EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 12.6.2018 SWD(2018) 339 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Interim Evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 2014-2017 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

on interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the Internal Security Fund {COM(2018) 464 final}

{SWD(2018) 340 final}

{SWD(2018) 341 final}



Table of contents Table of contents Abbreviations Executive Summary 1Introduction 2Background to the intervention 2.1Baseline 2.2Description of AMIF and its objectives 3Implementation / State of Play 3.1Description of the implementation processes 3.2Description of the implementation status 4Method 4.1Short description of the methodology 4.2Evaluation questions 4.3Limitations and robustness of findings 5Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1How effective has AMIF been so far 5.2How efficient has AMIF been so far

5.3How much simplification and reduction of administrative burden has AMIF brought so far 5.4How relevant has AMIF been so far 5.5How coherent and complementary has AMIF been so far 5.6What is the EU added value of AMIF so far 5.7How sustainable are the actions implemented under AMIF so far 6Conclusions and issues for further consideration 6.1Effectiveness 6.2Efficiency 6.3Simplification and reduction in administrative burden 6.4Relevance 6.5Coherence and complementarity 6.6EU added value 6.7Sustainability Annex 1: Procedural information Annex 2: Methods and analytical models Annex 3: Stakeholder consultation Annex 4: The Evaluation Questions Annex 5: Costs and Benefits associated with the AMIF



Abbreviations AMIF Asylum Migration and Integration Fund CEAS Common European Asylum System CIPS Specific programme Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and Other Security-related Risks DCI Development Cooperation Instrument DG HOME Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EASO European Asylum Support Office EBF External Borders Fund EIF European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals EMAS Emergency assistance EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund EMN European Migration Network ERF European Refugee Fund EU European Union Eurostat Statistical office of the European Union ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds ESF European Social Fund EUTF European Union Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa FEAD Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived FTE Full-time equivalent IOM International Organisation for Migration ISEC Specific programme Prevention of and Fight against Organised Crime ISF Internal Security Fund ISF-BV ISF Borders and Visa ISF-P ISF Police RDPP Regional development and protection programme RF European Return Fund SOLID General programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows SFC2014 Shared Fund Management Common System of DG HOME TCN(s) Third-country national(s) UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees List of countries AT Austria BE Belgium BG Bulgaria CH Switzerland CY Cyprus CZ Czech Republic DE Germany DK Denmark EE Estonia EL Greece ES Spain FI Finland FR France HR Croatia HU Hungary IS Iceland IT Italy LI Lichtenstein LT Lithuania LU Luxembourg LV Latvia MT Malta NL Netherlands NO Norway PL Poland PT Portugal RO Romania SE Sweden SI Slovenia SK Slovakia TK Turkey UK United Kingdom Executive Summary This staff working document (SWD) presents the main findings of the interim evaluation of the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF or ‘the Fund’) for the programming period 2014-2020, specifically covering the years 2014-2017. The evaluation assesses AMIF’s current progress towards meeting its objectives. The findings will inform the legislators and all stakeholders of its achievements so far, provide the evidence base for the Member States and the Commission to address weaknesses and take corrective measures to minimise their impact, and inform the design of future funds. Background AMIF was designed to promote the efficient management of migration flows and the implementation, strengthening and development of a common EU approach to asylum and immigration. During the implementation period under review, the migration conditions changed drastically due to the sudden and unexpected increase in migratory pressure on the EU’s southern and south-eastern borders. AMIF’s general objective is to be achieved through: (i) (asylum) strengthening and developing the Common European Asylum System by ensuring that EU legislation in this field is efficiently and uniformly applied; (ii) (legal migration and integration) supporting legal migration to EU States in line with labour market needs and promoting the effective integration of third-country nationals; (iii) (returns) strengthening fair and effective return strategies, which contribute to combating irregular migration and emphasise the sustainability and effectiveness of the return process; and (iv) (solidarity) making sure that EU States which are most affected by migration and asylum flows can count on solidarity from other EU States. Additionally, the Fund provides special financial incentives for EU States to support (i) the Union resettlement programme, which focuses on common EU priorities and (ii) a similar financial mechanism for transferring people under international protection from an EU State with high migratory pressure to another with lower migratory pressure. It also provides financial resources for the activities and future development of the European Migration Network. Resources mobilised by AMIF The Fund’s total initial allocation was estimated at EUR 3 137 million, divided as follows: §EUR 2 752 million for national programmes managed by Member States under shared management; and §EUR 385 million for the European Migration Network as well as Union actions and emergency assistance managed either directly or indirectly by the Commission. This budget was substantially increased through top-ups in order to support (i) relocation and resettlement, (ii) integration and return, and (iii) the resources linked to the revision of the Dublin Regulation as well as to show solidarity and share the burden with the most affected Member States. By the end of 2017 it amounted to a total of EUR 6 888 million, an increase of 120 %. Currently, EUR 4 567 million is allocated to support asylum and solidarity, and EUR 2 305 million is allocated for legal migration and integration. The support provided through emergency assistance increased significantly as well, from a total of EUR 160 million to EUR 1 028 million. Main lessons learnt An interim evaluation has obvious limitations, as the first projects only (barely) started three years ago. Migration, integration and solidarity are long-term endeavours creating an impact that can only be captured in a very partial manner after such a short period. A monitoring system with indicators to systematically track impact (particularly for integration) is also found to be wanting.

Based on the interim evaluation, the following main conclusions could be drawn: AMIF has played an important role in improving asylum systems and strengthening reception capacity in the Member States, and as a result of the migration crisis the area of asylum was specifically prioritised in many countries. The Fund also paid special attention to the most vulnerable, particularly the unaccompanied minors. So far, the results of AMIF have been achieved at a reasonable cost in terms of both human and financial resources, thanks to an effective management and control system that ensured the Fund was correctly implemented and irregularities were prevented. Overall, most of the innovative measures (e.g. simplified cost options, multiannual programming) are considered to be especially positive by beneficiaries and appear to have achieved simplification. Despite the large increase in value of the emergency assistance, and the emergency situation on the ground, AMIF continues to be highly relevant since it has proven to be sufficiently broad and all-encompassing in responding to these different needs. Most national programmes are still in line with the Fund’s general objectives and the Member States’ needs. AMIF has also proven that it can be complementary to, as well as consistent and strategically aligned with other financial instruments (especially ISF-BV, ESF, ERDF, EAFRD, EMFF, FEAD, EUTF, and DCI) and relevant key EU policy strategies. Overall, AMIF has generated important EU added value, despite the relatively small amount of funding it receives, taking into account the important challenges brought about by the crisis that occurred during this period. The main EU level benefit derives from the transnational dimension of certain actions but also EU level burden-sharing, supported in particular by the emergency assistance and the relocation mechanism. Sustainability has been thoroughly accounted for by AMIF through check mechanisms set in place at programming and implementation stages across most instruments, although to a lesser extent by the emergency assistance due to the nature of the actions. However, there appears to be room for improvement, especially regarding the internal coherence of the fund (among AMIF’s management modes) as beneficiaries are not very aware of the projects carried out within the AMIF framework. Similarly, the administrative burden appeared to be the main factor that undermined the Fund’s efficiency, including some control measures that appeared too stringent even if AMIF has led to simplification relative to the past. On the other hand, there is limited evidence of increased capacity to develop, monitor and evaluate asylum systems, and, while the EU resettlement programme has made big progress so far, there has been limited contribution towards establishing, developing and implementing national resettlement programmes. Finally, regarding the monitoring and evaluation system that AMIF created, in line with the Better Regulation guidelines, further improvements need to be made, for example, in the definition of its indicators and the collection of data.

Introduction This Commission staff working document presents the interim evaluation of AMIF in line with Article 57 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014, the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/207, and the Better Regulation guidelines. Member States submitted to the Commission an interim evaluation report on the implementation of actions and progress towards achieving the objectives of their national programmes by 31 December 2017. On the basis of these reports, the Commission must submit an interim evaluation report on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 513/2014, Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the European Economic and Social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions by 30 June 2018. The purpose of this interim evaluation is: 1) to ensure transparency and accountability in AMIF’s implementation; and 2) to help make the future implementation of EU financial instruments in the fields covered by AMIF more relevant, effective, efficient, and sustainable, and enable them to provide EU added value. This evaluation looks at the progress made in implementing the programmes, and assesses whether corrective actions are needed to make sure that the programmes are delivered as planned. It will also contribute to the preparation of the next generation of funding instruments (under AMIF’s successor) in the framework of the post-2020 multiannual financial framework. This evaluation covers all EU Member States except Denmark which does not participate in AMIF. The evaluation covers the period from 1 January 2014 until 30 June 2017, reporting on the actions supported under the national programmes of the participating countries, including specific actions and technical assistance, Union actions including emergency assistance and the European Migration Network actions.

