the basis of a gap assessment regarding the micro-level impacts and individual effects of migration. Human mobility generates several forms of capital — including social, financial and human capital. This requires a broader focus on the link between migration and development and the implementation of a more comprehensive approach in terms of transfers, which encompasses all initiatives that aim to improve their development impact.

Transfer of Social capital: Migrants develop and maintain social ties with non-migrant actors across different locations and they create networks that facilitate the flow of information, skills, financial resources, values, ideas, etc. Networks can link different groups, including migrant families, diaspora associations, or professional and business networks.

Transfer of financial capital: Together with the cost, speed, accessibility and reliability of transfer services, the level of information and financial literacy of senders and recipients influences their choice of the transfer channel. However, it has also been argued that not all members of a household benefit equally from remittances. Remittances could also aggravate dependency relationships between senders and recipients, reproduce income inequalities between migrant and non-migrant households, or even destabilise fragile economies.

Transfer of human capital: Migrants’ skills and knowledge transfers also constitute assets for development. These could translate into remittances, technology transfers, links to professional networks, investment and — arguably — a better integration of origin countries into the global markets. Promoting knowledge circulation can be an alternative way of sharing in the gains of skilled mobility.

Finally, migrants’ contributions to development depend on certain capabilities and rights. While migration can improve migrants’ wellbeing or increase access to social, economic and political freedoms, it may sometimes also involve a decrease in wealth and well-being, e.g. as a result of the separation of families or the creation of external dependencies. Therefore, the benefits of migration in terms of well-being need to be evaluated against its potential social, political and physiological costs. Ensuring access to service provision and relieving the social costs of migration would be a meaningful first step.

3.1 Remaining challenges and new ideas related to the ‘traditional’ migration and development areas

3.1.1. Remittances

Remittances sent home by migrants to developing countries are extremely important to receiving countries, as they are three times the size of official development assistance and often represent a lifeline for the poor. In 2010, remittances recovered to the 2008 level of $ 325 billion after having dropped to $ 307 billion in 2009 as a result of the global financial crisis. Flows are projected to rise to $ 346 billion in 2011 and $ 374 billion by 2012.[13]    

Despite the considerable efforts made at EU level since 2005 to facilitate and reduce the cost of remittances, it is clear from the above that much remains to be done in that area, both at the internal European level, and at the level of cooperation programmes.

Through the Stockholm Programme (2009-2014), the European Commission is requested to identify new recommendations by 2012 on ‘how to further ensure efficient, secure and low-cost remittance transfers, and enhance the development impact of remittance transfers, as well as to evaluate the feasibility of creating a common EU portal on remittances to inform migrants about transfer costs and encourage competition among remittance service providers’.

A study was launched in September 2011 with the overall objective of analysing the state of implementation of existing EU commitments with regard to remittances and of developing additional practical proposals. The study will identify the following pending issues: improving data collection at both the EU and partner country levels; making estimations of informal flows; determining the needs of migrants and their families; making a preliminary assessment of the impact of the implementation of the Directive on payment services (see above point 2.1.) on transparency and cost; and assessing the feasibility of creating an EU-wide remittance portal. Furthermore, a Commission study will be launched at the end of 2011 to assess the Directive’s implementation and impact on payment services on the market, and addressing amongst others the possible need to extend its scope to include payment transactions where only one of the payment services providers is located in the Community.

At EU level, efforts with regard to data collection must be maintained by Member States in order to put well informed policies and projects in place. The main reference for data compilers is usually the IMF’s manual ‘International Transactions in Remittances’: Guide for Compilers and Users’, which has not been adopted by the majority of Member States. Lastly, remittances data broken down by destination are currently transmitted to Eurostat on a voluntary basis only; reporting of these data will become mandatory from June 2014 onwards, in line with one of the recommendations of the 2005 Communication. Household survey instruments could also be promoted at EU level in order to embrace informal remittance channels, focusing on selected bilateral ‘remittance corridors’ to learn more about the use of remittances.

Greater coordination between all actors involved would also seem to be relevant, i.e. between Member States, the European Commission and the EEAS, the ECB and EIB, Eurostat, as well as with diaspora organisations and the private sector. The European Investment Bank could facilitate the securitisation of workers’ remittances or the issuing of diaspora bonds for the benefit of developing countries, in particular by helping to establish mechanisms for guaranteeing the credit quality of such instruments or by means of direct purchases. The ECB may also be asked to do more in relation to statistics on remittance flows (as in many EU countries remittances are compiled by Central Banks, as part of Balance of Payments), the efficiency of the remittance market infrastructure, and supervision. This would be an important aid in helping channel private funds for national development policies.

Finally, in terms of mobilisation and coordination of available financial instruments, the European Commission needs to improve the linkages between migration funding for remittances and access to finance funding, as well as with other geographical instruments and thematic budget lines (remittances can contribute to financing of projects in agriculture, health, etc.…).

