On May 25th the Council adopted a directive aimed at facilitating conditions of entry and residence in the EU of third-country citizens for the purpose of highly qualified employment. In other words: the Council approved of the so-called Blue Card, an access card to the EU for highly skilled workers around the world. The Blue Card is expected to help tackle the aging problem and the shortage of highly qualified workers at the labour market. A possible positive development for EU member states, but what about the developing countries where the highly skilled workers are recruited?

The EU Coherence Programme has followed process regarding the Blue Card very closely and drew attention to the expected negative consequences for developing countries, as did several people in the Commission and Parliament and numerous NGOs. There are some remedies to restrain these consequences as much as possible. Member states should not be allowed to recruit employees in sectors that suffer from shortages in developing countries, such as health care and education. This is called ethical recruitment. Preventing brain drain in any way possible is also an important part of limiting negative effects of this EU policy on developing countries. Besides these two points, the highly skilled workers should not only be allowed to visit their country of origin, they should be stimulated in doing so. Circular migration could be very beneficial for people, but measures have to be taken to turn this theory into practice.
The proposal of the Commission, as presented in October 2008, contained these three clauses. The European Parliament tried through amendments to change the weak way in which the Commission referred to the problems and proposed solutions regarding the Blue Card. Unfortunately, there was no co decision procedure in this case, which meant that the Commission and Council did not have to follow the advice of the Parliament.
The Directive that the Council adopted this Monday is very similar to the proposal of the Commission. A problem with both documents is that the concerns regarding the consequences for developing countries and the proposed measures, are mainly not present in the directive itself, but only in the considerations that are stated prior to the actual directive. This shows very clearly which priorities have been set by the Council.
One big difference between the proposal for a directive and the adopted directive is that the Council deleted the mentioning of development objectives in relation to circular migration. But on the other hand: the Council strives even more then the Commission for ethical recruitment by adopting the following article in the directive itself: Member States may reject an application for an EU Blue Card in order to ensure ethical recruitment in sectors suffering from a lack of qualified workers in the countries of origin.
The EU Coherence Programme is glad to see that the final directive draws attention to the negative consequences for developing countries and establishes measures for member states to prevent this from happening. But we believe that, in line with the Parliaments opinion, there should have been more firmly statements and measures to ensure that developing countries will not suffer from this EU policy. Achieving the MDGs will be impossible for certain countries when all their highly skilled workers, for whos education they paid, are recruited to work abroad. The EU has a responsibility to take here. We therefore hope that the member states will do anything possible, through using the important clauses in the directive and preferably even go beyond that, so that developing countries wont be brain drained.
Relevant background documents
Commission proposal
Parliaments opinion
directive as adopted by the Council