Background to the intervention Baseline Ensuring a high level of freedom and security within Europe has been at the top of the EU policy agenda since the Tampere Council Conclusions in 1999. Policies such as migration, security and management of the external borders became a strategic priority at EU level through the priorities set by The Hague programme and the Stockholm programme and its action plan. These policies covered areas such as legal migration and integration, asylum, irregular migration and return (migration), prevention of and fight against terrorism and organised crime, police cooperation (security) and management of the external borders and visa policy, as well as the external dimension of these policies. The overall aim of these policies is to create an area without internal borders where EU citizens and third-country nationals (TCNs): ·may enter, circulate, live and work;

·bring new ideas, capital, knowledge and innovation; and ·fill gaps in national labour markets, confident that their rights are fully respected and their security assured. Cooperation with third countries and international organisations is crucial to achieving this goal. Home affairs policy priorities should also be seen in the context of the flagship initiatives presented in the Europe 2020 strategy which aim to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. To ensure fair responsibility-sharing concerning common migration and asylum policies, the EU has started to provide financial support to strengthen the area of freedom, security and justice, and to increase financial solidarity among the Member States. In this light, under the 2007-2013 programming period, the general programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’ (SOLID) was put in place, with a total contribution of almost EUR 4 billion, to support the development of common policies in the areas of asylum, return and integration, external borders and visa. The SOLID programme’s legal base has been built up through four separated financial instruments, following the way in which the different policy areas are regulated in the Treaties : the European Refugee Fund (ERF), the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals (EIF), the European Return Fund (RF) and the External Borders Fund (EBF). The ERF, the EIF and the RF, which have become AMIF, have supported the following objectives: §support and encourage Member States efforts in receiving, and in dealing with the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons, taking account of Community legislation on those matters (ERF); §support Member States efforts in enabling third-country nationals of different economic, social, cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic backgrounds to fulfil the conditions of residence and to facilitate their integration into European societies (EIF); §contribute to developing and implementing national integration strategies for third-country nationals in all aspects of society, in particular taking into account the principle that integration is a two-way dynamic process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and Member States residents (EIF); and §support Member States efforts to improve the integrated management of return in all its dimensions and provide for joint actions to be implemented by Member States or national measures that pursue EU objectives under the solidarity principle, accounting for EU legislation in this field and in full compliance with fundamental rights (RF). The four funds were implemented under shared management through annual national programmes, and under direct management by means of Community actions and Specific actions. Moreover, to boost security, the EU provided financial support to deal with and combat terrorism, organised crime, different types of trafficking and security risks potentially affecting EU citizens. The programme ‘Security and Safeguarding Liberties’ was put in place (with almost EUR 800 million in funding) and consists of two separate financial instruments, each following a different legal basis set out in the Treaties : Specific programme ‘Prevention of and Fight against Organised Crime’ (ISEC) and Specific programme Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security-related risks (CIPS). The SOLID programme, together with the CIPS and ISEC, were replaced by AMIF and the Internal Security Fund (ISF Borders and Visa and ISF Police) in April 2014. The main driver for creating the two-pillar structure was to contribute to the simplification, rationalisation, consolidation and transparency of funding in the field of asylum and migration. The table below shows the development (in size and scope) of the funds in the home affairs area, how they evolved over time, leading up to the development of the current generation of funds, namely AMIF and the ISF. General Programme Policy area Fund / Specific Programme Budget, Participation & Objectives Previous Funds (2007-2013) Current Funds (2014-2020) General programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows (93 % to 96 % shared management; remainder under centralised direct management) Asylum European Refugee Fund (ERF III) EUR 614 million , All Member States except DK §Support and encourage Member States in receiving refugees and displaced persons §Emergency measures to address sudden mass influx of migrants and asylum seekers Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) EUR 3 137 million (initial) All Member States except DK §Strengthen and develop all aspects of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) §Support legal migration to the Member States and promote effective integration of third-country nationals §Strengthen fair and effective return strategies and contribute to combating illegal immigration §Strengthen solidarity and responsibility-sharing between Member States, particularly those most affected by the migratory flows Integration of legally residing TCNs, legal migration European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals (EIF) EUR 825 million, All Member States except DK §Support the integration of non-EU immigrants into European societies Return European Return Fund (RF) EUR 676 million, All Member States except DK §Improve return management §Encourage development cooperation between Member States and countries of return Integrated border management and visa External Borders Fund (EBF) EUR 1 820 million, All Member States (including RO & BG and the Schengen associated states from 2010) except the UK and IE §Financial solidarity among Schengen countries §Manage efficient controls and the flows at the external borders §Improve management of the consular authorities Internal Security Fund (ISF) EUR 3 764 million (initial) ISF Borders and Visa All Member States except IE and the UK plus the Schengen associated states CH, IS, LI and NO §Ensuring a high level of security in the EU and facilitating legitimate travel §Visa and support integrated border management ISF Police All Member States except DK and the UK §Ensure a high level of security in the EU, fight against crime, manage risks and crisis General programme Security and Safeguarding Liberties (centralised direct management) Prevention of and fight against organised crime Specific programme Prevention of and Fight against Organised Crime (ISEC) EUR 600 million, All Member States §Crime prevention, law enforcement, witness protection and support, victims protection Combating terrorism and other security-related risks Specific programme Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and Other Security-related Risks (CIPS) EUR 140 million, All Member States §Protection of citizens and critical infrastructure from terrorist attacks and other security incidents The share of funding for home affairs in the EU budget was relatively small but steadily growing — in the period 2007-2013 it amounted to EUR 6.45 billion or 0.77 % of the total EU budget, covering not only the financing of programmes, but also the funding for large-scale IT systems (VIS, SIS, EURODAC) and the agencies. The spending during this period has been characterised by heavy ‘back-loading’ (deferment of payments until the end of the financial periods), increasing from EUR 500 million in 2007 to EUR 1.5 billion in 2013. The external dimension of home affairs policies was not covered by the SOLID funds themselves but mainly through the thematic programme ‘Cooperation with Third Countries in the Area of Migration and Asylum’ and other thematic programmes (approximately EUR 135 million per year). Results from previous evaluations and stakeholder feedback confirm that these instruments have been generally effective and that EU funding has added genuine value. Nevertheless, the EU has been facing a number of policy challenges, schematically collected in the table below. Asylum §The number of asylum applications varies significantly between Member States with some receiving higher numbers than their systems can handle when trying to process, support and protect asylum applicants, some of whom are particularly vulnerable such as unaccompanied minors, women, and victims of violence (including torture), and when trying to prevent the trafficking of human beings §At the EU level, the development and implementation of the CEAS was supported primarily by the ERF, which was created to promote solidarity and responsibility-sharing between Member States (including the voluntary transfer of beneficiaries of and applicants for international protection — ‘relocation’). The ERF also provided an additional financial incentive (EUR 4 000 per person.) to Member States who resettle vulnerable groups and people from countries and regions whose designation is based on Member States voluntary pledging). §Because the allocations for resettlement were taken from the total ERF envelope (12 %), the increasing involvement of Member States in resettlement operations reduced the allocations available for other actions under the annual programmes. §The ERF also did not provide any additional financial incentive to Member States for the intra-EU transfer of beneficiaries of and applicants for international protection (‘relocation’). Such operations would have used the available allocations, therefore limiting other actions and have been supported by the Community actions (e.g. European Relocation Malta (EUREMA) relocating 260 beneficiaries of international protection from Malta to 10 other Member States). §The ERF could not financially support the regional protection programmes (RPP) to increase the capacity of areas which are close to regions of origin, or which are areas of transit, in order to protect refugees through the three durable solutions of repatriation, local integration and/or resettlement. Legal migration and integration §An estimated 20.2 million TCNs were living in the EU in 2010, i.e. 4 % of the total population. Compared to EU citizens, migrants generally experience lower labour market participation rates, attain a poorer than average education and have reduced social mobility, all leading to social difficulties, the cost of which is ultimately borne by the society as a whole. Better integration would help EU’s economy meet the 2020 strategy objective of increasing the employment rate of the population aged 20-64 from the current 69 % to at least 75 % by 2020. §The integration activities were shared between the ERF (mainly reception and introductory schemes for refugees and people benefiting from other forms of international protection), the EIF (reception and introductory schemes for the legally residing migrants) and the ESF (European Social Fund, focusing on complementary support on access to labour markets). §There was need to more effectively target specific measures or specific groups of migrants who cannot easily be reached by mainstream instruments. §The EIF could not provide financial support for developing the EU ‘Global Approach to Migration’ (GAM), in particular the negotiation, signing and implementation of mobility partnerships. Irregular immigration and return §Because of its clandestine nature, it is very difficult to determine the scale of irregular immigration. Estimates vary significantly, with 4.5 million and 8 million irregular migrants living in the EU in 2009. Approximately 500 000 of these are apprehended annually, most of whom are over stayers choosing to remain for economic reasons. Critically, due to the free movement of people in the Schengen area, the burden of dealing with irregular immigration does not necessarily fall on the country of entry but rather on the destination Member States, with some receiving numbers disproportionate to their capacity to detect, regularise or return such migrants. §Assisted return is also significantly more cost-effective than forced returns or deportations (more than 66 % less expensive than forced returns when reintegration assistance is taken into account). As a result, Member States felt the need for a comprehensive and sustainable approach to the return process with pre- and post-return (reintegration measures). §There has also been a need for increased cooperation and coordination in return operations as acknowledged by the increased budget of Frontex that is dedicated to joint return operations (from EUR 5.2 million in 2009 to EUR 10 million in 2011). §The RF did not provide financial incentives to help third countries cope with the financial burden of readmitting irregular migrants (in the framework of readmission agreements), either in terms of reintegrating their own nationals or onward readmission of third-country nationals to their countries of origin.