With regard to cooperation projects on remittances in partner countries – both in relation with migrants based in EU and in a South-South context — it seems important to evaluate the results of those projects supported by Member States and the European Commission so far, and to identify best practices and scale them up. In order to be more migrant-centered, a multi-dimensional approach may be adopted:

At the level of migrants and those who receive their money, communication on the cost of transfer and transmission channels towards migrants could be further improved. Financial literacy was also clearly put forward as a new area to focus on, in order to help migrants develop the appropriate financial skills to identify investment-type projects that suit their needs and desires. At the level of households, especially on the recipient side, further reflection and proposals are needed when it comes to mitigating the potential negative consequences of remittances in social and economic terms, the separation of families, the dependency of those left behind or the impact on education and labour motivation. At community level, recommendations are needed on whether and how to support collective investment schemes which could be put in place by regions or countries of origin. The length of the ‘last mile’ or how to make sure that remittances can reach migrants’ families in rural areas could be further enhanced in cooperation projects, in connection with microfinance and post offices. Cooperation projects could also take into account the impact that different contexts and circumstances -, such as. disasters, conflicts, climate change, etc. - may have upon remittances. Finally, at national level, increased support to partner countries in terms of mainstreaming the remittances dimension in their migration and development strategies, capacity building in terms of data collection, the defining of regulatory frameworks by central banks, links to access to finance programmes and so on, would be useful. Discussions at regional level could also be supported. Some partner countries have started designing strategies aimed at supporting the design of social financial instruments underwritten by national or local authorities: pension funds, social/housing saving accounts, education saving accounts etc.

Increasing support to information and communication technologies should be considered, as these may enable more rapid and secure transfers and the development of science, technology and innovation, as well as the dissemination of the digital era to all sections of society, as key motors of socio-economic growth and sustainable development. The involvement of women in such actions would be an important feature, with the ultimate objective of their empowerment.

3.1.2. Diasporas

Although the EU has already made considerable progress in recognising and supporting the role of the diaspora in enhancing the development of their home countries and regions, key challenges remain to be addressed. Diasporas based in EU territory are heterogeneous, tend to be insufficiently organised and find it difficult to get their voice heard and to participate in policy formulation at EU level. Many diaspora organisations are not capable of presenting project proposals in response to the calls launched by the EC, as they are not properly equipped to handle the amounts within the range of the required funding threshold.

At the policy level, both the Stockholm Programme Action plan for the period 2010-2014 and the Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) Work Programme for 2011-2013 highlight the need to further include and cooperate with diaspora organisations in order to enhance the development of their countries of origin. This also includes the strengthening of migrant networks at EU level.

Diaspora groups' integration in the host societies has to be enhanced because it could also have a positive impact on their participation in the development of countries of origin. In this context, synergies between the migration and development and the integration agendas could be further explored.

Communication and coordination with local authorities, who are frequently involved in a number of development projects with diasporas, should be enhanced. The relevance of the specific realities where migrants live, work and interact with the territory underlines the importance of the local level of administration in dealing with the issue. Similarly, a comprehensive support could be provided to third countries that are willing to map their diasporas, while taking into account potential sensitivities, and maintain transnational ties and support diaspora entrepreneurship initiatives.

Formal or informal dialogue platforms with the diaspora to exchange views on both migration and development policies could be used to tap into the expertise of the diaspora as well as to disseminate information on funding and projects. While further capacity building could be provided to the diaspora in the territory of the respective Member States, strengthening the capacities of their local partners and improving the quality of their partnership would be even more relevant. It is also important that the EC should reflect further on its instruments, so that the procedures remain constant over a long period thereby providing an enabling environment for non state actors, such as diaspora organisations, including women migrant organisations, to become more involved.

The EU continues to invest in leveraging the diaspora’s contribution to development and seeks to better utilise their knowledge and expertise. Consideration will also be given to support for diaspora volunteering as well as diaspora funds put in place by partner countries. Through its support given to diaspora and migrants’ associations in transferring skills, the EU remains committed to a sustainable development approach, a gender-conscious dimension, as well as paying special attention to the unemployed and less skilled.

3.1.3. Circular migration

Circular mobility encompasses diverse typologies of migrants. This variety of situations could be  reflected in a definition of circular migration that encompasses both the role of a legal framework that facilitates such mobility and takes into account the added value of targeted projects in some cases, e.g. supported through bilateral arrangements. The concept of circular migration can thus be defined as repeated cycles of back-and-forth mobility over a period of time for the purpose of economic activity or study, which takes place within a legal framework allowing facilitated re-entry between two or more countries.

Greater efforts could be made in the future to actually achieve the ‘triple win’ situation traditionally associated with circular migration, while proactively doing more to avoid the potential downsides. The benefit for the migrant should be more directly linked to empowerment, training opportunities, portability of knowledge and skills, and enhanced employability upon return. The risks include separation of families, dependence on foreign labour markets and the lack of long-term integration in the destination country and reintegration in the source country. The benefits for the country of origin appear to be quite limited in terms of reduced pressure of unemployment on the domestic labour market, but the positive effects greatly depend on the quality of the skills and competences ‘brought back’ by the migrants and on the capacity of the country to make use of them, especially by targeting identified skills gaps. The gain for the destination country, and in particular for the employer, can be the access to fill labour market gaps which cannot be catered for by the domestic labour force. On the other hand, the risks include the costs when the maximum period of employment is too short for it to properly compensate the employer for the training investment and the time needed in order to overcome barriers of language and culture.

