EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 2.9.2009 
SEC(2009) 1127 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 
 
Impact Assessment  
 
{COM(2009) 447 final} 
{COM(2009) 456 final} 
{SEC(2009) 1128}  
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 4 
1.1. Policy background...................................................................................................... 4 1.2. General information on resettlement ....................................................................... 5 1.3. Consultation of Stakeholders .................................................................................... 7 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION ........................................................................................ 8 2.1. Scope of the problem.................................................................................................. 8 2.2. Current situation (baseline) ...................................................................................... 9 2.2.1. Resettlement in the EU)............................................................................................. 9 2.2.2. Financial costs of current resettlement .................................................................. 10 2.2.3. Financial assistance by European Re fugee Fund (ERF III) on resettlement ..... 11 
2.2.4. Positive developments in recent years.................................................................... 12 2.3. Overview of main problems asso ciated with current situation............................ 14 
2.4. EU right to act .......................................................................................................... 1 6 
2.5. Subsidiarity test........................................................................................................ 1 7 
3. DEFINITION OF POLICY OBJECTIVES .......................................................... 17 4. POLICY OPTIONS ................................................................................................. 19 4.1. Short description of 1st opti on: no further EU action.......................................... 20 
4.2. Short description of 2
nd option: medium option.................................................... 21 
4.3. Short description of 3rd option: maximum option................................................. 25 
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS...................................................................................... 27 5.1. Assessment of 1
st option: maintenance status quo ................................................ 28 
5.1.1. Effectiveness in rea ching objectives ....................................................................... 29 
5.1.2. Impacts................................................................................................................. ..... 31 
5.1.3. Political feasibility, subsidiarity and proportionality ........................................... 32 5.2. Assessment of 2
nd option: medium option (the dynamic process) ....................... 32 
5.2.1. Effectiveness in rea ching objectives ....................................................................... 34 
5.2.2. Impacts................................................................................................................. ..... 35 
5.2.3. Political feasibility, subsidiarity and proportionality ........................................... 36 5.3. Assessment of 3rd option: maximum option ......................................................... 38 
EN 3   EN 5.3.1. Effectiveness in rea ching objectives ....................................................................... 39 
5.3.2. Impacts................................................................................................................. ..... 40 
5.3.3. Political feasibility, subsidiarity and proportionality ........................................... 41 6. Comparison of options / Preferred option ............................................................. 42 7. MONITORING and EVALUATION..................................................................... 43 
 
EN 4   EN Lead DG: Justice, Freedom and Security 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1. Policy background 
In The Hague Programme1 of 4-5 November 2004, the European Council stated that EU 
policy should aim at assisting third countries in their efforts to improve their capacity for 
migration management and refugee protection. The n eed for the EU to contri bute in a spirit of 
shared responsibility to a more accessible, eq uitable and effective international protection 
system in partnership with third countries, and to provide access to protection and durable 
solutions at the earliest possibl e stage, was emphasized. The Pr ogramme stated that countries 
in regions of origin and transit will be encour aged in their efforts to  strengthen their capacity 
to protect refugees. The Commission was i nvited to develop EU-Regional Protection 
Programmes in partnership with the third coun tries concerned and in close cooperation with 
UNHCR. It was announced that these programmes  would incorporate a variety of relevant 
instruments, primarily focuse d on capacity building, and include a joint resettlement 
programme for Member States willing to participate in such a programme .  
The Commission put forward its plans with re spect to Regional Protection Programmes in a 
Communication to the Council and the Euro pean Parliament on 1 September 20052. The 
Communication mentions that th e resettlement of refugees  from countries in regions of origin 
to EU Member States will be an important fact or in demonstrating the partnership element of 
Regional Protection Programmes to third c ountries. It was also announced that the 
Commission would examine the possibility of  bringing forward a proposal for a more 
structured approach to resettlement activitie s. It was announced that such a proposal would 
have to take account of the operational and logistic challenges involved in managing 
resettlement on an EU scale. Furthermore, it was noted that th e Commission would come 
forward with a proposal to amend the Council  Decision establishing the European Refugee 
Fund3 so that resettlement under Regional Prot ection Programmes could be substantially 
financed by the Community. 
With respect to external solidarity the Policy Plan on Asylum, adopted by the Commission 
on 17 June 20084, states the following:  
"In the coming years, the focus on the external dimension of asylum will become even 
stronger. The EU must share th e responsibility for managing ref ugees with third countries and 
                                                 