The four different SOLID funds complemented each other and provided a holistic approach to the EU asylum and migration system. However, there were drawbacks, identified by the interim and ex post evaluations, by the special reports of the European Court of Auditors, as well as during the Commission’s impact assessment accompanying its proposals for the 2014-2020 generation of home affairs funds. Those drawbacks included: §a lack of proper flexibility and high administrative burden on both the Commission and the Member States due to the annual programming; §a lack of effective monitoring and evaluation systems and common indicators with measurable targets; and §delays in providing evaluation reports at Member States and Commission level, which carried the risk that activities were not suitably strengthened where they were most needed. This staff working document also analyses the extent to which the recommendations that came out of the ex post evaluations of SOLID have been taken into account in AMIF (see table below). Ex post evaluations of SOLID What has AMIF addressed and how §Formulation of national priorities was too broad with a complex architecture in terms of articulation between general and speciﬁc objectives, and between general objective and specific priorities §Limited flexibility due to the annual programming that does not allow the funds to be adapted to the objectives and the changing needs of Member States §Simpliﬁcation of the architecture — four specific objectives supported by additional national objectives §Shift towards multiannual programme to offer more ﬂexibility and significantly reduce administrative burden towards a more results-driven management of the fund §National programmes (national programmes) based on outcomes of a policy dialogue between the Commission and the Member States to ensure priorities are relevant §More emphasis on strategic programming through follow-up of those Member States facing implementation difficulties, and a mid-term review on the situation of each Member States to allow for adaptation §Eligibility limitations that prevented the implementation of some actions that could have addressed the identified needs (e.g. the scope of the target group which did not include TCNs residing legally on the territory of Member States but wishing to return to their country of origin under the RF or the limited interpretation of the ‘newly arrived’ target group in the EIF) §A single fund to cover all migration matters which is expected to reduce the administrative burden placed on Member States and the Commission §Expansion of the target group to include third-country nationals enjoying the right to stay, legal residence and/or international protection or temporary protection for people who wish to voluntarily return to their country of origin §Distribution key updated regularly (Member States found it too burdensome, and was still not able to respond to the EU’s needs on convergence, solidarity, CEAS development and unforeseen crises §Lack of efficiency in supporting less experienced Member States or those facing difficulties in implementing their management and monitoring systems §Limited solidarity and responsibility-sharing §Distribution key for the allocations revised, although it still does not completely address the significant changes in migration flows across Europe §Burden-sharing is incentivised through a 90 % co-financing rate in national programmes (specific actions) §An emergency mechanism that focuses on pressing issues and where needs are the largest §Absence of common monitoring and evaluation mechanisms §Limited comparability of data §An obligatory common indicator that requires Member States to have established monitoring and evaluation systems with formally designated bodies before receiving funds §Member States provide more information on the coherence and complementary of the funds §High administrative burden §For a detailed analysis, see sub-chapter 5.3 Description of AMIF and its objectives In a nutshell AMIF co-finances national and EU actions that aim to promote the efficient management of migration flows, as well as implement, strengthen and develop a common EU approach to asylum and migration, such as receiving asylum seekers and refugees, the resettlement and integration of third-country nationals and the return of those ordered to leave EU territory. 1.1.1AMIF The legal basis of AMIF is Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 (the Specific Regulation), adopted by the European Parliament and the Council. The legal basis for each of these institutions to act in this area is set out in Articles 78(2), and 79(2) and (4) TFEU. In addition, general provisions for both AMIF and the ISF are laid down in Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 (Horizontal Regulation). These two are then complemented by many delegated and implementing regulations, including the Commission’s Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/207 on the common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF Regulation). AMIF’s aim is to promote the efficient management of migration flows and implement, strengthen and develop a common EU approach to asylum and immigration. All Member States, with the exception of DK,contribute to implementing AMIF. Considering the evolving needs and challenges related to the migration crisis and security concerns, its budget was substantially increased; its initial allocation has been more than doubled. The following analysis on AMIF’s needs should be read in correlation with the answer to the evaluation question on relevance in sub-chapter 5.3. Needs addressed by AMIF The overview of challenges faced by Member States and the EU in the area of home affairs in the previous period 2007-2013 and presented in Table 2 above, could be translated in the following needs that AMIF tries to address: §Asylum: the need for a joint approach to guarantee high standards of protection for refugees, while ensuring fair and effective procedures throughout the EU and preventing them from being abused; §Legal migration and integration: a uniform application of the EU legal framework for legal migration, taking into account the integration needs of third-country nationals and legal residents;

§Return: a harmonised application of fair and effective return strategies which could contribute to combating irregular migration; §Solidarity: a common approach to solidarity and responsibility-sharing, in particular towards those Member States most affected by migration and asylum flows. AMIF’s general and specific objectives As set out in Article 3 of the Specific Regulation, the general objective of the Fund; ‘…shall be to contribute to the efficient management of migration flows and to the implementation, strengthening and development of the common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection and the common immigration policy, while fully respecting the rights and principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’. This objective further breaks down in four specific objectives on asylum, legal migration and integration, return, solidarity: Specific Objective 1: Developing the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) ‘strengthen and develop all aspects of the CEAS, including its external dimension’ The EU had been working on creating a CEAS since 1999, with a view to granting fair and equal treatment to asylum‐seekers across the EU. The backbone of the CEAS is provided by five legislative acts: §The EURODAC Regulation establishes an EU asylum fingerprint database to help Member States process applications. §The Dublin II Regulation identifies the Member States in charge of handling an asylum request, which is in principle the first EU country that the applicant enters. It also governs relations between Member States in this field. §The Reception Conditions Directive (RCD) sets common standards for asylum seekers’ living conditions (e.g. access to food, housing and healthcare). §The Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) establishes common standards in procedural rules, including safeguards and guarantees. §The Qualification Directive (QD) sets common grounds for granting asylum in order to avoid different outcomes concerning a given request, depending on the Member States that handles it. Strengthening and developing all aspects of the CEAS, including its external dimension, has become a priority and is based on three pillars: §bringing more harmonisation to standards of protection by aligning the asylum legislation of Member States; §effective and well-supported practical cooperation; and §increased solidarity and sense of responsibility among EU Member States as well as between EU and third countries. Member States are asked to dedicate 20 % of their share of the Fund towards supporting the efficient and uniform application of the CEAS. In light of this, AMIF supports the reception and asylum system by focusing on third-country nationals, including refugees, asylum seekers and resettled third-country nationals. AMIF funds actions aimed at strengthening Member States’ capacity to develop, monitor and evaluate their asylum policies and procedures or actions aimed at resettling and transferring applicants for, and beneficiaries of, international protection, and other ad hoc humanitarian admission. Specific Objective 2: Supporting legal migration to the EU and promoting the integration of non-EU nationals ‘support legal migration to the Member States in accordance with their economic and social needs, such as labour market needs, while safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and to promote the effective integration of third-country nationals’

There were 20.7 million non-EU-nationals residing in the EU in 2016, representing 4 % of the EU-28 population. Their integration is thus considered a cornerstone EU objective and constitutes a necessary part of the EU’s goal of promoting economic growth, social cohesion and sustainable development in a climate of safety and security. Member States need to allocate 20 % of the Fund to supporting national integration strategies and actions to enable local authorities and civil society to engage in the process of encouraging integration and mutual trust. Similarly, AMIF supports legal migration to the EU in line with Member States labour market needs. Specific Objective 3: Combating irregular migration by strengthening fair and effective return strategies ‘enhance fair and effective return strategies in the Member States which contribute to combating illegal immigration, with an emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin and transit’ Under this objective, AMIF supports actions that strengthen fair and effective return strategies and contribute to combating irregular migration, with an emphasis on the sustainability and effectiveness of the return process. Some of these actions include: §strengthening the capacity to develop effective and sustainable return policies; §improving operational cooperation between the authorities involved in the return process; §supporting cooperation between third countries and Member States, including strengthening third countries’ capacities to conduct readmission and reintegration activities; and §running information campaigns in third countries aimed at raising awareness of the risks of illegal immigration. Specific measures aim to: §develop and improve alternatives to detention; §provide social assistance, information or counselling, legal aid and language assistance; §prepare return operations; §exchanging information on the situation in countries of return, best practice, and shared experiences; §pool resources between Member States; §assist with voluntary return; §improve facilities and services for migrants in third countries ensuring temporary accommodation and reception upon arrival; and §provide specific assistance for vulnerable persons. Specific Objective 4: Strengthening a mechanism of solidarity to cope with migration and the migrant crisis among Member States, particularly those most affected ‘enhance solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States, in particular towards those most affected by migration and asylum flows, including through practical cooperation’ At the core of the fund is the willingness to ensure a solidarity mechanism between Member States most affected by migration and asylum flows and other EU States. For example, Member States receive a lump sum for each person who is effectively resettled on their territory from a third country under the Union resettlement programme, as well as for each time they accept someone who is under international protection from another EU Member States.