As far as circular migration aspects relating to the mobility of members of diaspora communities from the country of residence to the country of origin are concerned, many of the pros and cons are similar to what is discussed in the section on brain drain. In this regard, the legal framework at national or EU level should ensure that mobility is not impeded by legislative frameworks, employment conditions, social welfare provisions or tax regulations in either country.

Circular migration may be more suitable for specific sectors, such as agriculture or seasonal work, but it could also be relevant in medium or highly skilled sectors where there are identified shortages. Besides the importance of a legal framework at the national or EU level, measures to facilitate such mobility include close coordination and cooperation between national authorities, in particular employment agencies, employers and unions.

Both the source and receiving countries still need to improve their measures (or combination of measures) aimed at promoting and supporting circular migration, such as:

Legal framework allowing migrants to stay outside the receiving country for longer periods of time without affecting their residence status Legal framework allowing migrants to stay outside the source country for longer periods of time, without losing property, voting, or working rights Multiple-entry visas for temporary work purposes Preferential re-entry procedures for the upcoming season/work period for migrants who have already worked legally in the country and have complied with the terms of legal stay Bilateral schemes for the joint management of labour migration flows Portability of social security rights acquired in the country of destination Strategies and programmes set up by the country of origin to maintain communication with the diaspora and attracting diaspora members to participate in community and country development, including by making available information on investment opportunities and facilitating support to business start-ups and SMEs Pre-return information and support concerning investment opportunities, business know-how, recognition of formal qualifications and informal skills acquired abroad; Institutional joint programmes between schools, hospitals, or companies;

The two following aspects require specific attention and steps forward.

Lack of portability of social security rights is a key constraint to circular labour migration, and to labour mobility more generally, as it can significantly influence crucial decisions by migrants, such as those related to the choice between migrating and working legally or irregularly, or related to the sustainability of return and reintegration. In order to ensure fair treatment for third country national migrants, there are certain EU instruments covering the right of migrants to receive acquired statutory pensions from a Member State when moving to a third-country under the same conditions and rates as the nationals of the Member State concerned. These equal treatment provisions are found in the Researchers’ directive, the EU Blue Card directive, and the proposal for a Single Permit directive. These directives impose on Member States the principle of equal treatment in the export of acquired pension rights to third countries. However, if nationals of the EU Member State in question have limited rights to export pensions to third countries, the same rules apply equally to third country nationals.

Access to specific integration measures for temporary/circular migrants still needs to be improved, taking into account the total duration of time spent in the country of destination. The implications of temporary and circular migration schemes on migrants’ rights and protection are a major cause for concern in some countries. As temporary/circular migrants are often not eligible for any integration support, this may adversely affect their economic integration and the protection of their rights.

3.1.4. Brain drain/brain waste/brain gain

In the PCD 2011-2013 work programme, the EU set itself the target to combat brain drain by applying relevant codes of conduct on ethical recruitment, by assisting developing countries with the development of human resource strategies and the promotion of a safe and attractive work environment, by facilitating the temporary and permanent return of migrants as well as their reintegration, and by supporting cooperation in areas such as local employment, education and vocational training. Further initiatives included extending the good practices on ‘brain circulation’ from the Moldova Mobility Partnership to other Mobility Partnerships and including conditions for the retention of highly educated individuals in higher education mobility programmes, such as the Erasmus Mundus and Nyerere programmes

While the EU work is guided by these principles, lessons learnt from past initiatives allow further areas for reflection to be identified with regard to:

· Extending the sector specific approach on health that has so far been promoted to include other sectors.

· Assisting ‘drained countries’ in defining and implementing a more comprehensive policy mix, looking at both the retention of qualified staff still in the country, as well as the return and professional reintegration of qualified staff working abroad. Studies should be launched in order to learn lessons from and possibly replicate the various experiences of third countries which have succeeded in transforming brain drain into brain gain (IT sector in India) or in retaining higher numbers of highly skilled workers in key sectors (health workers in Ghana).

· In relation to the point above, supporting partner origin countries in their efforts to address underlying structural problems such as low pay, inadequate financing, poor working environments and weak labour prospects.

· Further cost/benefit evaluation of brain drain, in particular in countries voluntarily training a surplus of highly skilled workforce for export, and the return they receive in terms of social vulnerability could be assessed more effectively.

· The impact of measures in that field would be further strengthened by incorporating a clear gender dimension.

It would also be interesting to develop measures against ‘brain waste’, which is another challenge facing migrants that has not been adequately addressed by EU policy and does not appear in the Stockholm programme, although it may become a spin-off of the migration process.