1 The Hague Programme: Strength ening Freedom, Security and Jus tice in the European Union, 
PresidencyConclusions: Brussels, 4/5 November 2004. 
http://ec.europa.eu/ju stice_home/news/information_dossiers/the_ha gue_priorities/doc/hague_programme_en.pdf
. 
2 Communication by the European Commission COM ( 2005) 388 final on Regional Protection Programmes.  
3 Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European 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, OJ L 144, 
6.6.2007, p. 1. 
4 Communication from the Commission to the EP, the Counc il, the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the Committee of Regions: Policy Plan on asylum, An  integrated approach to protection across the EU , 
Com(2008)360 Final.  
EN 5   EN countries of first asylum, which receive a far gr eater percentage of the world's refugees than 
Europe. Furthermore, the Commission will continue to integrate capacity building for asylum in development cooperation with third countr ies, placing the emphasis on a long term, 
comprehensive approach. Asylum should not be tr eated as crisis management but as integral 
part of the development agenda in the ar ea of governance, migration and human rights 
protection." 
With respect to resettlement the Policy Plan states:  "Resettlement fulfils an important role in the external asylum policies of the EU and there is 
much to be gained from a higher degree of  cooperation on resettlement among Member 
States, UNHCR and NGOs. This was widely ac knowledged in the res ponses to the Green 
Paper. Resettlement will therefore be further developed and expanded into an effective protection instrument to be used  by the EU to meet the protecti on needs of refugees in third 
countries and to show solidarity with  third countries of first asylum. 
In the course of 2009, the Commission will make  proposals on developing an EU resettlement 
scheme, in which Member States would par ticipate on a voluntary ba sis, setting common 
criteria and coordination mechanisms. Cooperati on on practical and l ogistical aspects will 
lead to more financial and quality effectiv eness. The Commission will cooperate with 
Member States and other relevant stakeholde rs, such as UNHCR and NGOs, to discuss the 
shape and functions of the EU resettlement scheme." 
On 24 September 2008 the JHA Council adopted the European Pact on Immigration and 
Asylum
5. With respect to asylum the Pact stated th at the time has come to take new initiatives 
to complete the establishment of a Common European Asylum System, which was provided 
for in the Hague programme, and thus to offer a higher degree of protection, as proposed by 
the Commission in its asylum action plan.  
The Council agreed that c ooperation with the Office of  the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees shoul d be strengthened to ensure better protection for people 
outside the territory of Europ ean Union who request protectio n, in particular by "moving, on a 
voluntary basis, towards the resettlement within  the European Union of people placed under 
the protection of the Office of the United Nations High Commissione r for Refugees..".  
1.2. General information on resettlement 
Resettlement  is the relocation of refugees, who ar e recognized by UNHCR as being in need 
of international protection, from the first country of asylum (m ostly in the third world) to 
another country where they receive permanent protection. Resettlement is one of three 'durable solutions' available to refugees, the other ones being return and local integration. 
Resettlement is generally carried out with  UNHCR acting as an intermediary. UNHCR has a 
mandate with respect to intern ational protection and is in a position to recognize refugees and 
to identify suitable cases for resettlement. Even if not the appropriate solution for many refugees, resettlement is essential in that it o ffers solutions to refugees  who can not return to 
their country of origin, and who can not be inte grated locally in the co untry of first asylum 
either. Global resettlement need s are structurally much greater than the resettlement places 
                                                
 
5 http://register.consilium.europa .eu/pdf/en/08/st13/st13440.en08.pdf  
EN 6   EN which are available worldwide. There are currently 21 countries worldwide which provide 
annually places for the resettlement of refug ees. 10 of these countries  are EU countries.  
There are some differences among EU countries w ith respect to the stat us which the resettled 
refugee receives after being resettled. In most cases this is the stat us of refugee under the 
Geneva Convention6 and a residence permit, which normally will be automatically renewed 
after 3 or 5 years. The procedure in the case of  resettlement is fundamentally different from 
the regular asylum procedure, in the sense that, for a resettled refugee, the legal determination 
that the person in question is a refugee, that  he/she deserves prot ection and that he/she 
qualifies for resettlement, takes place before the refugee is effectively tr ansferred. By contrast, 
the normal procedure for refugee status determ ination procedure commences with the request 
of the asylum seeker, after the arrival of the asylum seeker in an EU Member State. UNHCR 
usually has a key role in this process and subm its only cases for resettlement if the person in 
question has been recognized as a person in  need of protection under the UNHCR mandate 
and after it has been established that the person is in need of resettlement. Resettled refugees 
generally receive a residence permit immediately upon arrival which recognizes them as a 
person in need of internationa l protection and allows them to stay indefinitely in the 
resettlement country. Reception and integration ac tivities can therefore also be planned ahead 
as well as other necessary facilities, for ex ample with respect to schooling or medical 
treatment. 
As explained above, resettlement is only a so lution for a relatively small percentage of 
refugees worldwide. UNHCR generally submits cases for res ettlement only if they fulfil 
certain criteria, including those cases in which return to the country of origin is no option 
and in which there is no prospect of local inte gration either, as well as  particularly vulnerable 
persons, such as women at risk, children and persons with serious medical needs. See Annex 1 for more information on resettl ement (definition, purposes etc. ) and the numbers of persons 
resettled according to the UNH CR resettlement criteria. ( Annex 1)   
Resettlement is an orderly procedure which co ntrasts sharply with the undesirable forms of 
migration (human smuggling etc.) which are of ten associated with spontaneous arrivals. 
Moreover, resettlement targets those refugees  whose protection needs have already been 
clearly established. Moreover,  in offering resettlement, de veloped countries provide a 
humanitarian solution for refugees in third coun tries, some of whom would otherwise seek to 
travel to developed countries, usually by illega l means. For this reason resettlement may be 
considered to have some positive impact on the preven tion of illegal migration.  
A clear distinction should be made between resettlement , which is the transfer of refugees 
from outside EU territory to an EU Member State, and the issue of intra-EU relocation of 
refugees or asylum seekers . The issues are to be clearly se parated: while resettlement is a 
humanitarian instrument and an expression of solidarity by the EU vis-à-vis third countries, 
intra-EU relocation is primarily  an issue of burden sharing and solidarity among EU Member 
States.  
 
