EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 2.9.2009 
SEC(2009) 1128 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the 
   
COMMUNICATION OF THE COMMISSION  
on the establishment of a Joint EU Resettlement Programme  
 
and the proposal for a  
 
DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN P ARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
  
amending Decision No 573/2007/EC of the Eu ropean Parliament and of the Council of 
23 May 2007 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as 
part of the General programme "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows" and 
repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC 
 
Summary of the Impact Assessment  
  
{COM(2009) 447 final} 
{COM(2009) 456 final} 
{SEC(2009) 1127} 
 
EN 2   EN 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION  
Resettlement is the relocation of refugees, w ho are recognized by UNHCR as being in need of 
international protection, from the first country of asylum (mostly in the third world) to another 
country where they receive perm anent protection. Resettlement of fers solutions to refugees 
who can not return to their country of origin, and who can not be integrated locally in the 
country of first asylum.  
Resettlement is the transfer of refugees from outside EU territory to an EU Member State. 
The number of refugees worldwide is around 10 million. Around 5% out of them are in need 
of resettlement. Only a small proportion of thes e refugees are effectiv ely resettled. There is 
therefore a structural discre pancy between the needs and the humanitarian response. 
Only a small part of the refugees who are rese ttled each year are resettled to the EU. Out of 
the 65.596 refugees who departed for resettlement  in 2008, 4.378 refugees departed to the EU. 
This contrasts sharply with the numbers of re settled refugees who we re taken in by the USA 
and other traditional resettlement count ries in the industrialized world. 
2. RESETTLEMENT IN THE EU:  CURRENT SITUATION (BASELINE ) 
There are at present ten EU Member States which participate annually in resettlement. 
Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Un ited Kingdom and Ir eland have had a 
resettlement programme already for some year s. Since 2007 Portugal, France, Romania and 
the Czech Republic decided to introduce nati onal resettlement programmes. This positive 
development is due to a number of factors. Firstly, resettlement receives strong financial 
support by the European Refugee Fund (ERF  III) since 2007. Secondly, many project and 
twinning activities on resettlement were deve loped among stakeholders from different 
Member States over the past few years. A th ird positive development is the strong political 
interest at the EU level. This interest focused particularly on the needs to resettle Iraqi refugees from Syria and Jordan to the EU. In 2008 the JHA Council adopted conclusions on 
the resettlement of refugees from Iraq, which hi ghlight that resettlement contributes to the 
maintenance of the protection situation in  Syria and Jordan. Following the Council 
Conclusions four Member States which until rece ntly were not engaged in resettlement, have 
committed themselves to resettle refugees from Iraq (DE, IT, BE, LU). 
The European Asylum Support Office (EASO), wh ich is expected to become operational in 
2010, will support the Member States and other stakeholders in practical cooperation, 
including resettlement. 
3. P
ROBLEM DEFINITION  
The current situation is generally positive and is gradually evolving, particularly given the 
expected creation of the EASO. However, ther e are a number of important deficits and 
structural constraints. 
The principal problem is the curr ent low level of solidarity by th e EU with third countries in 
receiving refugees. This numbe r is too limited, given the s cale of the global resettlement 
needs. A second problem is that too few Member States participate in re settlement. At present 
only 10 Member States (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, UK, Ireland,  the Netherlands, Portugal, 
France, Romania and the Czech Republic) rese ttle refugees on a yearly basis. The 
international role of the EU regarding resettl ement is not sufficient. This has a negative 
EN 3   EN impact on the ambition of the EU to play a pr ominent role in global humanitarian affairs and 
on the influence of the EU in international fora. 
There is little coordination betw een those EU Member States wh ich carry out resettlement, on 
the resettlement priorities, i. e. the nationalities and specific groups which are resettled. These 
priorities are currently set by the Member States  on a national level in close bilateral contacts 
with UNHCR, without prior discussions and deci sion making at the EU level. As a result 
there is also a lack of strategic use of resettlement as an EU external policy instrument. Resettlement serves not only a humanitari an purpose vis-à-vis th ose persons who are 
effectively resettled, but also to relieve the th ird country in question of the burden associated 
with hosting large numbers of re fugees. Resettlement can therefor e play an important role as a 
component of EU external asylum policies and EU external policy more generally. The 
impact of resettlement in strategic terms woul d be larger if priorities with respect to 
nationalities and specific categories to be resettled were largely set at an EU level. The current 
financial framework poses constraints. ERF III provides additional financial assistance to 
those Member States which resettle specific  categories of refuge es. These criteria are 
considered to be too rigid. 