Finally, AMIF financially supports the European Migration Network (EMN), which provides data on migration and asylum to facilitate policy making in EU institutions and state authorities. Target group and beneficiaries of AMIF The target group for AMIF actions include: §those who enjoy refugee status or subsidiary protection status within the meaning of Directive 2011/95/EU (Qualification Directive); §those who have applied for one of the forms of international protection referred to in the above point and have not yet received a final decision; §those who enjoy temporary protection within the meaning of Directive 2001/55/EC (Temporary Protection Directive); §those who are being or have been resettled in or transferred from an Member States; §TCNs who are residing legally or, where appropriate, are in the process of acquiring legal residence in an Member States; §TCNs who have not yet received a final negative decision on their request to stay, their legal residence and/or international protection in an Member States, and who may choose to make use of voluntary return; §TCNs enjoying the right to stay, legal residence and/or international protection within the meaning of Directive 2011/95/EU, or temporary protection within the meaning of Directive 2001/55/EC in an Member States, and who have chosen to make use of voluntary return; §TCNs who are present in an Member States and do not or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry and/or staying in an Member States, including those TCNs whose removal has been postponed in accordance with Directive 2008/115/EC (Return Directive); §People from a country or region designated for the implementation of a regional protection programme; §People from a country or region which has been identified in the UNHCR resettlement forecast and where EU common action would have a significant impact on addressing the protection needs; and §People belonging to a specific category falling within the UNHCR resettlement criteria. This means that the Fund’s beneficiaries — those implementing the actions supported by the Fund — range from national, federal, regional or local public authorities to international organisations, non-governmental organisations in civil society, humanitarian organisations, private and public law companies, education and research organisations. Eligible actions The eligible actions under AMIF are listed in Articles 5 to 13, Article 20 and Annex II of the Specific Regulation. These include: (i) providing support services and assistance, (ii) setting up and improving administrative structures, (iii) training for staff, (iv) establishing and developing reception, accommodation and transit centres, (v) information for local communities, (vi) actions concerning resettlement and humanitarian admission programmes, and (vii) setting up of transnational cooperation networks and pilot projects, etc. The eligible actions under technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission and the technical assistance at the initiative of the Member States are listed in Articles 9 and 20 of the Horizontal Regulation. These include: (i) expenditure relating to preparing, selecting, appraising, managing and monitoring the programme, actions or projects or audits and on-the-spot checks, (ii) strengthening the administrative capacity, (iii) information and dissemination, and (iv) computerised systems for managing, monitoring and evaluating the programme, etc. Financial allocations, top-ups and management modes AMIF is implemented through (i) shared management in shared responsibility with the Member States, (ii) direct management by the Commission or indirect management by an entrusted third party, and (iii) the EMN that disseminates objective and reliable data on migration and asylum. A more detailed description can be found in sub-chapter 3.1 on page 18.

The total resources for AMIF’s implementation period 2014-2020 have been initially estimated at EUR 3 137 million, so divided: §EUR 2 752 million or 88 % of the total amount, managed by Member States under the framework of multiannual national programmes (shared management) and of which EUR 360 million dedicated to specific actions for the Union resettlement programme; §EUR 385 million or 12 %, managed by the Commission under annual work programmes focusing on Union actions, Emergency assistance (EMAS), the EMN and technical assistance of the Commission (direct or indirect management). In response to the unforeseen needs provoked by the migration crisis of 2015 and 2016, this budget was substantially increased through top-ups to support the relocation and resettlement, integration and return, the revision of the Dublin Regulation, channelled through the national programmes, the Union actions and EMAS and in order to show solidarity and share the burden with the most affected Member States. By the end of 2017, these top-ups increased the AMIF budget from EUR 3 751 million to the current total of EUR 6 888 million, representing an increase of 120 %. As a result, current AMIF resources are approximatively as follows: §EUR 5 391 million or 78 % allocated for the national programmes; §EUR 462 million or 7 % for the Union actions other than EMAS; §EUR 1 029 or 15 % for EMAS. 1.1.2AMIF’s intervention logic The table below, based on the legal basis, presents the key aspects of the functioning of the Fund, including the policy areas that it covers and the specific needs and objectives that it seeks to address, all in correlation with the EU resources allocated. In setting out the causal links between AMIF’s activities, outputs, results and impacts, the intervention logic helps to make clear what the Fund is aiming to achieve, how it will achieve it and with what.



2Implementation / State of Play Description of the implementation processes AMIF is implemented either directly by the Commission (direct management), by the Member States (shared management), or indirectly by entrusting the budget implementation to a third party (indirect management). For shared management, at the beginning of the programming period, all Member States had a policy dialogue with the Commission to enable the national programmes to be the prepared. Based on the outcome of these dialogues, the Member States proposed their multiannual national programmes. The Commission examined these programmes, consulted relevant agencies and eventually approved each national programme. To implement their national programmes, Member States had to set up a management and control system. The Commission follows the implementation under shared management by examining the annual implementation reports and accounts submitted yearly by the Member States. Member States are expected to submit two national evaluation reports: an interim evaluation report by the end of 2017 and an ex post evaluation report by the end of 2023. The Commission takes these reports into account in its interim and ex post evaluations of the Fund which are sent to the European Parliament, to the Council of the EU, to the European Economic and Social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions by 30 June 2018 and 20 June 2024 respectively. In light of the interim evaluation reports submitted by the Member States, and developments in EU policies and in the Member States, a mid-term review of the situation is planned for the middle of the programming period, i.e. 2018 (Art. 15 of the Horizontal Regulation). Based on the outcome, national programmes can be revised and additional available resources can be allocated to those. Within the national programmes, Member States are required to allocate a minimum of 20 % of their total allocation of the Fund to asylum and reception, i.e. strengthening and developing all aspects of the CEAS, and 20 % to integration, i.e. in support of legal migration and integration of TCNs. Member States may depart from those minimum percentages only where (i) a detailed explanation is included as to why allocating resources below this level does not jeopardise the achievement of the objective, and (ii) if the Member States is not faced with structural deficiencies in the area of accommodation, infrastructure and services.

A small part was initially allocated to Member States so they could (i) transfer beneficiaries of international protection, (ii) implement the Union resettlement programme, and (iii) implement specific actions (actions implemented under the national programmes, although they respond to specific EU strategic priorities). In the case of resettlement, the allocation is based on pledging (the number of people identified by a Member States to be resettled, to take place every two years). The funding for specific actions is allocated based on proposals submitted by the Member States, when the Commission invites them to do so. In order to respond to the migration crisis, show solidarity and share the burden with those under the most pressure, the Council adopted two decisions on relocating asylum seekers from Italy and Greece to other Member States where their asylum applications would be processed (see also sub-chapter 3.2.1 below). A small amount of money equal to 5.5 % of the total national allocation plus EUR 1 million is reserved in the national programmes for technical assistance. Moreover, each Member States needs to establish a partnership with relevant stakeholders including, other public authorities, international organisations, NGOs and social partners, in order to prepare, implement, monitor and evaluate the national programmes. Stakeholders meet regularly in a monitoring committee set up to follow the national programme’s implementation. The share of the budget managed by the Commission is subject to annual work programmes (annual work programmes) for Union actions. This share comprises: §grants (awarded on the basis of open or restricted calls for proposals or directly); §procurement (awarded on the basis of calls for tender or framework contracts); and §delegation agreements (actions that are entrusted to third parties). The projects selected receive in co-financing a maximum of 90 % of the eligible costs. EMAS is considered a specific type of Union action. In addition, the EMN plays an essential role in better equipping the EU to respond to the challenges on migration and asylum, by providing policymakers and the wider public with up-to-date, objective, reliable and comparable information in these areas. Dissemination of information takes place primarily via the EMN website and publications. The Commission coordinates the EMN in cooperation with national contact points (EMN NCPs) appointed by the EU countries plus Norway. In their own countries, the EMN NCPs form national networks with a wide-range of relevant stakeholders. Description of the implementation status 2.1.1Shared management The AMIF instrument to undergo the biggest increase in total resources allocated is shared management, having increased from EUR 2 752 million (Regulation 516/2014) to EUR 5 391.5 million by the end of 2017. Of these, EUR 3 004 million was programmed and spent during the 2014-2017 period, almost three times compared to the originally envisaged amount of EUR 1 404 million. The recent top-ups to the budget for shared management were earmarked to support the two relocation schemes adopted to support Italy and Greece (EUR 651 million), the EU resettlement programme (EUR 679 million) and the resettlement — legal admission from Turkey (EUR 193 million). The current EU allocation for shared management is shown in the diagram in Figure 1 . Member States agreed in July 2015 to resettle over 22 000 people in need of international protection during the period 2015-2017. They also agreed in March 2016 under the EU-Turkey Statement to resettle up to 54 000 Syrian refugees from Turkey (in exchange for Syrians being returned to Turkey). As of the end of 2017, 25 980 people had been resettled under both EU schemes. Figure 2 shows the number of people pledged by the Member States to be resettled under the EU resettlement programme and from Turkey (legally admitted), as compared to the actual rate of people being effectively resettled, by the end of 2017. In total all 27 participating Member States have pledged to resettle under the EU resettlement scheme and 12 of them have also pledged to resettle under the legal admission scheme. The graph omits the seven Member States that have only pledged to resettle under the EU resettlement programme and who have yet to resettle anyone (MT — 14, SK — 100, CY — 138, BG — 160, HR — 350, EL — 354, PL — 900).