                                                
 
6 Geneva Convention of 1951 relating to th e Status of Refugees; Protocol of 1967 Relating to the Status of Refugees; 
http://www.unhcr.org/protect /PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf  
EN 7   EN 1.3. Consultation of Stakeholders  
(See Annex 2) 
• In order to prepare for a proposal, the Comm ission organized a first consultation meeting 
with a limited number of stakeholders on 12 December 2008. 5 Member States, UNHCR, 
ECRE and ICMC participated in this cons ultation meeting. This meeting concentrated 
mainly on the deficits of the current situation and on possible improvements.  
• A second consultation took place through a Qu estionnaire which was sent out to all 
Member States in December 2008. To date  22 Member States have replied to the 
Questionnaire. The objective of  the Questionnaire was twofol d: to receive input from 
Member States with respect to the needs in  terms of EU cooperation on resettlement (all 
Member states were requested to respond to th is part of the Questionnaire) and to collect 
data on resettlement as it is curren tly carried out by Member States.  
• A third consultation of stakeholders took place through consulting Member States in the 
framework of the Committee on Immigration and Asylum7. In February 2009 a discussion 
paper was sent out to the representatives of the Member States in this Committee. On the 
basis of this paper discussions took subseque ntly place in the meeting of the Committee on 
2 March 2009. 19 Member States ga ve written or oral replies to the questions put forward 
in the discussion paper. 
• Since the questionnaire was specifically addressed to Member States, other major 
stakeholders on resettlement, namely the UNHCR, the International Organization on 
Migration (IOM) and the European Council  on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), were 
requested to give written input  with respect to a joint EU resettlement scheme. All three 
stakeholders sent extensive papers on this issue.  
• During the consultations with stakeholders the following general points were widely 
emphasized:  
– Participation in resettlement by Me mber States should be voluntary . This element 
is stressed by many Member States, part icularly also by those Member States 
which consider that they face particul ar migration and asylum pressures. 
According to these Member States these elements should be taken into account in 
the over-all capacity of Member States to  resettle refugees from outside the EU; 
– It is important to widen the scope of  resettlement actively in the EU by 
familiarizing as many Member States as pos sible with resettlement. Therefore it is 
essential that the resettlement scheme is 'inclusive ', including all interested 
Member States. This view is shared by most Member States and other stakeholders; 
– It is also essential that it includes non-governmental actors
, such as UNHCR, IOM 
and NGO's which are active in resettlement; 
                                                 
7 This Committee is a consultative committee chaired by the Commission and composed of representatives of all 
Member States specialised in asylum and immigration issues.  
EN 8   EN – It is very important that the mechanism which will be established allows a high 
degree of adaptability  to changing circumstances. Adaptability is required in order 
to respond adequately to evolving needs with resp ect to possible forms of 
practical cooperation on resettlement betw een Member States. In order to use 
resettlement strategically it should also  be possible to review and revise 
resettlement priorities at regular intervals. 
– The emphasis within the EU with respect to resettlement should at this stage be on 
broadening the basis of resettlement a nd increasing the numb ers of resettled 
refugees . At the same time it should be acknowledged that resettlement is 
sensitive to national preferences and that  there are important disparities between 
Member States with respect to the caseload s they want to resettle, the resettlement 
criteria which are used and the partners  through which resettlement is carried out. 
A majority of Member States shares this  view. Many other stak eholders share this 
view as well, although some NGOs would prefer to see more harmonization of 
resettlement criteria within the EU. 
– The approach should be incremental  and, with experience, the resettlement 
scheme could be more ambitious in scope.  
The specific results of the consultations of stak eholders will be further discussed in chapter 5, 
which provides an analysis of impacts. 
• In order to ensure inter-se rvice coordination, an Inter-ser vice Steering Group (ISSG) was 
established, to which representatives of SG/D3, LS, BEPA, COMM/A2, EMPL/E2, 
RELEX/L3, DEV/C2, ELARG/A1, AIDCO/E3, ECHO/01, ESTAT/F1, BUDG/A3, JLS/A2, JLS/B3, JLS/B4 and JLS/D1 were invited. The draft-Impact Assessment was 
discussed at a meeting of  the ISSG on 31 March 2009.  
• The Impact Assessment was revised to take in to account the opinions issued by the Impact 
Assessment Board (IAB) on 13 May 2009. All the comments made by th e IAB were taken 
into consideration in the revised Impact Assessment: the presentation of the preferred policy option was further elaborated; it was further explained how the preferred option 
would encourage Member States to participat e in resettlement; a clarification of the 
financial implications for th e ERF was provided; the differe nt views expressed by Member 
States and other stakeholders were reported in more detail. 
  
