Presented by Bob Van Dillen, Chair of the CONCORD Migration and Development Task Force, the policy paper sustains that ultimately EU development goals on poverty eradication and the respect for human rights are being undermined by emphasis on border controls and security.
“Here at CONCORD we believe that a security-driven agenda drives EU decision making, which in practice means less migration rather than safe migration.”
The conference highlighted some of the key myths surrounding migration, and aimed to debunk them. Some of these were outlined by Sophie Ngo-Diep of ICMC Europe: “There is the belief that irregular migration to Europe can be reduced through development aid and cooperation. But development aid aims to fight poverty, and it is well proven that the poorest of the poor aren’t the ones who migrate the most in the first place.”
Here at CONCORD we believe that a security-driven agenda drives EU decision making, which in practice means less migration rather than safe migration.”
The aim of CONCORD and the tool currently being developed by ICMC to counter negative and distorted perceptions of migration is to create a counter narrative to the current rhetoric around migration: one that tackles misconceptions, shares facts and figures, and personal stories. As Ngo-Diep was keen to highlight, “there is a role that each of us can play as information transmitter and receiver, and the campaign aims to make sure this information is as close to the reality as possible.”
“Migrants are key development actors. Development potentials can evolve and be of benefit for both their residence and origin countries only when Human Rights are at the heart of migration policies” says Johannes Trimmel, CONCORD President. “CONCORD will keep advocating for rights-based migration and development policies to de-mystify misconceptions and avoid incoherence.”
So what incoherence are they speaking about specifically?
The paper highlights some key areas where CONCORD has spotted incoherence in the EU’s external migration policies.
The first of these is that “the security dimension continues to prevail”, which are undermining development goals both on a political, but also financial and technical level. At La Valletta, the EU Emergency Trust Fund to tackle the root causes of poverty and migration was of a value of a approximately 2 billion euro. In the report, it states that “regarding the 2015 EU Agenda on Migration, the European Commission allocated €89 million for its implementation, including €27 million for FRONTEX’s activities and a €57 million increase of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF).25 While the EU Agenda also proposed a new European policy on legal migration, ‘requiring enhanced coherence between different policy sectors, such as development cooperation, trade, employment, foreign and home affairs policies’, no funds were allocated to the development of this new legal migration policy, which is supposed to also of origin”.
Faced with these criticisms, the Head of International Cooperation and Trade from the Netherlands EU presidency, Carmen Hagenaars, rebutted that “we need to see migration as a structural issue, and we need to give it time. Development results don’t come from one day to the next.”
“The current policies are pushing people towards irregular migration channels by, on one hand, building walls, following restrictive visa schemes, hardly offering opportunities for labour migration, and on the other hand, contributing towards the conditions forcing people to move. The implementation of the newly adopted Sustainable Development Goals is an opportunity to reemphasize the need for rights-based EU external migration policies and to promote coherence with longer-term development objectives.”
Faced with these criticisms, the Head of International Cooperation and Trade from the Netherlands EU presidency, Carmen Hagenaars, rebutted that “we need to see migration as a structural issue, and we need to give it time. Development results don’t come from one day to the next.”
The second of these is that, “the economic self-interest dimension prevails in the EU policy approach to migration and development.” The differences made between highly-skilled labourers, and low-skilled labourers and their ease of access to safe and legal migration routes has led to instances of brain drain in developing countries. In Ghana, highly skilled health workers and doctors leaving for Europe ended up costing the Ghanaian government three times more in terms of education, compared to the remittances they received. According to Van Dillen, “at CONCORD we argue for brain gain, and brain circulation policies,” which in turn will help achieve the EU development and migration goals in the long-term.
We need to see migration as a structural issue, and we need to give it time. Development results don’t come from one day to the next
A third concern is that of the conditionality and instrumentalisation of development aid to serve migration management objectives. Following the La Valletta summit in November 2015, many civil society organisations (CSOs) were disappointed with the outcomes. “Our worry is that the trust fund sum of 2 billion euro is not enough. Turkey alone was given 3 billion to deal with migration. Also, the money was largely relabelled existing funds, taken from the EDF reserves,” stated Van Dillen
Not only that, but the CONCORD paper highlights how EU member states are using development aid to promote their own geopolitical interests. They set conditionality on development aid according to a country’s “willingness to fight irregular migration”. However, the logic guiding this policy is flawed: development does not necessarily reduce migration. In fact, it actually can create the conditions that make movement and migration rise.
Photo Credits: Getty Images