To conclude this part, supporting labour market policies and decent work in partner countries is also an important strategy to help them attract and retain skilled workers, especially health professionals. The incorporation of strategies to retain skilled workers in political dialogues on migration with partner countries should be considered.

            3.1.5. Ensuring better coherence and synergies between migration and development at policy and operational level

Going beyond what was proposed in the 2005 Communication on migration and development, one key achievement of the EU’s efforts to enhance the synergies between migration and development has been related to the mainstreaming of development concerns into migration policy, and vice versa, at policy and operational level.

Migration has become one of the five priorities of the Policy Coherence for Development Agenda and of the 2011-2013 Action Plan. Extended Migration Profiles have been put in place in order to produce an improved and sustainable evidence-base on the migration and development nexus by collecting necessary data and analysis on migration and development, as well as to contribute to policy coherence by bringing together a wide range of relevant governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders.

With regard to policy formulation, development concerns are taken increasingly into account when formulating EU migration policy. The EU Blue Card directive, for instance, contains safeguards against the risk of brain drain effects, enabling Member States to reject an application for a Blue Card in order to ensure ethical recruitment in sectors that are suffering from a shortage of qualified workers in the countries of origin. The European Commission has also made considerable efforts in research and information gathering on migration, which have contributed to the formulation of migration policy. Wherever possible and appropriate, the perspectives and insights of migrants have been included when framing research questions and methodologies

As regards incorporating migration issues into EU external cooperation, there is clear progress to be seen in both the geographic and the thematic programmes. Between 2004 and 2006, the AENEAS Programme devoted € 120 million to the financing of migration related projects. Following the overhaul of the financial instruments for the EU’s international cooperation, the Commission has been implementing a Thematic Programme entitled ‘Cooperation with Third Countries in the areas of Migration and Asylum’ since 2007.[14] With the DCI regulation as its legal basis, it complements the contribution of the ‘geographical financial instruments’ by assisting third countries in their efforts on migration and asylum matters. Migration and development actions have been an essential part of both the AENEAS programme and its successor ‘Thematic programme’.

In addition, migration-related activities are increasingly being financed under other financial instruments, including geographical instruments (DCI, EDF, ENPI). This has allowed the EU to support the integration of migration into Country and Regional Strategy Papers of those partners which had identified the topic as a priority, such as Gambia, Ghana, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal and West Africa under 10th EDF. A € 25 Million ACP migration facility was set up under the 9th EDF, and a sum of € 40 million is earmarked under the 10th EDF.

Through its external cooperation and policy dialogues, the EU is now increasingly providing support to the mainstreaming of migration and asylum in national development frameworks of third countries (i.e. the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper — PRSP). Specific actions aimed at improving consistency between development and migration policy and the mainstreaming of migration concerns into strategies on poverty reduction and sustainable development (including climate change) have already been implemented. The EU has been providing support for mainstreaming exercises in Morocco and Ghana. Similar technical assistance for better integration of migration into other sector policies, funded through geographical instruments, is ongoing in Mali and is being considered for the Philippines.

3.2. Broadening the traditional agenda: addressing the social and human impact of migration on migrants, their families and communities

Recent studies conducted by the OECD, UNICEF and the WHO have also addressed the social consequences of migration. At the end of 2009, the topic was included in the Human Development Report, which was explicitly dedicated to the link between mobility and human development. The same focus was also chosen for the 2010 Global Forum on Migration and Development. Based on such deliberations it is clear that the specific social needs and challenges in the countries of origin, transit and destination need to be properly addressed.

3.2.1. Addressing the needs created by emigration flows in countries of origin

The extent to which migration can make a positive contribution to the social dimension of development in countries of origin is contingent on the presence of a supportive national policy context. Remittances alone cannot compensate for inadequate national policies and the adverse social impacts of migration. International partnerships for development should therefore focus on promoting favourable policies across the full range of relevant areas.

1) Impact on families and households

The impacts of migration on households and children left behind are many and varied, as family configurations naturally vary by region, culture, religious beliefs, social class and other factors. Nevertheless, there are common challenges that can be identified, and it is clear that the needs of those families deserve to be better addressed through social policy and enhanced cooperation with civil society and local authorities.

One of the main concerns is likely to be the situation of children left behind in households, especially when both parents are abroad. There are often no systematic actions by government to mitigate the consequences of migration or to assist those who are taking care of such children, especially in multi-generational households. Consistency in government policies on migration, education, health, child protection and social protection is imperative in order to mitigate the risks borne by children as a result of the absence of their parents. Measures could be considered to limit the potential negative impacts of remittances (dependence, dropping out of school) and to harness the potential benefits of remittances for the development of children and the family by setting up long term social investment instruments, saving and insurance schemes. For all family members who stay behind, it should be possible to develop targeted support services, including psychosocial services and measures, aimed at improving the access to long distance communication tools.