2. PROBLEM  DEFINITION 
2.1. Scope of the problem 
Resettlement numbers (Annexes 3,4,5,6,7) : A first problem relates to  a general discrepancy 
between resettlement needs and resettlement carried out.  The UNHCR estimates the global 
resettlement needs at about 747.000 persons, including populati ons where resettlement is 
envisaged over a period of se veral years. On the basis of a prioritization, UNHCR estimates 
that out of this number, for 2010 alone, 203.000 persons will be in need of resettlement8. 
According to the UNHCR, in 2008 65.596 refugees were resettled worldwide. Of these, 4.378 
                                                 
8  UNHCR projected global resettlement needs 2010. 
EN 9   EN refugees, or 6,7%, departed to one of the EU countries9. In 2009 the number of refugees 
which are expected to be resettled will be approximately the same. There is therefore a 
structural discrepancy between th e number of refugees who are in need of resettlement and 
the numbers which are effectively resettled each year. This is a global and structural problem.  
A second problem relates to the numbers of refugees who are re settled to the EU. Out of the 
65.596 refugees who departed for resettlement in 2008, 4.378 refugees departed to one of the 
EU countries. This contrasts shar ply with the numbers of resettle d refugees who were taken in 
by the USA and other traditional resettlement c ountries in the industrialized world, such as 
Canada, Australia and New Zealand. For example,  the number of refugees who are resettled 
to Canada each year – around 10.000 - is more than double the number of refugees resettled to the total of the EU. For 2009 Canada plans to resettle between 7.300 and 7.500 Government-
assisted Refugees and 3.300 and 4.500 Privatel y Sponsored Refugees. See chart below and 
Annex 5.  
UNHCR Resettlement departures - EU vs. All Other Countries
010000200003000040000500006000070000
2005 2006 2007 2008EU All Others
 
Source: UNHCR 
2.2. Current situation (baseline)  
2.2.1.  Resettlement in the EU) 
See Annex 8 There are six Member States which have annual resettlement quotas in place for many years: 
Sweden, Denmark, Finland, UK, Ireland and the Netherlands. Since 2007 other Member 
States have introduced annual re settlement quotas (see par. 2 .2.4). Apart from these Member 
                                                
 
9 See annex 4 of the Impact Assessment on a Joint EU resettlement programme p.5. 
EN 10   EN States, some other Member Stat es have provided resettlement  on a very limited scale and on 
an ad-hoc basis, for example if UNHCR submitte d individual emergency cases. Furthermore, 
resettlement is not a historically novel phenomenon for many Member States: Europe has 
offered resettlement places to many thousands of refugees during the Yugoslav wars in the 
1990-s, to Indo-Chinese boat refugees in the 1980- s and after crises such as the down-fall of 
the Allende government in  Chile during the 1970-s. 
 