A third set of problems of the pr esent situation relate to the lack of structured practical 
cooperation among Member States on resettlement. There is curren tly a lack of exchange of 
information and coordination on resettlement ac tivities. This has a negative effect on the 
quality of resettlement. Another consequence is that there is a lack of economies of scale. 
Resettlement requires much logistical preparat ion, such as selection and orientation missions, 
medical and security screenings, arrangements fo r travel and visa, reception and integration 
programmes. Some of these activities could poten tially be carried out jointly or in close 
cooperation between Member States. 
4. S
UBSIDIARITY  
– Community involvement in the asylum fiel d is founded on the need  for solidarity among 
Member States in addressing a challenge that, in  an EU without internal borders, cannot be 
effectively dealt with by indi vidual countries acting alone. 
– The need to act as regards the Common Euro pean Asylum System (CEAS) has already 
been assessed in recent impact assessment reports.  
– There have been repeated calls from the Eur opean Council and the European Parliament to 
develop the CEAS, including its external dimension.  
5. OBJECTIVES  
Overall policy objectives : 
(a) to give support to the international protection of refugees through resettlement; 
(b) to increase the humanitarian impact and efforts of the EU by greater common 
involvement in resettlement; 
Specific objectives : 
(c) to ensure greater solidarity by the EU with third countries in receiving refugees; 
(d) to ensure that more EU Member  States participate in resettlement; 
EN 4   EN (e) to ensure that resettlement efforts in the EU are better targeted, on an ongoing basis, 
towards those persons or groups of persons (e.g. particularly vulne rable persons, including 
children, or persons from specific geographic areas) who are most in need of protection;  
(f) to increase the strategic use of  resettlement at an EU level;  
(g) to reinforce the international role of the EU generally, regarding resettlement 
specifically by developing resettlement as an inte gral and coherent component of EU external 
policies; 
(h) to improve through cooperation the quality of the resettlement procedures in the EU; 
(i) to lower through cooperation the economic an d financial costs of resettlement in the 
EU;  
(j) to reduce the differences among EU Member  States regarding pr otection standards and 
to increase efficiency through the co nvergence of resettlement criteria;  
6. POLICY OPTIONS  
On the basis of the problem analysis three main  components of resettleme nt policies at the EU 
level have been identified: the practical cooperation , political  and financial  component. They 
form the starting point for the elaboration of the policy options. 
6.1. 1st policy option: maintenance of status quo 
The European Asylum Support Office will prov ide a framework for carrying out practical 
cooperation  activities on asylum, including activities with respect to resettlement. There is 
potentially a wide range of practical cooperati on activities which EASO  could develop with 
respect to resettlement, such identification of best practices, trainings , twinning arrangements 
targeted at Member States which are not invol ved in resettlement yet, and organizing joint 
activities and operations  between existing resettlement countries. 
If the status quo is maintained, th e political and financial components  will not be further 
developed.  
6.2. 2nd policy option: medium option (the dynamic process) 
Under this option practical cooperation  will also be developed by the EASO. The distinction 
between the practical cooperation under this opti on and option 1 is primarily related to the 
link between practical cooperation activities and the further deve lopment of the political and 
financial component. The practical  cooperation component is exp ected to be stimulated and 
reinforced by the development of the other two components. 
Under this option it is envisaged to develop further structured polit ical cooperation through 
the establishment of a political framework  and to underpin it via the financial component . 
It is foreseen that a political framework will be  created which would set political and strategic 
priorities with respect to resettlement. All rele vant stakeholders (experts from Member States, 
Commission, UNHCR, NGO's) will part icipate in this po litical framework. The tasks will be 
the following: 
1. Setting of common EU annual pr iorities with respect to  resettlement, both with 
respect to nationalities and specific categorie s of refugees to be resettled. This will 
allow to respond in an effective and ad aptable manner to new arising needs. 
2. Member States would receive extra financ ial assistance under Article 13 of ERF III, 
if they resettle according to these common EU annual priorities. It should, however, 
EN 5   EN be underlined that Member States will remain  free to carry out resettlement of other 
categories of refugees. 
3. Ensure an integrated approach between re settlement, external asylum policies and 
EU external policies as a whole. 
4. Within this political framework resettlement  will also be discussed more generally. 
The creation of a political framework will lead to more steering of practical cooperation activities to be carried out by EASO. 
Extra financial assistance will be provided to Member States for the resettlement of refugees 
which fall under the annually agreed EU prioriti es. This requires an amendment of ERF. No 
structural reallocation of fundi ng under ERF III is foreseen, wh ich would have an impact on 
