METOIKOS Regional Workshop IV

Le migrazioni circolari in Europa: I risultati del progetto METOIKOS

Rome, 6 June 2011

The fourth and last METOIKOS Regional Workshop took place on 6 June 2011 in Rome and was co-organised by the European University Institute and the National Research Council in Rome. This workshop has had a double focus on circular migration between Italy and Albania on one hand, and on circular migration between Italy and Morocco on the other. Naturally the Greece Albania and the Spain Morocco cases were of great interest in highlighting the specificities of each case as well as their similarities and the common dynamics of circular migration in the different pairs of countries studied in the METOIKOS project.

The Workshop started with a brief welcome by Giuseppe Gesano from the Istituto di Ricerche sulla Popolazione e le Politiche Sociali del CNR while Anna Triandafyllidou, Coordinator of METOIKOS presented the conceptual framework [METOIKOS Rome Workshop presentation Triandafyllidou ] of the project, its definition of circular migration as well as the typology of circular migration developed in the project and how it applied to the six pairs of countries studied.

The discussion that followed touched upon our general understanding and knowledge on the link between circular migration and development in the countries of origin/return and the role of remittances that circular migrants carry (rather than send) with them. Circularity should not only be understood as South-North-South circulation, i.e. starting at the country of origin but also as a North-South-North movement. This is when well integrated long term immigrants engage into circularity with their country of origin either to take advantage of career or business opportunities emerging from their familiarity and networks in either country, or out of need for complementing their employment and income in the destination country with economic activity in the country of origin/return. Indeed this was an issue highlighted by the METOIKOS project findings both in the typology of circular migration and in the empirical findings on, for instance, Italy and Morocco.

The second part of the morning session concentrated on the Albania Italy case. Nick Mai from London Metropolitan University and Cristiana Paladini from IPSIA/ACLI in Rome (http://www.ipsia.acli.it/ ) presented the main findings [METOIKOS Rome Workshop presentation Mai ] of the case study on these two countries. Nick Mai noted that Albanian society is conservative and that the political and economic contexts are still unstable. As a consequence, returning/circulating migrants do not necessarily find an appropriate situation into which to develop new economic activities. Circular migration as a periodic return strategy from Italy to Albania and back again may develop as a migration success strategy – when students return temporarily to take up jobs in business or Universities in Tirana – or as a double failure strategy when circulation is the outcome of a failed integration in Italy. Indeed it is important to note that circularity may be an opportunity and a privilege for the migrant or indeed a double disadvantage. Also circularity should be conceptualised as an impossible or unsustainable return (for instance when a high skill migrant cannot find appropriate employment in Albania) or as a failed return (when the circulating migrant fails to secure stable employment either in Albanian or Italy and hence circulates with a view to complement temporary jobs and unstable income.

In the discussion that followed Professor Barjaba, a well known expert from Tirana University noted the shifting representations of Albanians in Italy, from invaders to neighbours, from usurpers to competitors in the labour market, from welfare scroungers to welcome contributors to the Italian welfare funds.

Professor Blangiardo, from Fondazione ISMU noted however that circular migration is only a tiny fraction of overall immigration between Italy and Albania.

After the lunch break Camilla Devitt of the European University Institute presented the METOIKOS findings [METOIKOS Rome Workshop presentation Devitt ] on Italy and Morocco. She highlighted the different types of circularity that have emerged rather spontaneously between Italy and Morocco, sustained usually by long term permits in Italy acquired after a period of initial settlement. The METOIKOS study on circular migration between Italy and Morocco actually highlights how circularity may emerge as a creative reaction of immigrants to a period of unstable employment and economic hardship in the country of destination.

Prof. Katchani from the University of Rabbat noted that circularity between Italy and Morocco could perhaps benefit from the creation of a regulated seasonal migration programme like the one that exists between Spain and Morocco. Carmen Enriquez Gonzalez from the Real Instituto Elcano in Madrid, responsible for the METOIKOS Spain Morocco case study noted the important role played by the Moroccan employment agency ANAPEC which is able to select the appropriate immigrants that are interested in circular migration for seasonal employment in Spanish agriculture – a crucial component that has made the scheme successful.