Resettlement quotas in EU MS 
 
Annual Quotas 
  2006 2007 2008 2009 
Sweden 1700 1800 1900 1900 
Finland 750 750 750 750 
UK 750 750 750 750 
Ireland 200 200 200 170 
Portugal 0 0 30 30 
France 0 0 350-450 350-450 
Czech Republic 0 0 30 30 
Romania 0 0 0 40 
 Multi-annual Quotas 
Denmark (three-year period)  1500  
Netherlands  (four-year period)  2000  
Source: responses to Commission questionnaire on resettlement to Member States, Jan. 2009 
2.2.2.  Financial costs of current resettlement  
Exact details on the financial co sts of resettlement for all EU resettlement countries are not 
available. In response to the que stionnaire, however, data were gi ven with respect to the costs 
of resettlement in Sweden, Denmark, the Ne therlands, UK, France and the Czech Republic. 
These provide a useful basis for estimation of costs, although it remains difficult to 
extrapolate from these data an estimate of the costs for all EU Member States. In Denmark the 
expenses related to selection missions, pre-depa rture programmes, transportation etc. for 2008 
were 1.653 Euros per resettled ref ugee. The expenses related to the integration of refugees 
(incl. resettled refugees) were 19.763 Euros per pe rson per year. The total expenses in Sweden 
(pre-departure, reception and integration during first year ) per resettled refugee are 
approximately 16.500 Euros. In France the total co sts of pre-departure ac tivities are estimated 
EN 11   EN to be 500.000 for 450 refugees to be selected. Th is equals 1.111 Euros per person. It should be 
noted that this does not include the costs of selection missions, because until now France has selected cases on the basis of dossiers and not  through selection missions. The reception and 
integration costs in France are estimated to be 2,5 M. Euros for the total of 450 resettled persons during the first six months after the arrival in France. This equals 5.555 Euros per 
resettled refugee during the first six months. In the Czech Republic the average costs per 
resettled refugee in 2008 were 7.085 Euros (incl.  pre-departure, rece ption and integration 
during the first year). (Annex 9)  
The total costs per resettled refugee (incl. pre-departu re activities, reception and 
integration during the first ye ar after arrival) are estimated to be  in Ireland (22.500 
Euros), Denmark (21.416 Euros), Sweden (16.500 Euros) and Czech Republic (7.085 
Euros).  
It is difficult to estimate the average costs of resettlement per resettle d refugee for the whole 
EU. On the basis of the financial costs provided by the different Member States the average 
cost of resettlement per person (incl. pre- departure activities, reception and integration 
during the first year after arrival) within  the EU is estimated to be roughly 15.000 
Euros . This estimate takes among other elements  into account the numbers and costs of 
resettlement in Sweden, being th e biggest resettlement country in the EU, as well as the costs 
of resettlement in the Czech Republic. It is ex pected that the expansion of resettlement will 
take place in new Member States which ha ve a lower cost of living than Sweden. 
It is equally difficult to give an estimate of  the average pre-departure costs per resettled 
refugee for the whole EU. These costs are part icularly relevant because these costs are 
expected to be reduced by improved practical  cooperation among Member States. On the 
basis of the data provided by Denmark and France the average pre-departure costs per 
resettled refugee within the EU is  estimated to be roughly 1.500 Euros . In the calculation 
it is taken into account that pre-departure costs in France were relatively low, because France 
has so far not carried out selection missions yet.  
2.2.3.  Financial assistance by European Refu gee Fund (ERF III) on resettlement  
The European Refugee Fund (ERF III) provides  financial assistance with respect to 
resettlement for the following three categories of activities. (See Annex 10, 11) 
(1) A wide range of resettlement activities whic h are carried out by the Member States are 
eligible for funding under the ER F national programmes if th ey fulfil certain criteria 
(notably Articles 3(1)(d),  3(5) and 6 of Decision No  573/2007/EC establishing the 
ERF). These can be included in the ERF Annual Programmes under priority 3.  
(2) Resettlement of specific categories of pers ons by Member States will be compensated 
under the ERF with a fixed amount of 4.000 Eu ro per resettled person (Article 13(3) 
and (4) of ERF Decision). The Member Stat e which intends to resettle such persons 
has to do a pledging in advance accordi ng to Article 13(6) of ERF Decision.  
(3) Transnational actions or actions of interest to the Community as a whole concerning 
asylum policy, including those related to resettlement, are eligible for funding under 
the ERF community actions (Article 4 of ERF Decision). Many of the project activities related to re settlement which have been carri ed out so far (s ee par. 2.2.3), 
were co-financed through ERF Community actions.  
EN 12   EN An overview of the activities as mentioned under point 1 (ERF national programmes) is 
supplied in Annex 11. More information on the specific categories of persons for which 
Member States may receive additional financia l assistance under ERF article 13, as mentioned 
above under point 2, is given in Annex 10.  
2.2.4.  Positive developments in recent years 
Over the last few years there have been some important positive developments with respect to 
resettlement.  
2.2.4.1.  New resettlement commitments  
New resettlement commitments were made by Member States which until recently had no 
annual resettlement quotas. In 2007 Portugal decided to establish an annu al resettlement quota 
(30 places). In 2008 France concluded an ag reement with UNHCR which provides that 
annually 100 resettlement cases which are submitted by UNHCR will be examined (i.e. approximately 350-450 persons to be resettled). In the same year Romania announced it will 
resettle annually 40 persons. In 2008 Romania also concluded a tripartite agreement with 
UNHCR and IOM on the establishment in Romani a (Timisoara) of an Evacuation Transit 
Center. This Center serves for the resettlement of emergency and other specific cases. The 
Czech Republic also announced in 2008 that they would start resettlement through the 
introduction of a pilot through whic h 30 persons would be resettled.  
2.2.4.2.  Interest by other Member States in resettlement  
Belgium (participation in many projects and twi nning activities, as well as participation at 
ministerial level in visit to resettlement mission in February  2009), Luxemburg (participation 
at ministerial level in visit to resettlement mission in April 2008), Spain (participation in 
resettlement project MOST), Poland (particip ation in resettlement training), Hungary 
(legislation adopted to include resettlement) and Italy. There ar e a number of Member States 
which have included training and twinning activ ities in their ERF Mu lti-annual programmes 
for 2008-2013 in order to get familiarized with resettlement (Slovenia, Poland, Belgium). 
2.2.4.3.  Project and twinning activities 
A number of project and twinni ng activities on resettlement has been developed over the past 
few years. These were co-financed by the Commission through ARGO
10 and the European 
Refugee Fund (Community Actions). A wide range of activities, such as the selection process 
and reception and integration of resettled refugees were covered. Different Member States participated in these projects – both resettleme nt countries and non-resettlement countries – 
and involved many different actors, both governmental as well as non-governmental 
(international and local NGOs, UN HCR, IOM). The following projects need to be mentioned 
in this context: MORE project (FI, IE), MOST project (IE, FI, SE, ES), project 'Durable 
solutions in practice' (NL, BE, CZ, RO), pr oject 'Practical cooperation for a European 
resettlement Network' by the International Catholic Migration Committee (ICMC) (SE, FI, 
                                                
