FOR LABOUR MIGRATION SYSTEMS
12.4 Conclusions and the way forward
This chapter shows that almost ten years into the MP endeavour, the level of implementation varies considerably among the different MPs concluded. This can partly be explained by the varying degree of political importance accorded to cooperation with a particular third country, as well as by the context and point in time at which the MP was concluded. Although this chapter does not constitute an in-depth comparative study, it is apparent that MP implementation shows divergent levels of importance accorded to the four thematic priorities of the GAMM.
Most projects fall under the area of irregular migration, especially for the MPs concluded with Morocco and Cape Verde. This is consistent with the broader findings of the European Court of Auditors about EU external migration spending in the EU neighbourhood countries. This category also covers return and readmission – crucial priorities for the EU and its Member States in the cooperation with third countries. Projects on international protection feature primarily in the MP with Morocco, in line with Morocco’s own interests around its new migration policy (Den Hertog, 2016a). For Cape Verde and Moldova, this priority has limited salience in the MP projects.
The migration and development pillar has gained more importance over the years of MP implementation. More research would be needed to understand better how the link between migration and development is framed and applied in these projects. There appears to be a greater tension in this EU policy field, where some recent approaches, such as that of the EU Trust Fund for Africa, suggest a shift towards development over migration, i.e. the ‘root causes’ approach (Den Hertog, 2016b).
As the instruments we study here are called ‘Mobility’ Partnerships, it is surprising that the MPs have not created any serious mobility channels. There are a number of projects in this field, but they do not amount to creating such channels. It should be noted that Moldova has gone through the visa liberalisation dialogue and its citizens are now exempt from visa requirements for short-stay visits. We would also highlight that the implementation dynamics between the Commission, the Member States and third countries are shifting over time and that the implementation process is not static or unilaterally imposed or conditioned. This challenges a rational
IMPLEMENTING MOBILITY PARTNERSHIPS: DELIVERING WHAT? 103
or linear understanding of implementation – rather it is a continual back- and-forth about priorities, resources and actors.
There is a persistent need for more (financial) accountability in the MP implementation process. Specific project-level as well as overview data are often not publicly available and are difficult to obtain. A comprehensive, comparative and in-depth evaluation is crucial to understand how this key tool of EU external migration policy actually works. This is all the more important given the new approaches emerging in EU external migration policy that may risk falling into the pitfalls already encountered in the MP implementation process.
In particular, the EU’s new Partnership Framework and its ‘Compacts’ with several third countries could benefit from a critical look at ‘what works’ and ‘what does not work’ in MP implementation. For example, the proposed compacts with African countries focus on return and readmission. The first progress reports indicate that cooperation on return and readmission remains difficult.15 From the MP implementation process, lessons could be
learned about the productivity of putting these priorities front and centre vis-à-vis third countries.
Moreover, a thorough evaluation of MP project implementation could inform the new funding instruments set up as a result of the ‘refugee crisis’, such as that in the EU Trust Fund for Africa in particular. The trend witnessed there towards larger projects managed more frequently by Member States’ agencies should be evaluated against the success of ‘large versus small’ projects, and implementation modalities and actors in the MPs.
In light of these new instruments, the MPs are losing some of their salience as an instrument of EU external migration policy. That notwithstanding, in terms of implementation the MPs represent a tangible, albeit it varied, instrument in this field. Even though this chapter has highlighted that in implementation there is a lack of consistency, the MP does remain the instrument embedded in the four pillars of the GAMM.
15 See European Commission, Fourth Progress Report on the Partnership Framework
with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration, COM(2017) 350 final, Strasbourg, 13.6.2017.
104 DEN HERTOG & TITTEL-MOSSER
References
Andrade, P.G. (2013), “The Legal Feasibility of the EU’s External Action on Legal Migration: The Internal and the External Intertwined”, European Journal of
Migration and Law, Vol. 15, No. 3.
Andrade, P.G., I. Martin and S. Mananashvili (2015), “EU cooperation with third countries in the field of migration”, PE 536.469, European Parliament, Brussels.
Balfour, R. (2012), “EU Conditionality after the Arab Spring”, European Institute of the Mediterranean, Barcelona.
Brocza, S. and K. Paulhart (2015), “EU mobility partnerships: A smart instrument for the externalization of migration control”, European Journal
of Futures Research, Vol. 15, No. 3.
Carrera, S., L. den Hertog and J. Parkin (2012), “EU Migration Policy in the wake of the Arab Spring – What prospects for EU–Southern Mediterranean Relations?”, MEDPRO Technical Report No. 15, CEPS, Brussels.
Carrera, S. and R. Hernández i Sagrera (2009), “The externalisation of the EU’s labour immigration policy: Towards mobility or insecurity partnerships?”, CEPS Working Document No. 321, CEPS, Brussels. Carrera, S. and R. Hernández i Sagrera (2011), “Mobility Partnerships:
‘Insecurity Partnerships’ for Policy Coherence and Migrant Workers Human Rights in the EU”, in R. Kunz, S. Lavenex and M. Panizzon (eds),
Multilayered Migration Governance: The promise of partnership, London/New
York: Routledge, pp. 97–115.
Carrera, S., J.-P. Cassarino, N. El Qadim, M. Lahlou and L. den Hertog (2016), “EU–Morocco Cooperation on Readmission, Borders and Protection: A Model to Follow?”, CEPS Papers in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 87, CEPS, Brussels.
Cassarino, J.P. (2007), “Informalising Readmission Agreements in the EU Neighbourhood”, International Spectator, Vol. 42, No. 2.
Chou, M.-H. and M. Gibert (2012), “The EU–Senegal mobility partnership: From launch to suspension and negotiation failure”, Journal of Contemporary
European Research, Vol. 8, No. 4.
Den Hertog, L. (2016a), “Funding the EU–Morocco ‘Mobility Partnership’: Of implementation and competences”, European Journal of Migration and Law, Vol. 18, No. 3.
Den Hertog, L. (2016b), “Money talks: Mapping the funding for EU external migration policy”, CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 95, CEPS, Brussels.
IMPLEMENTING MOBILITY PARTNERSHIPS: DELIVERING WHAT? 105 Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) (2005), “Migration in an Interconnected World: New Directions for Action”, Report of the Global Commission on International Migration, 5 October.
International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2012), The European Union-
Moldova Mobility Partnership 2008–2011: Evaluation Report, Geneva
(www.mfa.gov.md/img/docs/eu-moldova-mobility-partnership- evaluation.pdf).
Koutrakos, P. (2011), European Foreign Policy: Legal and Political Perspectives, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Limam, M. and R. Del Sarto (2015), “Periphery under Pressure: Morocco, Tunisia and the European Union’s Mobility Partnership on Migration”, EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2015/75, European University Institute, San Domenico di Fiesole.
Qadim, N. El (2015), Le gouvernement asymétrique des migration. Maroc/Union
européenne, Paris: Dalloz.
Reslow, N. (2012), “Deciding on EU External Migration Policy: The Member States and the Mobility Partnerships”, Journal of European Integration, Vol. 34, No. 3.
Reslow, N. (2012), “The role of Third Countries in EU Migration Policy: The Mobility Partnerships”, European Journal of Migration and Law, Vol. 14, No. 4.
Tittel-Mosser, F. (forthcoming), “Reversed conditionality in EU external migration policy: The case of Morocco”.
Van Vooren, B. (2012), EU External Relations Law and the European Neighbourhood
106