the funding of other asyl um related activities. 
Within the 2
nd option, two sub-options are identified . The difference between these sub-
options relate only to the mechanism which is  foreseen for the political framework. Sub-
option 2A provides for the establishment of a new Committee on resettlement under Comitology rules. Sub-option 2B provides  for the use of existing structures. 
6.3. 3
rd policy option: maximum option 
Under this option it is considered that a fully developed EU wide resettlement scheme will be 
established. Resettlement would be  carried out jointly in terms of priority setting and also in 
terms of implementation. A full-fledged joint EU resettlement scheme could consist of the 
following elements. 
(1) All Member States would participate in the scheme by making a certain number of 
places available. The total number of availa ble resettlement places within the EU 
would be set and filled at EU level. At EU level decisions would be made on priorities 
to be resettled. At EU level it would also  be ensured that resettlement would be 
integrated into external asylum policie s and EU external policies as a whole. 
(2) No resettlement would be carried out by th e Member States outside of the joint 
resettlement scheme. There would also be  full harmonization of resettlement criteria 
and the status which resettled ref ugees would receive after arrival. 
(3) The resettlement selection process would be fully centralized at the EU level. All pre-
departure operations would be carried out  jointly. EASO would most likely have a 
leading organizational role. Th is would require an increase in capacity of EASO with 
respect to resettlement. 
(4) The financial component would need to be reviewed completely. 
7. ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS  
See for assessment of the different impacts the Table on page 5. 
1. The baseline is evolving, particularly beca use of the expected establishment of the 
European Support Office (EASO) in 2010. In orde r to quantify the exp ected impacts of the 
creation of EASO, we have made a distinction between the static  baseline (situat ion in spring 
2009) and the evolving baseline  (situation expected after th e creation of EASO without 
further EU action taken).  
2. Since the expected output of sub-options 2A  and 2B is expected to be the same, the 
assessment of the effectiveness in  reaching the objectives as we ll as impacts is done together 
EN 6   EN for sub-options 2A and 2B. However, what di stinguishes sub-option 2A from sub-option 2B 
is the assessment of political feasibility and proportionality. 
8. COMPARISON OF OPTIONS  
Quantified impact of options 1, 2 and 3  
• The effectiveness of the options in reachi ng the principal objective (to ensure greater 
solidarity by the EU with third countries in r eceiving refugees) is ra ted as follows: option 1 
– 5% increase, option 2 – 15 % in crease, option 3 – 10 % increase; 
• The first impact (direct financial costs related to resettlement) of the options is rated as 
follows: option 1 – increase of Euros 3.825.000, option 2 – increase of Euros 11.475.000, 
option 3 – increase of Euros 7.650.000. 
• The second impact (direct financial cost / effect  of economies of scale) of the options is 
rated as follows: option 1 – decrease of  Euros 803.350, option 2 – decrease of Euros 
1.759.000, option 3 – decrease of Euros 2.524.500. 
Over-all assessment : 
1. Option 2 and 3 score better than option 1. There are two main  objections against 
option 3: lower score on  reaching the principal objective and political 
feasibility/proportionality.  
2. A majority of Member States favour an a pproach which is incremental and which puts 
emphasis on closer cooperation and familiarizi ng new Member States with resettlement, 
rather than on harmonizing resettlement criteri a. Particularly on the voluntary nature of 
participation in the scheme, positions of Member  States are very firm. Even if there was 
sufficient support for the establishment of a fully -fledged joint EU reset tlement scheme, it is 
doubtful whether some Member States would under the current situation be sufficiently 
prepared to implement resettlement. It is que stionable whether the es tablishment of a fully-
fledged joint EU resettlement sc heme is necessary and proportiona te at this stage to reach the 
set objectives. 
• A comparison of options 1 and 2 sh ows a clear preference for option 2. 
• Sub-option 2B is preferred on grounds of politi cal feasibility and proportionality. There is 
a strong preference among a majority of Memb er States to build on existing consultation 
and decision making mechanisms. The curren t political situation is positive towards 
resettlement but reluctant to create any new fo rmal structure, because of the bureaucratic 
burden this might entail and the fear that Me mber States' freedom to decide on priorities 
themselves would be reduced. From the persp ective of proportionality the use of existing 
structures is considered preferable, if this is as effective in reaching the objectives and if it 
is expected to have the same impacts. 
• Sub-option 2B is therefor e the preferred option. 
9. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The Commission will carry out an  evaluation within three year s after the introduction of the 
EU joint resettlement scheme. The evaluation w ill include the progress made with respect to 
political cooperation, the financial com ponent as well as practical cooperation. 
EN 7   EN Eight quantifiable indicators have been identif ied, which cover the diffe rent aspects of the 
option and the objectives (political, financial and practical cooperation). 
 