 
10 ARGO was until 2006 an action programme for administrative cooperation at European Union level in 
the fields of asylum, visas, immigration and external borders, replacing in part the Odysseus 
programme. 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/2004_2007/argo/funding_argo_en.htm 
EN 13   EN NL, CZ, ES, IT), project 'resettlement-br oadening the basis in Europe' by Churches 
Commission for Migrants in Eu rope (CCME) (BE, DE, CZ, ES , IT, AT), CCME-resettlement 
project (DE, FR, BE, PT, HU, RO and Baltic states).  
2.2.4.4.  Joint resettlement operations  and ministerial visits  
There have been a number of joint resettle ment operations and ministerial visits to 
resettlement operations over the past years. The UK and Ireland currentl y carry out a project 
for the resettlement of persons from Tanzania, which provides for a joint selection of refugees 
and which provides also for joint activitie s concerning integrati on. In April 2008 the 
Netherlands and Luxembourg ministers of Immigration and the Belgian Commissioner-
General paid a joint visit to  a resettlement operation in Thailand. In February 2009 the 
Netherlands and Belgian ministers of Justice a nd Immigration visited t ogether a resettlement 
selection mission in Kenya.  
2.2.4.5.  Strong political interest at EU level 
Since 2008 there has been a strong political interest in resettle ment at the EU level. This 
interest focused particularly on the needs to rese ttle Iraqi refugees from  Syria and Jordan to 
the EU. In July and November 2008 the JHA Council adopted conclusions on the 
resettlement of re fugees from Iraq11. These Conclusions are significant, not only with 
respect to the resettlement of refugees from  Iraq, but also in general terms because they 
highlight the fact that resettleme nt contributes to the maintenan ce of the protecti on situation in 
Syria and Jordan. Following the Council Conclu sions, four Member States which until 
recently were not engaged in resettlement, have committed themselves to resettle refugees from Iraq (DE – 2.500 persons, IT – 50 persons, BE – 50 persons, LU – 25 persons). 
2.2.4.6.  European Asylum Support Office (EASO) 
The Commission has recently made a proposal c oncerning the establishment of the European 
Asylum Support Office (EASO)
12. If approved by the Council a nd the European Parliament, 
the EASO could be operational in 2010. The EASO will give support to Member States and other stakeholders with respect to practical co operation activities, incl uding those related to 
resettlement. The EASO will have its own dedi cated budget to develop practical cooperation 
activities. The draft Regulation establishing a Eu ropean Asylum Support Office states with 
respect to support for the external  dimensions of asylum policy, that "the Office shall, in 
agreement with the Commission, coordinate the ex change of information and all other action 
taken on issues arising from the implementation of instruments and mechanisms relating to the external dimension of the Common European  Asylum System. The Office shall coordinate 
exchanges of information and all other action take n on the resettlement of refugees within the 
European Union."  
                                                
 
11 Council Conclusions on the reception of Iraqi  refugees; 2987th JUST ICE and HOME AFFAIRS 
Council meeting Brussels, 27-28 November 2008; 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms _Data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/104360.pdf 
12 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European 
Asylum Support Office {SEC(2009) 153} {SEC(2009) 154}/* COM/2009/0066 final - COD 2009/0027 
*/ 
EN 14   EN In spite of the different positive developm ents which are described above, the current 
situation suffers from a number of important deficits and st ructural constraints. These 
are described below.  
2.3. Overview of main problems associated with current situation 
The general problem is that the EU currentl y does not participate sufficiently in the 
international protection of refugees throug h resettlement. This general problem can be 
translated into the following specific problems.  
(1) Current level of EU solid arity with third countries in receiving refugees is too 
limited;  This conclusion is based on the total numb er of resettlement needs as identified by 
UNHCR (see also above in par. 2.1) and is based particularly  on a comparison between the 
available places offered by EU Member St ates with the numbers offered by non-EU 
industrialized countries, such as the USA, Canada and Australia. Ev en if we take into account 
that some EU countries receive relatively more  spontaneous arrivals of asylum seekers than 
some non-EU countries, the numbers of refugees who are taken in for resettlement in the EU 
is considered to be very low.  
(2) The international role of the EU re garding resettlement is not sufficient. The 
relatively low involvement of the EU in rese ttlement impacts negatively on the ambition of 
the EU to play a prominent role in global humanitarian affairs and on the influence of the EU 
in international fora. Many stakeh olders have recognized this as  an important deficit of the 
current situation (UNHCR, EU resettlement c ountries, non-EU resettlement countries, the 
European Commission and several NGO's which ar e active in the field of resettlement).  
(3) Too few Member States pa rticipate in resettlement;  At present there are ten Member 
States which are structurally engaged in  resettlement: Sweden, Finland, Denmark, UK, 
Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, France, Ro mania and the Czech Republic. Currently the 
majority of EU MS do not demonstrate - throu gh the resettlement of refugees – solidarity 
towards non-EU countries, which are globally faced  with many refugees and asylum seekers. 
From the perspective of burden sharing, th is is considered to be unbalanced and 
unsatisfactory. Those Member States which are e ngaged in resettlement, regard this situation 
also as 'uneven'. This internal imbalance is considered also sub-optimal because the full 
development of resettlement as a component of EU external asylum policies presupposes that 
a majority of member states pa rticipate in it. In this context it should be recalled that the 
European Pact on Immigration and Asylum13, which was adopted by the Council in 
September 2008, reiterated the need for th e EU to engage in resettlement.  
(4) Lack of strategic use of resettlement  as an EU external policy instrument;  It is widely 
recognized that resettlement serves not only a humanitarian purpose vis-à-vis those persons 
who are effectively resettled and indirectly for th ose refugees remaining in the first country of 
asylum, but that it serv es also to relieve the third 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. Currently 
the member states which are resettlement countries  largely set priorities at the national level, 
                                                 