The well-being and empowerment of women who stay behind while their spouses migrate to find work requires targeted attention in the area of development cooperation. Whereas mothers seem to take over the main responsibilities for the household and child care when their spouses leave, fathers tend instead to rely on other family members. Moreover, male migration does not necessarily lead to more autonomy or empowerment for the women who stay behind, nor does it always allow them to become head of their household. This all depends on the social and cultural context in the respective country. Gender roles are usually a precursor to migration, and in fact tend to be reinforced rather than changed by it. The departure of a parent may allocate additional household burdens to daughters and mothers left behind and might restrict their right of access to paid work and higher education. The greater vulnerability of transnational family structures has been highlighted, bringing with it increased risks of  abandonment of the family left behind.

Moreover, female migrants might be more prone to sacrifice their own well-being while they are abroad in order to cater for their children or husband at home, and the share of remittances being sent back might be at the expense of their own situation abroad in terms of housing, health, insurance and integration measures.

In countries where the social security systems area is very weak or non-existent, most elderly people rely on family solidarity, for both financial subsistence and daily caretaking. This important social role of families in developing countries might be undermined by the absence of the economically active descendants, especially if they are in charge of younger children who are left behind.

2) Impact on social cohesion and human development

The impact of emigration on social cohesion needs to be further addressed, especially the need to adapt public policies to the social gap created by unequal access of households to financial transfers. This should also be the case when addressing the socio-economic impact of local large-scale emigration by people of working age, particularly in rural and isolated areas where the only alternative to this workforce consists of women, the young and the elderly.

In developing countries, social policy systems with weak universal basic social services rely heavily for welfare provision on informal community-based institutions and on family. Community and family networks often fill the void left by the State in providing protection to the poor. Moreover, in many regions the fiscal crisis of the state has meant that important roles have been assigned to community based organisations to implement targeted social programs. However, these organisations lack the capacity to ‘replace’ state institutions; moreover, they frequently reproduce local vertical hierarchies, thereby perpetuating social and power disparities.

Another aspect of this social impact analysis is the importance of addressing the specific needs of voluntary returning migrants. Returnees pose specific social and labour-related challenges that need to be taken into account. There may be a need to put in place mechanisms for the assessment of the skills acquired abroad, including those gained in an informal manner. There may be a need to reinforce capacities of the third countries' relevant authorities to provide retraining modules for those who didn’t work abroad at a level corresponding to their qualifications. It is clear that sustainable social and economic reintegration options need to be streamlined and better integrated into overall social cohesion policies.

Finally, from a structural perspective, migration may discourage economic and social reforms and contribute to continuing emigration. In poor households, remittances may act as a disincentive to making claims from the state, thereby reducing the pressure on state obligations or even public investment in infrastructure and social services. On the other hand, some partner countries may see migration as a way of relieving the pressure on the labour market by lowering unemployment, although the research shows that this impact is very limited.

3.2.2. Protecting the human rights of all migrants during their transit process

Respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU is a key component of EU policies on migration. Impacts on fundamental rights of any new EU initiatives shall be thoroughly assessed.[15]

The adoption of a migrant-centred approach reflects this need to ensure the protection of human rights of all migrants along the migratory routes, in countries of origin, transit and destination. This would encompass measures aimed at ensuring a better protection for vulnerable migrants, such as unaccompanied minors, asylum seekers, victims of trafficking, and stranded migrants, and the specific challenges of migrant women. A migrant-centred approach is also about empowering migrants, and ensuring that they have access to all relevant information about the opportunities provided by legal migration channels and the risks of irregular migration.

With specific reference to transit countries, the main areas of need are related to the capacity building of law enforcement personnel, assistance in managing mixed migration flows including through proper identification and registration of persons in need of protection, and the establishment of referral systems. The prevention, protection and prosecution of criminal acts and human rights violations committed against migrants, especially those travelling irregularly, constitute a further priority. Specific attention should be paid to the specific needs of unaccompanied minors, as well as migrant women and the incidence of gender violence.

Lastly, there is a need to ensure decent living conditions for migrants in reception centres in third countries, including apprehended irregular migrants, in order  to meet their essential humanitarian and health needs, and to provide basic health care and nutrition assistance.

This strengthened emphasis would be in line with one of the main conclusions of the Mid Term Evaluation of the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum 2007-2013, which underlined the fact that the EC had provided high quality technical assistance and capacity building to combat irregular migration, but that it could do better when it came to mainstreaming democratic principles and human rights. Migrants may indeed be vulnerable to abuses during recruitment, travel and employment abroad. Moreover, the money paid by irregular migrants to organised crime, smugglers and traffickers causes a considerable loss to development. Increased cooperation between all of the states involved, i.e. countries of origin, transit and destination, should be supported in order to mitigate these risks effectively.

3.2.3. Integration of migrants in countries of destination: building on good practices identified in the EU

Across the world, policy coherence is a key issue at national level for countries of both emigration and immigration. There is a need to combine the internal and external dimension of donors’ policies, labour market policies and immigration laws, as well as migration and development strategies.