Another way to look at how the Fund has been implemented over 2014-2017 is by analysing the rate of implementation together with the level of payments made to the responsible authorities. These rates can reflect the ability of central and local authorities to prepare, finance and supervise the use of the Fund towards achieving its objectives. Possible reasons that help to explain why the level of payments is still relatively low include: (i) late approval of most of the national programmes and thus the lack of completed projects; (ii) complexity and length of public procurement rules that delayed implementation; (iii) administrative burden (i.e. reporting on the accounts) that delayed implementation; and (iv) low pre-financing rates, hampering Member States commitment and the resulting payments. However, the implementation rate shows that Member States are actually much more advanced in their implementation on the ground and that the difference is expected to be claimed in the financial records over the following years. A good example of this is presented in Figure 3 , which shows the implementation rates for 2016 (dark green) against the payments made in 2016 (light green) and the implementation rate for 2017 (dark red) against the payments made in 2017 (light red). While the payments show the amounts spent and verified during the first 4 years (light green and light red), the implementation rates show the actual implementation on the ground in the Member States (dark green and dark red), meaning there is an important acceleration of the activities as well a certain lapse of time between the activities taking place and the registration of the respective financial expenditure linked to them. With 3 more years to go, this might indicate that for a few Member States the full use of their allocation is easily within reach, while for others this could still be done with an increased effort. The following graph shows an increasing trend in the Fund payments made in 2015, 2016 and 2017 to the Member States. The total amount of payments made is EUR 103 million for 2015, EUR 363 million in 2016 and EUR 602 million in 2017 and the global amount for the whole period 2015-2017 is of EUR 1 068 million. 2.1.2Direct management Union actions By the end of 2017, EUR 462 million had been allocated through direct and indirect management to Union actions and EMN activities covering the entire programming period 2014-2020, out of which EUR 336 million was spent during 2014-2017 (EUR 44 million in 2014, EUR 49 million in 2015, EUR 51 million in 2016 and EUR 193 million in 2017). Around 24 % was assigned to projects covering the specific objectives of asylum and solidarity whereas the remaining 76 % was assigned to projects covering the specific objectives of legal migration and integration and return. By the end of June 2017, four calls for proposals were launched (summarised in Figure 5 ) and 42 Union actions projects had been awarded funding, most of them on a multiannual basis. Of the 42 Union actions financed by AMIF, the majority concerned integration (13 projects), followed by projects related to preventing trafficking in human beings (8), and asylum (6). Additionally, the Commission funded 14 projects via the direct award method, which range from funding for the regional development and protection programmes (RDPPs) and the Readmission Capacity Building Facility, to funding for the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), , the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UNHCR, the European Reintegration Network (ERIN), various information campaigns, OECD studies, and a pilot project on resettlement and alternative European models to providing protection to refugees. Emergency assistance EMAS is the AMIF instrument to have the second greatest increase in total resources allocated, having passed from an initial programmed amount of EUR 95 million for 2014-2017 to EUR 929 million (or from 160 to 1 029 million for the entire programming period) distributed as follows: EUR 126 million in 2015; EUR 406.5 million in 2016; EUR 396 million in 2017; and EUR 50 million, EUR 25 million and EUR 25 million respectively for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020. A total of 45 emergency actions were funded under AMIF during 2014-2017. Most of these actions were implemented in 2015 and 2016, during the height of the migration crisis (24 actions in 2016, 13 in 2015, 7 in 2014 and 1 in 2017). See Figure 6 and Figure 7 for the distribution of actions per country, and, where relevant, for distinguishing between the actions carried out by Member States and by international actors (the IOM, the UNHCR and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO)), as well as the amounts awarded and payments made so far (implementation rate). The EMAS instrument was used to respond to immediate emergency needs, including (i) providing basic needs like food, shelter and medical care to refugees, (ii) providing reception services and support to unaccompanied minors, (iii) the strengthening of asylum services’ capacity to be able to cope with large numbers of applications, and (iv) providing support to asylum seekers returning to their country of origin and the relocation schemes. Such activities were most pressing in frontline countries like Greece, Italy and Bulgaria, where the sudden influx of migrants during 2015-2016 was most notable.

European Migration Network Funding to the EMN is allocated to the Member States national contact points annually. The budget for the implementing EMN activities totalled EUR 6.2 million for 2014, EUR 13.4 million for 2015-2016, and EUR 23.9 million for the 2017-2018. As of 30 June 2017, a total of EUR 15.2 million had been spent on EMN activities over the 2014-2017 period.



3Method Short description of the methodology This interim evaluation assesses how the Fund has worked so far and intends to inform the national authorities, the EU institutions, the stakeholders and the general public about the key achievements and limitations of AMIF. The evaluation includes the analysis of the legal basis in relation to the needs and actions implemented and the key changes implemented under AMIF relative to its predecessors, as well as the outlook for the remaining implementation period 2017-2020. This is the summative dimension. The evaluation identifies several lessons learnt to inform the Commission and the Member States on how they could address weaknesses and overcome obstacles, to ensure that during the second half of the implementation period corrective measures are taken and their impact is minimised. This is the formative dimension (see also the key findings in Chapter 6). This forward-looking aspect of the evaluation will also contribute to preparing the next generation of funding instruments, post 2020. This interim evaluation of AMIF has been carried out by an external expert group and has been coordinated by the HOME Funds Evaluation Team in Unit E3 of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs with the support of an Inter-Service Steering Group comprising other Commission services, which has met four times on 24 October and 15 December 2017 and on 1 February and 8 March 2018. The external study of the interim evaluation started in September 2017 and has been guided by Terms of Reference adopted by the Commission. It has been based on the following data sources. §Legal acts of the funds including the Specific Regulations, the Horizontal Regulation, implementing and delegated acts, CEAS directives and regulations; §Joint EU resettlement programme and respective reports; Commission reports to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of various directives and regulations; §National programmes of the participating Member States; management and control systems, annual implementation reports and annual accounts; and national interim evaluations; §Union actions: oCommission annual work programmes; ogrant agreements signed with awarded beneficiaries; and ointerim and final reports of the beneficiaries having implemented Union actions; §Emergency assistance:

oCommission annual work programmes for emergency assistance; ogrant agreements signed with awarded beneficiaries; and ointerim and final reports of the beneficiaries having implemented EMAS actions; §European Migration Network reports and studies; §Reports of the Commission’s monitoring visits (shared and direct management); audit reports drafted by Member States’ audit authorities or by or on behalf of the Commission; §Ex post evaluations: oEx post evaluations 2011-2013 of the European Refugee Fund, of the European Fund for the Integration of third country nationals, and of the European Return Fund; and o Ex post evaluation of the framework programme ‘Security and Safeguarding Liberties (2007-2013)’, composed of the two programmes — CIPS and ISEC; §Relevant EU strategies, action plans, communications, recommendations; other relevant studies originating in the academic sector or produced by other institutions; §Reports and statistics from EU Agencies operating in the justice and home affairs/migration and security area; DG Migration and Home Affairs statistics; Eurostat; §Consultations of stakeholders. Evaluation questions In line with the Better Regulation guidelines, this interim evaluation addresses evaluation questions structured around the five evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value, as well as the criteria of complementarity, sustainability and simplification and reduction of administrative burden introduced by the Horizontal Regulation. An overview of the answers to the evaluation questions can be found in Chapter 5, while the complete list of questions as set in the legal base can be found in Annex 4. Limitations and robustness of findings As not enough time has lapsed since the programming period began and the Fund is still being implemented, the interim evaluation is neither expected nor able to produce a full picture of the programme’s results and impacts. Therefore it cannot draw final conclusions, Most projects, many of which are multiannual, are still ongoing, therefore assessing them is very challenging — projects completed under the national programmes at the time of this evaluation represent only 8 % of the projects started while 25% of the funding allocated has been used. Whereas for some actions, effects may be expected within a short-term period, such as an increased capacity in the reception facilities, this period is too short for many results and wider impacts to be seen. Some actions have many incremental and short-term effects — easier to capture and to report on — whereas long-term actions (such as integration of third country nationals or the solidarity among Member States) might produce more significant effects in the longer term (e.g. 10 years). These effects are more difficult to capture through the usual indicator systems, which stop collecting data at the end of the projects’ life. Concerning the indicators, there is a lack of benchmarks to compare performance, mainly because AMIF and the ISF are the first home affairs programmes to have a common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF) and a set of indicators (a list of 18 common output indicators has been provided by the Horizontal Regulation, while the CMEF Delegated Regulation sets a list of 24 common result and impact indicators). At the same time, the stakeholders deem that the relevant indicators can be further improved. There has been a lack of quality in the data and in the Member States annual implementation reports, partly because the CMEF and all the guidance arrived later in the process (early 2017). Limitations also include issues related to data availability and the measurability of impacts (for example, most of AMIF’s indicators focus on outputs). Often these context indicators are not linked to the Fund’s specific objectives (e.g. unemployment rate). Therefore, it is really difficult to attribute the observed changes to the Fund. Measuring, for example, the sustainability of effects of actions may not be entirely possible because many of the actions are still being implemented, and there is no consistent monitoring of long-lasting effects (instead, the likelihood of actions continuing has been assessed).