13 http://register.consilium.europa .eu/pdf/en/08/st13/st13440.en08.pdf  
EN 15   EN without much coordination at EU level regardin g both resettlement itself and with regard to 
other related external policy instruments. (Annex 12)  
The lack of joint EU prioritization is illustrate d by the experience with respect to resettlement 
from the beneficiary countries of Regional Protection Programmes. As mentioned above, 
Tanzania and the three former NIS countries  (Ukraine, Belarus and Republic of Moldova) 
were identified by the European Council as beneficiary countries of Regional Protection 
Programmes. It was also decided that one of th e key components of RPP's was resettlement of 
refugees from RPP countries. In spite of this, relatively few refugees have been resettled by 
EU Member States from RPP countries. (Annex 13)  
The recent discussions in the European JHA Counc il of Ministers on the resettlement of Iraqi 
refugees from Syria and Jordan, demonstrate the advantages of discussing resettlement 
priorities at an EU level. (See also par.  2.2.4.5) The conclusions adopted by the Council 
underscore the fact that resettlement is an important component of EU external asylum 
policies and EU external policie s in general vis-à-vis Iraq a nd Iraq's neighbouring countries. 
(5) Constraints posed by current financial framework as regards specific financial 
resources for resettlement;  In the view of many stakehol ders which were consulted, the 
financial support which ERF III pr ovides to resettlement has clea rly led to positive effects on 
resettlement. There are, however, a number of constraints within the current ERF mechanism 
which needs to be considered. The additional assistance which is provided to Member States 
per refugee resettled (Article 13(3) of ERF D ecision) applies only with respect to specific 
categories: a) persons from RPP countries, b)  unaccompanied minors, c) children or women at 
risk, d) persons with serious medical needs th at can only be addresse d through resettlement.  
With respect to RPPs it should be noted that the principal obj ective of these programmes is 
the strengthening of the protection situation in a third country through capacity building 
measures. In most cases this is expected to require medium to long term assistance. 
Resettlement needs may on the other hand cha nge more quickly. The case of Tanzania is 
illustrative: the number of refugees and the resettlement needs in Tanzania were much larger in 2005 then they are today.  
Secondly, the question may be posed whether it is  justified that under the current financial 
framework additional assistance is  provided for resettlement of refugees from RPP countries 
and not for resettlement of refugees from other c ountries, such as Iraqi refugees from Syria or 
Jordan. The financial framework is ar guably too rigid in this respect.  
A third critical remark on the current financia l framework is that it  appears to provide 
insufficient incentives for non-resettlement countri es to start resettleme nt activities. Many 
stakeholders have expressed the view that the fi nancial incentive for Memb er States to engage 
de novo in resettlement should be stronger.  
(6) Insufficient exchange of info rmation and lack of coordination  on resettlement 
activities;  Resettlement is largely ca rried out through bilateral co ntacts between resettlement 
countries and the UNHCR. Apart from this ther e is a resettlement working group which is 
coordinated by UNHCR and which meets twice a year. This resettlement working group 
includes all resettlement countries worldwide. Its focus is therefore not primarily on issues 
specific to Europe. For this reason, informal re settlement expert meeti ngs have been convened 
by the Commission since 2007. These take place tw ice a year and are considered useful for 
EN 16   EN the sharing of information and to discuss best practices. As a framework this is, however, very 
unstructured. There is no guarant ee that useful information, whic h may relate to all sorts of 
aspects of resettlement, such as features of spec ific resettlement caseloads, security concerns, 
family reunification aspects, false information, fraud, identity documents etc., is structurally 
shared among Member States. The lack of a stru ctured exchange of information applies also 
to the reception and integration of resettle d refugees. The practices among resettlement 
countries differ considerably in this respect.  
(7) Lack of economies of scale;  Resettlement requires much logi stical preparation, such as 
selection and orientatio n missions, medical and security screenings, arrangements for travel 
and visa, reception and integra tion programmes. Some of these activities could potentially be 
carried out jointly or in close cooperation be tween Member States. The current situation, 
which is marked by a lack of joint activi ties and practical cooperation between Member 
States, increases the financial costs of resettleme nt currently carried out. This may also be an 
impediment for potential new resettlement count ries to engage in resettlement. This is 
particularly relevant for Member States which consider introducing small resettlement quotas 
(Portugal, the Czech Re public and Romania have currently quot as of 30 and 40 persons). To 
organize a separate selection mission for a caseload of 30 pe rsons is impractical and very 
costly.  
Current twinning arrangements take place on an  ad-hoc basis, however, and there is no 
structural basis for it, either in  terms of human resources, or in  terms of financial resources. 
There is furthermore a significant cost adva ntage in carrying out specific resettlement 
activities jointly and on a structural basis. This  will reduce the over-all costs of resettlement.  
(8) The current situation is marked by divergences among EU Member States with respect 
to resettlement criteria and the stat us accorded to resettled refugees. (Annex 8)  While 
some Member States require th at the person to be resettled qualifies for refugee status 
according to the Geneva Convention, other Member States may accept cases for resettlement also on humanitarian grounds or if they qualify for subsidiary protectio n status. Furthermore, 
some Member States apply the integration pot ential of the person to be resettled as an 
additional criterion, while other Member States don't. This implies that with respect to 
persons to be resettled different protection st andards among Member States are applied. There 
are, as mentioned in paragraph 1.2 above, also differences among Member States with respect 
to the status which refugees receive after they have been resettled. It is questionable whether this situation is satisfactory given the obj ective of creating a Common European Asylum 
System (CEAS) and further de veloping EU external asylum policies. The fact that EU 
resettlement countries use different  resettlement criteria is also inefficient, because it requires 
extra time and resources for UNHCR in identify ing and preparing resettlement submissions.  
2.4. EU right to act 
The current legal basis for Communi ty action in the area of asylum policy is set out in Article 
63(1) and (2) TEC. These provisions state that the Council is to adopt  “measures on asylum, 
in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28  July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 
1967 relating to the status of refugees and ot her relevant treaties” and also “measures on 
refugees and displaced persons” in areas su ch as Member State responsibility, reception 
conditions, refugee qualification, granting of pr otection (including temporary protection) and 
balancing of Member States’ efforts in receiving refugees and displaced persons. 
EN 17   EN As regard practical cooperation in the field of asylum policy, the current legal basis is 
established in Article 66 TEC, which states that the Council, acting in accordance with the 
procedure referred to in Article 67, shall take  measures to ensure cooperation between the 
relevant departments of the administrations of the Member States in the areas covered by title IV (visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free moveme nt of persons), as 
well as between those departments and the Commission.  
2.5. Subsidiarity test 
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 individual countries  acting alone. This led to adoption by the 
Community legislator of the acqui s in the field of asylum, on the basis of specific dedicated 
legal bases enshrined in the Treaty. 
The need to act as regards the Common Europ ean Asylum System (CEAS) has already been 
assessed in recent impact assessment reports, and in particular in the impact assessment on the 
asylum policy plan
14, which has pointed specifically to the need to develop a joint EU 
resettlement scheme. There have been repeat ed calls from the European Council and the 
European Parliament to develop the CEAS, including its external dimension. The institutions of the Union committed to improving implementa tion of the acquis in the field of asylum 
clearly expressed the view that strengthening pr actical cooperation between Member States as 
well as strengthening the external  dimension are key priorities. 
The nature of the objectives to be achieved – improvement of quality and cost-effectiveness 
of resettlement through  practical cooperation, increasing th e strategic use of resettlement, 
developing external asylum polic ies – requires an initiative to be taken at the EU level. The 
other general objectives also require action at EU level. The establishment of a joint EU 
resettlement scheme will be instrumental in ensuring that more EU Member States participate in resettlement and in bringing about an over-all increase in the total of  available resettlement 
places in the EU.  
3. DEFINITION
 OF POLICY  OBJECTIVES 
The overall policy objectives  of the Commission proposal for th e establishment of a joint EU 
refugee resettlement scheme are the following: 
(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;  
The specific objectives  of the Commission proposal for th e establishment of a joint EU 
refugee resettlement scheme are the following: 
                                                 