Integrating migration into national development strategies is an issue that concerns not only countries of origin, but also countries of destination and transit. Often, developing destination countries are unable to ensure adequate protection of migrants’ rights. Although the absence of adequate legislation in line with international standards concerning the rights of migrants and the protection of workers is a key factor in many countries, even where there are proper legislative frameworks in place, factors such as weak enforcement of the rule of law, a lack of administrative capacity to implement it and a failure to acknowledge abuse of migrants or to take an interest in migrant protection conspire to leave migrants vulnerable to risks and exploitation. Initiatives aimed to improve respect for migrant rights should include a wide variety of partners, from civil society to local administrations, the business sector and labour unions. Wherever possible, initiatives should target the rights of both nationals and migrants; otherwise, problems of racism and xenophobia may be exacerbated.

At the national level, migration is usually dealt with by a number of different state institutions. However, these actors get together only seldom to discuss the issues at stake. Systematic coordination among government offices and inclusive dialogue with other stakeholders should be encouraged in order to further adapt social policies, especially in access to Health, Social Protection and Education. It is clearly essential that an inclusive economic development strategy in countries receiving migrants to should be more effective in addressing the integration of the foreign workforce into the local labour market, so as to avoid ad hoc recruitment through the informal economy, and to support entrepreneurship initiatives and actions aimed at socio-economic empowerment of migrant women. Social exclusion has to be countered by involving migrant communities more effectively into local life, including local decision making.

Decent work and core labour standards, as advocated by ILO, could be further promoted in many countries around the world where standards at the worksite or in regard of the working conditions are not respected, and where there are weak institutions or weak labour markets.

Any functional policy for the integration of migrants must be human rights based, and combating racist or xenophobic hate speech and hate crime, as well as discrimination, gender based violence and labour exploitation, must be mainstreamed into national human rights’ strategies. Access to justice for migrants and enforceability of rights are key issues. Achieving this objective will mainly involve raising awareness and building up the capacity of law enforcement authorities, labour inspection services and judicial systems. National and local authorities particular attention to vulnerable groups − especially unaccompanied minors, victims of trafficking or of gender based violence − as well as asylum seekers and refugees.

A comprehensive strategy on the integration of South-South migrants (see below) should also ensure a greater involvement by countries of origin, and a dialogue with countries of destination. It could support diaspora groups and consular services of countries of origin in third countries of destination, so that they can better attend to the needs of their communities and bridge the gap between them and the local authorities. This is one of the main elements for ensuring the enforceability of human and social rights, and strengthening positive outcomes from south-south migration for both countries.

The European Agenda for Integration of Third Country Nationals (adopted by the Commission in July 2011),[16] emphasises the need for effective integration measures to fully realise the potential of migration, and it also proposes that countries of origin should be involved in supporting the integration process. Best practices on integration in EU Member States could be shared with non-EU partner countries.

3.2.4. South-South migration

The South-South dimension is a traditional component of development cooperation policy and has to be seen as providing support to cooperation between third countries at intra- and inter-regional level.

Current estimates indicate that 40-60% of the migrants from developing countries reside in other developing countries. Almost 80% of South-South migration is estimated to take place between countries with contiguous borders; most appears to occur between countries with relatively small differences in income. For instance, African countries welcome around 19 millions international migrants, mainly Africans, creating opportunities but also new challenges to manage for developing countries.

Estimates of South-South remittances range between 9 and 30 % of the developing countries’ remittance receipts.[17] The impact of South-South migration on the income of migrants and natives is smaller than for South-North migration. However, even small increases in income can have substantial welfare implications for the poor, and cross-migration can improve the match between skills and requirements in the countries involved, thereby raising efficiency and improving welfare.

These findings suggest that policy makers should pay attention to the complex challenges faced by developing countries, not only as countries of origin of migrants, but also as countries of destination. However, designing appropriate policies will require considerable efforts to improve data, and a careful analysis of the socioeconomic impact of migration on wages, income distribution, climate change, environment, gender, health, and migrants’ rights.

The South-South dimension of migration is indeed a component that cuts across all of the areas mentioned earlier and should be properly taken into account in the EU dialogue with partner countries and regions, as well as properly addressed through development cooperation actions, including by facilitating exchanges between our partner countries on migration issues.

4. The way forward on Development and Migration:

Whether explicitly or implicitly, migration issues are part of various sectoral policies of any country, whether they be related to justice and home affairs polices, economic (including sustainable natural resource use) or social policies. The governments of developing countries take decisions to foster economic development or ease labour market tensions by means of immigration or emigration. At the same time, many countries do not have the strategic policies in place, but still need immigration and emigration for their economic development. The lack of a comprehensive policy framework may result in ad hoc and arbitrary regulations and substandard protection of migrants.

Many countries lack an awareness of the synergies and interdependencies between migration and other policy areas. However, in times of economic crisis, societal instability or even post-conflict situations, migration flows can stabilise or destabilise an economy and can impact on the social cohesion of the country. From an employment point of view, the scale of the informal sector in developing countries makes labour migrants prone to exploitation, trafficking and smuggling, but also to social dumping. Furthermore, the social costs of migration are considerable and, if left unattended, may outweigh the economic gains of overseas employment.