Concerning the open public consultation provided for in the Better Regulation guidelines, the Commission has worked on the future multiannual financial framework in clusters setting up a streamlined consultation that covered both forward and backward looking questions on the programmes. Launching a specific consultation for the mid-term evaluations could have created confusion and not provided much added value compared to the broader exercise. In this context, 350 answers and 52 position papers or contributions have been received. The open public consultation for the interim evaluation was therefore replaced by a targeted consultation (involving beneficiaries of Union actions) which has finally been used to contextualise the findings. This consultation only received input from 17 participants. These limitations have been mitigated to the extent possible, by transparently providing the data sources, all of which are made publicly available. The analysis of the evidence has allowed the Commission services to identify data availability and quality problems that could be dealt with over the course of the interim evaluation. Conclusions are then drawn, where possible, based on the triangulation of evidence from various data sources. Whenever possible, the ex post evaluations of the preceding SOLID programmes have been used as a benchmark.

4 Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions How effective has AMIF been so far This evaluation question aims to provide an insight into whether AMIF is on track to meet its objectives. The Fund has four specific objectives: (i) one linked to CEAS and its external dimension, (ii) one to legal migration and integration, (iii) one to return and combating illegal immigration, and (iv) one to solidarity. Contextual factors in the first half of the programming period have significantly influenced the effectiveness of AMIF: the unprecedented and unforeseen influx of migrants and asylum seekers in 2015 and 2016 put a severe strain on several Member States asylum and reception systems, and continue to affect legal migration, integration and return policies. The EU sought political solutions that would manage the humanitarian crisis through mechanisms aiming to alleviate the pressures experienced. AMIF’s implementation was delayed because of these events. Within this difficult context, AMIF proved to be an important instrument in handling the situation, by providing emergency support in the short term and building up the capacity of the asylum, integration and return systems in the long term. The findings show that progress varies across AMIF instruments, specific objectives and Member States, but when considered together, they have offered a holistic approach that has contributed to the Fund’s overall objectives. These exogenous factors, and most notably the migration crisis itself, have demonstrated the extent of the flexibility of the Fund and of the EU budget as a whole, as well as the great potential of the EU in terms of solidarity and burden-sharing. However, they have also transformed the Fund in such a way that almost everything that has been re-prioritised or negatively prioritised during these past 3 years could be explained by emerging urgent needs resulting from the crisis. As a consequence, the interim evaluation views the Fund as being very different from what it was initially intended to be (its volume has more than doubled), having been continuously working in crisis-mode until now. 4.1.1Effectiveness in strengthening CEAS and its external dimension In a nutshell AMIF has played an important role in improving asylum systems and strengthening reception capacity in the Member States. Due to the migration crisis, the area of asylum was especially prioritised in many countries. The Fund also paid special attention to the most vulnerable, including unaccompanied minors, and refugees and asylum seekers in difficult regions like the north and the Horn of Africa. However, there is limited evidence of increased capacity to develop, monitor and evaluate asylum systems, and, while the EU resettlement programme has been making big progress so far, there is limited contribution towards establishing, developing and implementing national resettlement programmes. AMIF instruments contributed in varying degrees to strengthening the CEAS, but mainly through the following: §There was a focus on aspects of the CEAS such as asylum procedures and reception conditions (areas prioritised, not least due to the migration crisis), but also to a lesser extent resettlement. §Collaboration on common standards on asylum was enabled. Beneficiaries of Union actions have underlined how regional or supra-regional collaboration and exchange actions, lead, in the long run, to common standards in the area of migration (particularly true for countries experiencing higher refugee flows for the first time and whose systems are not developed). §There was increased reception capacity during the unprecedented migration crisis. EMAS has been a very effective way of providing reception accommodation, basic services and additional capacity (the effectiveness of EMAS remains relative to the country’s initial preparedness and capacity for dealing with emergency situations). §Solidarity between Member States was demonstrated, with the EMAS instrument having proved it can provide important added value, particularly where it was only a fraction of the national budget. AMIF’s contribution to developing and improving reception and asylum systems in the Member States is visible across instruments, with national programmes, EMAS, and Union actions having played the main role, while the EMN has mostly and indirectly contributed to the wider debate on the topic. Evidence shows that the actions resulted in strengthened reception systems, strengthened accommodation (infrastructure) capacity, and better services being provided. The strengthened asylum procedures have been achieved through increased capacity in Member States (local) authorities, by covering Member States costs related to asylum procedures (mainly EMAS and national programmes), or by facilitating the design of new approaches towards asylum procedures. For example, between 2013 and 2017, the number of people in target groups provided with Fund assistance (in reception and asylum systems) increased from 18 944 to 184 122, and of these, the share of people benefiting from legal assistance has risen from 1 % (120) to 27 % (49 202). AMIF (mainly national programmes and EMAS) has strongly strengthened those reception conditions that were put under extreme pressure in 2015 and 2016, thus making it one of the most important topics for many Member States, and becoming one of the Fund’s most visible results so far. This was achieved through: §increasing the reception accommodation infrastructure capacity across Europe;

§increasing the capacity of local authorities to deal with the high number of applicants (for example, concerning registration and first help); and §developing already existing reception centres and improving the services provided through, among other things, additional staff (with a special focus on health care and psycho-social assistance). As a result, asylum seekers benefited from a more dignified, safe and healthy environment upon and after arrival. The number of places adapted for unaccompanied minors, an especially vulnerable migrant group and one which was particularly focused on in some Member States, also rose from a low 183 places in 2014 to 17 070 places in 2017, most of them in Italy (13 194 in 2017). AMIF contributed moderately towards improving the implementation of the recast Qualification Directive, mainly through increasing staff and hiring experts (national programmes), training employees working in the asylum process (EMAS) and harmonising the asylum procedures such as setting forensic standards for medical examinations (Union actions and the EMN). These actions have contributed to strengthening legal certainty in a few Member States (CY, FI, HR, HU, PT and SE) as indicated by the convergence of first instance and final instance recognition rates for applications from the same third country of origin in these same Member States. In other participating Member States there is no clear convergence. Concerning resettlement, the EU resettlement programme has received increasing support from the Fund. While the ERF lacked incentives to encourage Member States to engage in resettlement projects, and its ex post evaluation recommended that intra-EU transfers be incentivised and a specific budget be dedicated for resettlement projects and programmes, Member States agreed in July 2015 to an EU resettlement scheme for 2015-2017 for 22 000 people in need of international protection and in March 2016 to an EU-Turkey Statement agreement that the EU would accept up to 54 000 Syrian refugees from Turkey in exchange of returning to Turkey all irregular migrants who crossed from Turkey to the Greek islands. By the end of 2017, almost 26 000 people had been resettled under both EU schemes (see Figure 8 below and more details in sub-chapter 3.2.1, on page 19). Today, 81 % of the 27 Member States who used AMIF are implementing today resettlement, in a way or another, compared to only 15 % in the previous funding period. Notably, there is an essential difference between the specific objective ‘Solidarity’ that promotes capacity building in Member States for resettlement (with a long-term effect) and the EU resettlement programme that financially incentivises Member States to resettle people (with immediate visible results). However, findings from the evaluation show limited evidence of increased capacity in the Member States to develop, monitor and evaluate asylum systems and procedures, as well as limited progress towards establishing, developing and implementing national resettlement programmes (mainly through the EMN) and strategies. Among the participating countries the results under this objective provide a mixed picture, because (i) Member States were focusing on other types of actions in order to respond to the crisis, and, (ii) as the supporting evidence remains limited, many of the results of the work undertaken until now have yet to materialise fully. Finally, along with other sources, the Fund contributed to developing an external dimension, most notably through two RDPPs (one in the north of Africa and one in the Horn of Africa). These were initiatives from the EU, Member States and other partners (international organisations) designed to help host communities in third countries protect refugees, and strengthen the capacities of local authorities in managing migration. AMIF has so far funded grants under the 2015 and 2016 annual work programmes to each of the two RDPPs. In total, 16 actions in various countries, have received up to EUR 30 million from the Fund. Actions focused on: (i) child protection, (ii) reducing the risk of sexual and gender-based violence including medical or psychological assistance, (iii) advocacy and awareness raising, (iv) vocational training for young people, (v) improving protection for refugees and asylum seekers, and (vi) improving the refugee registration and status determination processes. Positive results from the support provided by the Fund include: §the medical support and non-food items provided to migrants which aim to address specific vulnerabilities at disembarkation ports and in detention centres, following their rescue/interception at sea; §the ‘case de passage’ (guesthouse) set up in Agadez in Niger that provides temporary accommodation to asylum seekers and evacuees from Libya; §officials trained; §asylum seekers registered and provided with legal assistance and with health services; and §reduced first instance Refugee Status Determination in the region. 4.1.2Effectiveness in supporting legal migration and in promoting effective integration In a nutshell