The Workshop concluded with a Roundtable on Circular Migration chaired by Corrado Bonifazi of the National Research Council, with the participation of Nick Mai and Anna Triandafyllidou from the METOIKOS Project, Jonathan Chaloff from the OECD and Paolo Attanasio from the Caritas research team on migration who authored the national report on circular migration for Italy for the European Migration Network.

Jonathan Chaloff introduced the roundtable discussion pointing out that circularity is not foreseen by the Italian immigration management policy and that the administrative system of Italy and of other destination countries does not favour circulation between the country of origin and the country of destination. He also noted that circularity may largely be developing as a response to the global economic crisis and the need of migrants to explore new employment opportunities also in the countries of origin.

Paolo Attanasio noted that circular migration may also be seen as part of the flexibilisation of the labour market and as a suitable response to the concerns about migrant integration and the fact that increasing immigration endangers social cohesion. He pointed out though that there is an inherent contradiction in this approach as the circulating migrant is certainly not integrated in the country of destination and does not favour its social cohesion. He emphasised also the absence of policy provisions within the Italian immigration management policy that would encourage circularity and highlighted that while in the annual immigration quotas of 2010 in a total of 80,000 positions available, 4,000 entries were reserved for circular migrants, in the 2011 quotas there are 60,000 permits available but none earmarked for circular migrants.

Anna Triandafyllidou took the floor after Paolo Attanasio and noted that the size of the circular migration phenomenon does not justify the policy attention paid to it: the European Migration Network devoted one of its two annual reports in 2010 to circular migration even though circularity is almost a non-phenomenon in most EU countries. She also noted that the METOIKOS Regional Workshop in Athens highlighted that circular migration does not take into account some basic labour rights such as the right to a paid holiday, the possibility of obtaining sick pay if one is ill and the transferability of pension and welfare contributions between countries so that migrants are covered in their old age. These are issues that have so far been ignored by the European Commission policy discourses on circular migration and the mobility partnership initiatives taken up by some countries in the EU with for instance Moldova or Cape Verde.

Nick Mai emphasised that migration management regimes should favour long term permits to stay if they want to encourage circularity. In addition at times of economic crisis a flexible system of stay permits in which migrants can switch from one type of regime (e.g. temporary or seasonal migration) to another (for instance as independent worker) is particularly important in allowing immigrants to face the crisis creatively and search for alternative employment and income sources, such as for instance through engaging into circular movements. In addition one of the challenges that governments face with regard to circular migration is how to transform it form a circularity of survival to a circularity of development.

Prof. Alessandra Venturini from the University of Turin and the European University Institute noted the need to think ahead on how to manage labour migration in a proactive way favouring parallel regimes of long term and circular migration. Professor Salvatore Strozza from the University of Naples Federico II pointed out that we could possibly create the ‘identikit’ of the migrant that choses circular migration as a strategy for improving his employment and income and the migrant who suffers circular migration because s/he has no other options of long term migration. Last but not least Corrado Bonifazi noted that circular and return migration are not new phenomena and that maybe southern and central eastern European countries receiving circular migrants now can learn from their past experiences as senders of immigrant workers abroad.

In conclusion Nick Mai pointed out that the policy agenda on circular migration is shaped by the destination countries while countries of origin are relatively powerless. Jonathan Chaloff argued that annual quotas and rigid migration regimes are clearly enemies of circularity. Paolo Attanasio noted that future research should examine what kind of human and social capital circular migrants acquire through their circulation experience and whether this human capital is utilised in anyway by the countries of origin/return. The Workshop was concluded by Anna Triandafyllidou and Corrado Bonifazi who thanked the contributors and the participants and indicated that the Guide for Policy Makers that the METOIKOS Project has prepared will soon be available in 10 EU languages notably English, French, Italian, Spanish, German, Greek, Albanian, Ukrainian, Polish, and Hungarian.