To tackle this complex set of challenges effectively, the adoption of a migrant-centred approach is an important step forward that needs yet to be developed further in a comprehensive and coherent manner in order to harness the potential of migration as a key driver of economic growth.

More specifically, it will be necessary to:

continue and deepen Migration and Mobility Dialogues with third countries, where appropriate in the context of regional processes, so as to exchange information, identify shared objectives and agree on common goals and actions; further assess the economic and social costs of migration; study/support the adaptation of economic development models to a global and evolving context in countries that are increasingly feeling the significant effect of migration flows; deepen the discussions on the link between migration and trade; further evaluate the experience of the coherence between national employment policies and active promotion of labour emigration and the extent to which global or regional mismatches between labour demand and supply may trigger international migration of workers; assess the influence of public policies on migration.

More focused attention should be paid to the debate on the connection between forced displacement and development, in particular the links between migration, climate change and environmental degradation. Poor management of forced displacement and inadequate efforts to achieve durable solutions for refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) may have a destabilising effect on weak national and local institutions, generate tensions between displaced and local communities, and lead to conflict, violence and further displacement. The search for durable solutions needs to address the development needs of refugees and IDPs, such as the loss of housing, land, property, resilience to adverse impacts of climate change, and a healthy environment, and to re-establish livelihoods and promote access to public services such as health and education. Past experience has highlighted the importance of supporting an integrated approach which offers development assistance to those who are forcibly displaced, returnees and the local communities.

The potential development opportunities of forced displacement for receiving communities in areas such as economic linkages between displaced and host communities, including trade, as well as improved access to services and infrastructures in remote areas of the country benefiting from development assistance should also be acknowledge and encouraged.

While not exhaustively, the above mentioned challenges demonstrate a broadening of the ongoing reflection. This goes hand in hand with the continued integration between the EU’s external migration policy and the cooperation framework, and vice versa, in order to arrive at a balanced approach which corresponds to the EU development policy objectives. For these reasons the European Commission will continue its work on migration and development both at policy and at operational level.


The migration and development pillar of the Global Approach is still taking shape, but significant results have already been achieved. The Stockholm Programme has provided for an Action Plan up to 2014 which can be supplemented with new ideas that have emerged during the public consultations and the assessment of the activities implemented so far. This document therefore suggests deepening the traditional areas of the agenda and broadening it to embrace a more migrant-centred approach.

Beyond the traditional agenda, the current reflection focuses on the need for a new paradigm which encompasses migration as a factor of development and economic growth in the medium and long term, and hence as a component of EU development policy alongside other sectors such as education, or health.

1) As to the traditional migration and development agenda, significant results have been achieved so far, but further challenges remain to be tackled:

Migration has become an integral part of a number of national and regional development strategies. Several partner countries and regions have received support to develop and implement their own migration strategies, to gather and analyse migration data, and also to strengthen the capacities of the relevant institutions. The EU will continue supporting these efforts to manage migration as part of a coherent development framework and in line with local specificities and priorities. Development objectives are being increasingly taken into account in the migration policies of the EU and its partner countries. At the same time, the migration dimension is being increasingly taken into account within development strategies. The EU will continue to promote the Policy Coherence for Development agenda, with a view to identifying the remaining barriers in EU legislation and policy, as well strengthening development capacities and mechanisms in third countries. The EU is widely recognised as a major player at international level when it comes to facilitating cheaper and more secure private flows of remittances to developing countries, while strengthening their development impact. The EC has launched a study to help propose new recommendations, and to assess the opportunity and feasibility of a common EU portal on remittances. More efforts should also be invested in capacity building with respect to partner countries interested in designing regulatory frameworks, as well as financial literacy and new technologies. The EU has strengthened its efforts to support and work with diasporas based in Europe that are willing to contribute to development projects in their countries of origin. It also increasingly supports similar efforts by partner countries. The EU will continue to invest in leveraging the contribution of diaspora communities to development and endeavour to better utilise their knowledge and expertise. The EU will also assess how to contribute more effectively to enhancing the value of migrants’ skills and a knowledge in their countries of origin, as well as whether to support diaspora volunteering and diaspora funds put in place by partner countries.

· Some progress has been achieved in mitigating brain drain’, especially in the health sector, while support for labour market policies and decent work in partner countries is also an important strategy to help these countries attract and retain skilled workers. The EU will further analyse examples of ‘brain gain’ and assess how to scale up successful examples, as well as how to fight brain waste’. Including retention strategies of skilled workers in political dialogues with partner countries could be an option to consider. on migration issues.

· Circular mobility has been encouraged by means of a number of national and EU legislative measures, as well as by specific projects. In future, greater efforts will be invested in actually achieving’ the ‘triple win’ scenario traditionally associated with circular migration. The ‘win’ for the migrant would be more directly linked to empowerment, training opportunities, portability of knowledge and skills, and enhanced employability upon their return. The ‘win’ for the country of origin appears to be quite limited in terms of reduced pressure of unemployment on the domestic labour market; it depends very much on the quality of the skills and competences ‘repatriated’ by the migrants and on the capacity of the country to make use of them. Even the gain for the destination country, and particularly for the employer, appears to be limited when the maximum period of employment is too short to represent a good pay-off to the employer for the investment training and the time required to overcome language and cultural barriers. Increased portability of social security rights should be promoted as a key incentive to circular migration and, more generally, to legal labour mobility.

