1. There are no less than 70 million migrants in Europe
, or roughly one in eleven
inhabitants of our continent. They largely participate in socio-economic
life of host countries by contributing their skills to the labour
market or local community activities and drawing on social benefits
and services (such as health, education and housing, as well as,
to a lesser extent, vocational training) available, while also providing
often substantial financial help to their families in the country
of origin through a regular flow of remittances.
2. In the absence of a clear-cut European migration policy, individual
Council of Europe member states have adopted a wide array of measures
in seeking to assist the integration of migrants through employment and
social support. This variety of approaches allows countries to test
and adjust their policies vis-à-vis migrants in the light of evolving
national context and socio-economic circumstances. However all states
are also subject to universally accepted international law
that prohibits
discrimination in the labour market and the workplace.
3. The report by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population
points out that European countries are among the hardest hit by
the global economic crisis
,
in particular in terms of high and rising unemployment which tends
to hurt migrants more severely than the natives. As it were, the
least qualified migrants or those working in sectors most affected
by the crisis (the construction and transport industries, financial
services, property development, tourism, etc.) were among the first
victims of crisis-induced unemployment followed by the accrued pressure
on ‘economic’ migrants to leave the country or face the anger of
the local population struggling to preserve a shrinking pool of
jobs. At the same time, there is evidence that certain sectors in
certain countries – such as health care, elderly care, and education
– have continued to generate employment. This means that there are
job opportunities at all times for suitably qualified migrants,
which reflects the long-term demographic and employment trends in
those countries.
4. Arguably, some of the officially unemployed have joined the
ranks of the informal sector which bypasses social contributions
by both such employers and their recruits, or have become undeclared
– and thus more precarious – workers of the formal economy
.
This also implies the reduced revenue for the state and an increased
financial burden on social services (such as when the states seek
to live up to their commitment to provide minimum subsistence and
healthcare to irregular migrants). However, we currently lack reliable
data on this phenomenon. Although it is difficult to evaluate the
economic effect of irregular migration, it is most likely that,
given the current demographic trends in Europe, many countries would
reap tangible economic benefits from some kind of regularisation
of irregular migrants and greater openness to labour migration.
5. A fundamental question to ask here is whether in the light
of non-discrimination obligations states could make a distinction
between the migrant workers and the local ones. If all are born
equal, all should remain equal in respect of access to labour markets
and social services, thus fostering healthy competition for jobs,
as well as life-long learning and mobility. However, it is also
true that many migrant workers de facto belong
to the vulnerable segments of the population and hence are in need
of extra protection even in normal circumstances. Any one of us
upon loosing regular employment may be forced to move on to take
up a job in another country and thus become a working migrant.
6. Moreover, the meetings of the Group of Twenty (G-20) in 2008
and 2009
have
repeatedly highlighted the importance of restoring confidence, growth
and jobs with a view to building an
inclusive,
green and sustainable recovery from the crisis. Your rapporteur
believes that Council of Europe member states should resist any
temptation to turn to the protectionism of native workers and should
rather work towards demonstrating the positive qualitative contribution
of migrants to national economic development.
7. As one of the participants of the Forum “Remain, migrate or
return: what to do in a global recession?” that was held by the
Sub-Committee on Migration of this Assembly in Antalya (Turkey)
on 12-13 November 2009, your rapporteur wishes to underscore a most
valuable input of migrant workers to wealth creation and poverty
reduction in both their countries of origin and destination. Before
the outbreak of the crisis, the World Bank reported a steady growth
in migrant remittances worldwide (about 7-8% annually – more strongly
than national economies) and estimated that these remittances had
become a key source of global development finance as their volume
doubled since 1995, neared global net FDI (foreign direct investment)
flows and even exceeded ODA (official development aid) flows. Many
European countries (Germany, Switzerland, France, Luxembourg, Italy,
Russian Federation and Spain) are among the largest providers of
remittance outflows.
8. World Bank figures for 2008 and 2009 (estimates) show that
remittance inflows to the countries of central, eastern and south-eastern
Europe declined systematically and in some cases severely (by some
30% in Armenia and Azerbaijan, 27% in Georgia, 22% in Ukraine, 21%
in Moldova and in Poland, and 15% in Romania). This decline appears
to be bottoming out and remittance flows might gradually return
earlier levels over 2010-2011. If the inflows of remittances play
a minor role in most western European countries (where the share
of remittances in GDP is generally less than 1%), for many of the
so-called ‘transition economies’ in central and eastern Europe the
share of remittances in GDP varied, in 2008, from 0.2% in Turkey
and 0.4% in the Russian Federation to 31.4% in Moldova, 14.8% in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, 12.2% in Albania, 11.1% in Serbia, 8.9%
in Armenia and 5.7% in Georgia. This illustrates how important working
migration is to reducing income gaps between the wealthier and the
more needy parts of Europe.
9. It is quite interesting to compare the data on remittances
by the World Bank and the ODA flows by the OECD. For instance, in
2008, Serbia’s receipts from remittances were five times higher
than those from the ODA ($5538 million versus $1047 million). Similarly, receipts from remittances versus the ODA were, respectively, $5769
million versus $618 million in Ukraine, $2835 million versus $482
million in Bosnia and Herzegovina, $1495 million versus $386 million
in Albania, and $1897 million versus $299 million in Moldova. While
these countries are among the top six ODA recipients in Europe,
one can safely conclude that the contribution of migrant workers’
to these countries’ economies is far more substantial than that
of the multilateral ODA. Moreover, as migrant workers tend to save
more actively than the local population, they can, over time, dispose
of substantial funds for greenfield investment either in the countries
of origin or destination.
10. Your rapporteur would like to encourage Council of Europe
member states to look at migration from a medium- to longer-term
perspective whereby the benefits that the working migrants yield
to host countries become more evident. Viewed from a short-term
perspective, working migrants can be perceived by some as a burden
and even a nuisance to the host society but viewed from a longer
term perspective they can be seen as actively participating in structural
economic changes in host countries, such as by accepting jobs that
the locals might not want or where there is a lack of workers with
specific qualifications.
11. Just remember the story of a Polish plumber who for quite
some time focalised the public and media attention in western Europe
as a symbol of the influx of working migrants from the new EU member
states. Those who used such services probably did not care so much
about the origin of their service provider but rather appreciated
the quality and the timeliness of the service(s) supplied. Migrant
workers moved from the eastern to western Europe first and foremost
because there was specific demand for what they could offer, a sort
of a niche on the local labour market. This resulted in a win-win
situation for both service providers and end beneficiaries. Moreover,
these intra-European working migrants have proved able of exploiting
businesses opportunities by setting up companies and becoming entrepreneurs,
which no doubt stimulates local development in host countries. Without
their dynamism and economic input the pace of recovery across Europe
would be much slower. However their success has been made possible
by the open policies towards labour migration.
12. With adequate training and guidance from the state migration
and employment services the working migrants can ‘migrate’ to those
economic sectors that need additional manpower to stimulate recovery.
If ever such migrants wish to seek better jobs elsewhere or return
to their home countries, they should be able to make good use of
the know-how acquired through earlier experiences. Italy, for instance,
is experimenting a new scheme of residence permits with points that
is designed to provide incentives for a smoother, ‘carrot-and-stick’-driven
integration of migrants.
13. The Parliamentary Assembly should also explore further the
cost of integration as opposed to the cost of non-integration of
migrants.