AMIF has made good progress on integration issues, where mainly short-term integration measures have been prioritised over long-term measures, while limited progress has been made on legal migration so far, likely due to the contextual factors. The results of those measures are not yet visible, as integration is a long-term process. The context of the past 3 years has been dominated by factors such as the high influx of asylum seekers, coupled with limited labour market demand and very specific sectoral gaps that could be addressed by legal migration. This has thus translated into national programmes that have not prioritised legal migration, and in turn have made little progress in supporting it. Legal migration, whose main support comes from the EMN with research and knowledge sharing but also the Union actions, may gain a stronger focus in the remaining programming period, because applications for family reunification may increase. The number of target group people who participated in pre-departure measures supported by the Fund has been negligible in some Member States (HU, IE, LV) or nearly non-existent in the vast majority of countries between 2013 and 2017, accept for DE (725 072 in 2015, which fell to 8 880 in 2017) and CY: (0 in 2016 to 13 000 in 2017). However, when analysing progress on legal migration, it is relevant to take into account the increased number of TNCs that have obtained long-term resident status (see also paragraphs below). As regards integration, AMIF prioritises short-term (e.g. civic orientation) over long-term measures (e.g. integration in the labour market, which would be eligible under the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)). The need for the first measures was already urgent in many Member States, due to the high influx experienced. Since integration is by definition a long-term process, results are still difficult to capture, if any are available at all. While the labour market integration is highly dependent on demand and the skill profile of migrants (labour market offer), the unprecedented high number of asylum seekers has led to growing gaps in unemployment and educational levels and increased the risk of social exclusion between TCNs and host country nationals. It is difficult, if not impossible, to assess the extent to which AMIF has helped mitigate this, but the progress made is visible, with 1 432 612 TCNs receiving integration assistance through the Fund so far (675 251 in DE and 411 560 in ES). Complementary to AMIF’s efforts, ESIF funds also achieved progress in 2015 and 2016, seeing 1 831 733 people (mostly in FR, DE, ES, IT and BE) with migrant or minority background participating in integration projects related to social inclusion, educational and vocational training or sustainable quality employment. The projects on social inclusion have seen 853 000 people participating (553 000 in 2016, most of whom are in FR, DE, BE, NL and ES). Some 674 000 people participated in projects on sustainable quality employment (the majority in FR, IT and ES), while some 304 000 people participated in projects on educational and vocational training (of which 219 000 in 2016, the majority in DE followed by BE, FR, ES and IT). AMIF’s main contribution towards promoting the effective integration of TCNs has come through national programmes strengthening public service organisations through the training of personnel, complementary activities such as language courses and civic orientation information. For most Member States, the principal form of support was education, training, democratic participation courses and preparatory actions to facilitate access to the labour market. The proportion of TCNs who received long-term residence status also increased from 30 % in 2013 to 44 % in 2016. Union actions also contributed to integrating TCNs effectively, with activities focusing on providing information including labour market related training or networking, capacity building, identifying victims of trafficking and protection support. As regards supporting cooperation among Member States, as recommended by the ex post evaluation of the EIF, Union actions have been the strongest instrument in this area, enabling cross-country collaboration on certain themes, while only a minority of national programmes (and one specific action) have been used for this objective. Capacity building on integration and legal migration is another aspect on which moderate progress was reported to have been made through national programmes, and indirectly through EMN activities. Successful examples implemented by the Member States included: §the strengthening of the existing territorial capacity through pooling resources and using digital tools to set up collaborative platforms mapping integration actors in a given territory (FR); §the creation of networking structures between relevant institutions and stakeholders to share experience and create synergies (DE); §the use of immigration mentors or ‘living examples’ of successfully integrated persons (PL); and §study visits and events promoting multiculturalism. 4.1.3Effectiveness in enhancing fair and effective return strategies which contribute to combating illegal immigration In a nutshell The need for fair, sustainable and effective return strategies has been an objective of growing importance in most Member States, and despite both the voluntary and forced return rates steadily increasing with the Fund’s support, findings show that AMIF could only bring limited contributions to the effective implementation of return strategies. The need for fair, sustainable and effective return strategies, especially in light of the high influx of asylum seekers, has been an objective of growing topical importance in most Member States. national programmes have contributed to return by supporting measures accompanying assisted-voluntary return procedures, with a steady increase of pre- or post-return reintegration assistance to individuals. specific actions, Union actions and EMN activities have also increased awareness of return issues across the EU including knowledge on effective return strategies. The return rates across Europe between 2014 and 2016 could also be explained by the high influx of asylum seekers and, subsequently, the rising number of applications handled. In addition, return is subject to major challenges both at EU level and in Member States as it is strictly dependent on (often) bilateral relations and agreements with receiving third countries and on their authorities’ willingness to cooperate in the fields of return and reintegration. Although there is this clear limit regarding what AMIF can contribute to return, between 2013 and 2017, the number of returnees in general and returnees who received pre- or post-return reintegration assistance co-financed by the Fund has greatly increased. The number of returnees whose return was co-financed by the Fund increased from 5 904 in 2014 to 39 888 in 2015 and to 36 735 in 2017. Of those returned, the proportion of non-voluntary returns has increased from a quarter in 2014 to half in 2017. The two figures below show the general trends in the area of return — TCNs ordered to leave and TCNs effectively returned (total and to a third country).

National programmes also contributed significantly in the area of voluntary return. The reported number of people who returned voluntarily (co-financed by the Fund) increased from 3 934 in 2013 to 30 466 in 2015, falling back to 17 736 in 2017. The number of places in detention centres has increased from 8 466 places in 2013 to 11 000 in 2015. The number of monitored removals co-financed by the Fund increased from a low 10 in 2013 to a peak of 6 065 in 2016, falling back to 4 950 in 2017. Little EMAS was also focused on accompanying voluntary return, providing support in the preparation of and during the return travel, as well as capacity building through helping officials to identify TCNs in forced return duties. Some steps were also taken towards improving practical cooperation between Member States on return issues (mostly through the EMN through its expert group on return as well as through national programmes, specific actions, and Union actions). There was also improved cooperation between Member States and third countries on dealing with the trafficking issue (through Union actions), as well as on building capacity on return (through national programmes and the EMN) by training 8 845 people across Member States on return-related topics with the Fund’s assistance (4 026 people trained in 2016 and 3 001 in 2017). 4.1.4Effectiveness in strengthening solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States In a nutshell The strengthening of solidarity and responsibility-sharing between Member States was achieved mainly through EMAS and the relocation mechanisms, and through the EU resettlement programmes. The findings available suggest that national programmes made limited contributions to both the transfer of asylum seekers and the transfer of beneficiaries of international protection. Compared to the previous financing period, during which there was little incentive for Member States to engage in solidarity activities, in AMIF, a mechanism of solidarity to cope with migration and migrant crisis has become a core objective. Under this mechanism Member States can receive lump sums for people resettled from a third country, as well as for transferring beneficiaries of international protection from another EU country (see also the overview presented in Table 2 on page 10). The Fund’s contribution to boosting solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States has been visible mainly through EMAS and the relocation and resettlement mechanisms put in place (see table below). The work carried out under these mechanisms has been deemed as a real and tangible act of solidarity AMIF relieved the burden of the high influx of refugees through financial support to national authorities as well as international organisations. Transfer of asylum seekers or of beneficiaries of international protection remained limited. Persons having medical needs that can be addressed only through resettlement 513 Persons in need of emergency resettlement or urgent resettlement for legal or physical protection needs, including victims of violence or torture 825 Other persons not included in the Common EU priorities and not part of the defined vulnerable groups 1 560 Refugees from Iraq in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan 272 Refugees from Iraq in Turkey 33 Refugees in eastern Africa/Great Lakes 1 292 Regional Protection Programme in eastern Europe (Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine) 15 Regional Protection Programme in Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Kenya, Yemen) 1 065 Regional Protection Programme in north Africa (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia) 120 Syrian refugees in the region 6 485 Transfer 60 Unaccompanied minors 19 Women and children at risk 2 465 EU Total 14 724 4.1.5Effectiveness in supporting the Member States in emergency situations In a nutshell AMIF, mainly through EMAS, made significant contributions to MS in emergency situations. EMAS has been a powerful tool for strengthened solidarity in allowing AMIF to support MS in dealing with the 2015 migratory crisis and its follow-up, thanks to a more targeted, easier and faster response to the migration crisis. The Fund has made significant contributions towards helping Member States cope with the high influx of asylum seekers in emergency situations, through significant top-ups to national programmes and EMAS. AMIF has been able to adapt and respond well in a very short time period to the most imminent needs (see also the data presented in sub-chapter 3.2.1).