2) Broadening the traditional agenda, the EU is working towards putting in place a more comprehensive framework to accompany and protect the migrant along his/her migratory route, which should also take into account the social consequences of migration.

This includes addressing the needs created by emigration flows in the countries of origin, in particular by increasing knowledge about by children, women and families left behind. and mitigating the adverse effects they face, while not ignoring the potentially negative social impact of remittances on families and communities. The EU also believes that additional efforts could be invested in accompanying sustainable return. This approach also encompasses the protection of the human rights of all migrants during their transit process by devolving efforts to protecting vulnerable migrants (unaccompanied minors, asylum seekers, victims of trafficking, stranded migrants) and to the specific needs of women; supporting the capacity building of law enforcement forces and referral systems; supporting the prevention, protection and prosecution of criminal acts and human rights’ violations committed against migrants, including those travelling irregularly; and ensuring decent living conditions for migrants in reception centres in third countries. Lastly, strengthening efforts related to the improved integration of migrants in countries of destination is a key component of this approach. There needs to be an improvement in both understanding and action in relation to social integration and the adaptation of social policies (especially health and education), environmental sustainability, economic and labour integration, women’s empowerment and gender equality, and combating xenophobia and social exclusion. In this regard, the mainstreaming of the specific needs of forced migrants in the development policies of third countries should be enhanced.

In order to make operational cooperation more efficient and to achieve these goals, efforts will be made to support EU delegations, including through specific training and exchanges of knowledge and experience on migration issues, to better coordinate and mobilise available EU financial instruments, including through more exchanges with Member States on their own migration and development projects.

The recent consultations held by the Commission confirm that the reality and the challenges faced by partner countries as far as the link between development and migration is concerned are much broader and more complex than the areas already addressed so far.

Migration has a significant impact on the development of non-EU countries. Several governments have based their economic development model partly on immigration or on emigration, often disregarding the economic and social costs and consequences that this choice entails as well as the cost effectiveness of migration in terms of growth and sustainable development. Numerous non-EU countries face migration flows that are essential for their economies, but lack a structured and targeted policy framework. Awareness about synergies and interdependencies between migration and other policies, such as domestic employment policy or trade agreements, is often lacking. The influence of a number of public policies on migration patterns is usually overlooked. In case of crises or conflicts, variations in flows are difficult to cope with and could destabilise economies and weaken social cohesion. The predominance of the informal sector in many developing countries contributes to employment of irregular workers with all the subsequent problems of exploitation, trafficking, smuggling and social consequences or creates conditions for social dumping.

There is a growing need to promote migration governance in a development perspective at all levels, from international to national ones, and to improve a common understanding of the development and migration nexus, including the economic and social consequences of policies, be they in migration/asylum or in other sectors. This argues in favor of a deepening of the current reflection.

[1] COM 2005 (390)

[2] COM 2006 (409)

[3] The Stockholm Programme: An open and secure Europe serving the citizen (December 2009)

Council Conclusions of 18 November 2009 (Policy Coherence for Development)

Council Conclusions of 18 May 2009 (support to developing countries in coping with the crisis)

Council Conclusions 11 November 2008 (EU position for Doha FfD Conference)

Council conclusions on the evaluation of the Global Approach to Migration and on the partnership with countries of origin and transit (November 2008).

[4] Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market

[5] One-leg-out payments are transactions where either the payment account of the originator or of the beneficiary is located outside the Single Euro Payments Area, i.e. outside the European Economic Area, Switzerland and Monaco. .

[6] More information can be found at: The Non-state actors and local authorities in development 2011-2013 Strategy Paper specifically states that ‘initiatives and projects may have a cross-border character and/or involve national communities living abroad (such as diaspora organisations).

[7] COM(2010) 379.

[8];?entryTitle=03_Temporary and CIRCULAR MIGRATION: empirical evidence, current policy practice and future options.

[9]‘Evaluation of the concrete results obtained through projects financed under AENEAS and the Thematic Programme for Migration and Asylum’ (published in june 2011, reference 2010/254-538.

[10];?entryTitle=03_Temporary and CIRCULAR MIGRATION: empirical evidence, current policy practice and future options.

[11] ‘EU Strategy for Action on the Crisis in Human Resources for Health in Developing countries’ COM(2005) 642 final.

[12] ‘The EU Role in Global Health’ COM(2010) 128 final.

[13] Worldbank, 2010.

[14] Since its inception in 2007, more than 130 projects have been approved for funding under the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum. Migration and Development is the second biggest thematic intervention area, receiving approximately 30-35 % of the allocated funds. .

[15] Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the European Union, COM(2010) 573 final.

[16] COM(2011) 455,.

[17] World Bank data, 2008.