EN 8   EN Comparison of impacts of options  
 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 
Objectives   
now progressive dynamic maximum 
1 ensure greater solidarity by the EU with third countries in receiving refugees  0 Low/medium  Medium/high Medium 
2 ensure that more EU Member States participat e in resettlement  0 Low/medium Medium/high High 
3 ensure that resettlement efforts are better targeted, on ongoing basis, 
towards those most in need (e.g. children, refugee s from specific regions) 0 Low/medium High High 
4 Increase strategic use of resettlement at an EU level 0 Low Medium Medium 
5 reinforce the international role of the EU regarding resettlement by 
developing it as an integral and coherent component of EU external policies  0 Low Medium Medium 
6 improve through cooperation the quality of the resettlement procedures in 
the EU  0 Low/medium Medium/high High 
7 lower through cooperation the economic and financial costs per capita of 
resettlement in the EU 0 Low/medium Medium/high High 
8 reduce the differences among EU Member States regarding protection 
standards and to increase efficiency through the convergence of 
resettlement criteria 0 Low Medium High 
Impacts 
 1 Direct financial costs related to resettlement (selection, reception, 
integration)  0 Small 
increase Medium/high 
increase Medium  
 2 Direct financial costs related to resettlement (selection, reception, 0 Small medium decrease significant 
 
EN 9   EN integration) pro capita  decrease decrease 
 3 Economic and social costs related to the integration of resettled refugees, in 
a wide sense (total costs)  0 Small 
increase Medium/high Medium 
 4 Economic and social costs related to the integration of resettled refugees, in 
a wide sense (per capita costs) 0 Low Low Low 
 5 Impact of resettlement on third countries, specific categories and EU 
external relations 0 low Medium medium 
 6 Increased equality in providing protection to refugees 0 Low Medium High 
 7 Impact on fundamental rights  0 Low Medium/high medium 
Political feasibility and proportionality 2 A 2 B  
 1 Support among key stakeholders for this option  0 Medium Low/medi
um Mediu
m/High Low 
 2 Proportionality  0 Some concern Some 
concern Little 
concern Large concern