The Regulation sets fixed amounts for each Member States based on the funding received under the SOLID programme between 2011 and 2013. The purpose of the mechanism for additional funding is to only fund specific actions listed in Annex II and only in the context of the mid-term review, planned for 2018. Additional support to address emergency situations was to be addressed through emergency assistance. This resulted in the EMAS receiving considerably more funding than originally envisaged through successive top-ups. Stakeholders interviewed assessed the EMAS instrument as crucial both in terms of its financial support to Member States and in terms of displaying solidarity and burden-sharing (in addition EMAS was seen as helping to kick start AMIF implementation due to the late start of the national programmes). In countries like SE, DE and AT, where a considerable amount of national funding is used in the field of asylum and migration, the input of EMAS was considered to be negligible in financial terms, but crucial in terms of its role in boosting solidarity across Europe. In other countries like BG, EL and IT, EMAS funds were considered important, and the same results could not have been achieved without them. Despite EMAS actions representing a short-term and small-scale approach, most of them have aimed to strengthen capacity in relation to asylum and return by supporting the development of effective reception conditions and asylum processes. Some emergency actions focused on (i) relocation or resettlement, (ii) providing an appropriate response to the refugee crisis regarding health, (iii) providing subsistence and aid for TCNs, (iv) vulnerable migrants and providing them with tailored assistance or helping them regarding voluntary and forced return. How efficient has AMIF been so far This question aims to consider the relation between the inputs of the Fund (i.e. resources, budget, etc.) and the outputs it achieved. It tries to answer two questions: (i) to what extent the effects of the actions were achieved at a reasonable cost in terms of financial and human resources deployed and (ii) what management and control measures were put into place to ensure the Fund was implemented correctly and to prevent, detect, report and follow-up on irregularities. In a nutshell Overall, in the limits of available data, it could be considered that the results of the Fund were achieved at reasonable costs in terms of both human and financial resources. The administrative burden appears to be the main factor that undermined efficiency, while possibly the low number of human resources available increased the perception of administrative burden. Even if national programmes have been very slow to begin, the Fund’s overall implementation appears to be on track, thanks to EMAS bridging the funding gap and catering to immediate needs, helped by the swift approach applied to its management. The management and control measures have also been appropriate and effective, with stringent mechanisms to ensure the Fund is correctly implemented and that fraud and irregularities are prevented. However, trade-off between these procedures and the overall efficiency of the Fund was found. From the data collected by the outsourced evaluation, it appears that the results of the Fund so far have been achieved at a reasonable cost. Implementation of the national programmes has been very slow to take off, leading to an almost two-year gap in funding in some countries, and, as a result, the level or payments for the national programmes (accounts) is still relatively low, though increasing in 2017. This was due to the late approval (July 2014) of the core legislative package establishing AMIF and its implementing rules including the changes in the management and control systems compared to the previous period. Despite the Regulation allowing Member States to start actions and retroactively fund projects, many took a conservative approach and chose not to make commitments in the absence of a fully established legal basis. Therefore, EMAS actions have been implemented in order to bridge the funding gap, and cater to immediate and urgent needs and to the migration crisis, facilitated by the flexibility of the EMAS instrument, and thus, making the Fund’s overall implementation to be on track. The late start of the national programmes resulted in challenges for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the actions, since most projects are still ongoing and there is a lack of data on achieved targets and levels of payments. The administrative burden could be the main factor undermining efficiency, particularly at the level of beneficiaries — mainly small NGOs (project level). The low number of human resources (at project level) was a factor that most likely increased the perception of the administrative burden — the low staffing ratio (therefore low human resource costs) enabled more funds to be channelled towards activities. However, beneficiaries consequently perceived the overall administrative burden to be relatively higher, in turn causing delays in project schedules and activities. In their interviews, several of the beneficiaries answered that one factor which might skew the efficiency findings, (and thus the reported human resource costs might not be reflective of the actual work) is that many of the staff involved during the peak of the 2015 crisis in implementing the Union actions and EMAS, and managing the EMN, seem to be highly motivated, to the extent that they do more than what they are paid for. The Commission’s human resources dedicated to managing the Fund have only slightly increased, despite the large increase in value of the EMAS and the emergency situation on the ground following the migration crisis, which have put an enormous strain on the Commission services. From this perspective, data shows that the resources used by the Commission for administering EMAS were extremely efficient not only in terms of full-time equivalents (FTEs) but also as a result of quick technical procedures. No evidence was found to indicate that there is scope to further increase this. The low level of human resources costs was also associated with implementing the national programmes (at the level of responsible authorities or delegated authorities), therefore creating the efficiency-effectiveness trade-off mentioned above. In terms of the number of FTEs in the responsible authority, delegated authority and audit authority compared to the number of projects implemented, the large variation found suggests that the number of FTEs required depends on the scope and volume of the projects that Member States need to implement at a particular moment. Values definitely vary over time and among Member States, with average values going from 0.03 per project in SI to 13.3 in DE. In 2016, the value for DE was 30 and for EL it was even higher at 41. On average across the EU, the number of FTEs per project rose from 0.16 in 2014 to 3.65 in 2016 (driven by EL and DE). However, this fell to 1.02 in 2017. In addition to the efficiency resulting from the flexibility of the national programmes (their multiannuality), the AMIF’s efficiency was increased when: §beneficiaries were public agencies since they could use their own networks to involve additional resources on an ad hoc basis and at no cost; §knowledge and expertise had been gained through experience from previous projects (especially the SOLID programme and, in general, multiannual projects); and

§project staff were already occupied in the organisation implementing the project, were experienced and familiar with the topic. The management and control systems put in place to ensure the correct application of the legal base and to prevent (1), detect (2), report and follow-up (3) on cases of irregularities and fraud have been contributing to a cost-effective implementation, through: (1)Prevention: careful examination of project applications; ex ante public procurement control systems; risk analyses by the responsible authority/delegated authority; training on fraud, providing guidance tools and regular communication to beneficiaries and responsible authority staff; and a steering group within the project. (2)Detection: administrative control checks; operational on-the-spot checks; financial on-the-spot checks; and external audits. (3)Report and follow-up: implementation of communication instruments; establishment of procedures for reporting fraud; and establishment of procedures for corrective measures. Some responsible authorities and beneficiaries argue that the control measures are appropriate and effective, saying that stringent mechanisms ensure that the provisions of the Regulations are correctly applied and that fraud and irregularities are prevented. However, experience suggests that there is always a potential trade-off between the procedures in place to avoid irregularities and the Fund’s overall efficiency, in the sense that measures can be seen as very effective for preventing fraud, but they are not necessarily very efficient from a management perspective (on one hand AMIF establishes comprehensive procedures to reduce the risk, but on the other this leads to situations where compliance becomes time-consuming). The legislative framework establishes a number of obligations on the responsible and audit authorities, but it does not go into detail in instructing how these obligations should be operationalised during implementation. Member States are left to apply their own national rules at their discretion. This approach seems to provide flexibility to authorities, which however go beyond what is just necessary for compliance. Regarding the technical assistance, the agreed amount set aside was 5.5 % of the total amount allocated to an Member States plus EUR 1 million. This evaluation has found little ground for a proper comparative analysis of how the Member States used their technical assistance budgets and therefore of the appropriateness of the ceiling. A good way to assess the Fund’s overall cost-effectiveness is to look at the proportion of technical assistance needed to implement and manage the national programmes — payments of technical assistance against payments to national programmes. Nonetheless, in a multiannual financing environment it was not possible to establish this rate (with a certain degree or reassurance over its correctness), since Member States decide to submit payment claims in their accounts independently from the real advancement on the ground (rather it depends on when the expenses have been finally incurred and then verified). However, this rate will be an influential indication of efficiency during the ex post evaluation of the Fund. How much simplification and reduction of administrative burden has AMIF brought so far This question aims to analyse the innovative procedures that the Fund introduced (simplified cost option, multiannual programming, national eligibility rules, and more comprehensive national programmes allowing for flexibility) and to look at the extent to which they have simplified and reduced the administrative burden for the Fund’s beneficiaries. In a nutshell At this stage, there is little evidence of a significant reduction in the administrative burden, though AMIF has led to simplification relative to the past. Several new administrative and managerial procedures were introduced, taking into account the lessons learnt from the previous funds. These include adopting the Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox and collecting indicators in order to ensure a more appropriate measure of performance. Overall, most of the innovative measures (e.g. simplified cost options, multiannual programming) are considered particularly useful by beneficiaries and appear to have achieved simplification. Regarding the new IT tools such as the Shared Fund Management Common System of DG HOME (SFC2014) and the eGrants grant management system, there is little evidence available to date that the implementation of these tools has led to simplification for the beneficiaries of Union actions and the EMN. Despite simplification improvements, the national rules and procedures that apply under the national programmes appear to lead to moderate to high administrative burden, therefore affecting efficiency. The recommendations from the ex post evaluations of the SOLID funds have been taken into account, including those concerning the designing and collecting of indicators. AMIF introduced sev