14 Commission staff working document Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the 
European Parliament, the Council,  the European Economic and Soci al Committee and the Committee of 
Regions Policy Plan on Asylum an Integrated Approach to Protection Across the EU Impact 
Assessment {COM(2008) 360 final} {SEC(2008) 2030} 
EN 18   EN (a) to ensure greater solidarity by the EU  to third countries in receiving refugees; 
(b) to ensure that more EU Member  States participate in resettlement; 
(c) to ensure that re settlement efforts in the EU are be tter targeted, on  an ongoing basis, 
towards those persons or groups of pers ons (e.g. particularly vulnerable persons, 
including children, or persons from specifi c geographic areas) who are most in need 
of protection;  
(d) to increase the strategic use of  resettlement at an EU level;  
(e) to reinforce the international role of the EU generally, regarding resettlement 
specifically by developing resettlement as an  integral and coherent component of EU 
external policies;  
(f) to improve through cooperation the quality of the resettlement procedures in the EU; 
(g) to lower through cooperation the economic a nd financial costs of resettlement in the 
EU; 
(h) to reduce the differences among EU Memb er States regarding protection standards 
and to increase efficiency through the convergence of resettlement criteria; 
The operational objectives  of the Commission proposal for th e establishment of a joint EU 
refugee resettlement scheme are the following: 
(a) to increase the number of available rese ttlement places in the EU by at least 10% 
over the next 5 years (this is a general target which is considered to be realistic, given 
the input through stakeholder consultations); 
(b) to ensure that at least 5 more Member States, which until now have not engaged in 
resettlement, will become engaged in re settlement within the next 5 years; 
(c) to define priorities at the EU level w ith respect to the nationalities and specific 
categories of refugees  to be resettled; 
(d) to establish resettlement as a central component of the further development of 
Regional Protection Programmes and their extension to other regions; 
(e) to create a framework through which c ooperation among EU countries with respect 
to resettlement - both with respect to pract ical cooperation, as well as with respect to 
political cooperation - can be carried out a nd can be further devel oped in a structured 
and systematic way;  
(f) to provide the financial underpinning for the resettlement priorities which are set at 
EU level; 
(g) to ensure intensified pract ical cooperation among EU re settlement countries in an 
effective and structured way, more in particular with respect to the following activities:  
 - organization of selection missions 
EN 19   EN  - interviewing of cases, use of interp reters, use of interviewing facilities 
 - medical screening  - security screening  - pre-departure or ientation missions 
 - logistical arrangements c oncerning travel, visa etc. 
 - development of reception and integration programmes (h) to ensure exchange of best prac tices with respect to resettlement; 
(i) to formulate EU wide harmonized resettlement criteria.  
4. POLICY
 OPTIONS 
Three policy options have been defined. The second option is divided in two sub-options. 
These are presented in the Table below. The opt ions are discussed in paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 
4.3.  
On the basis of the problem analysis three main  components of resettleme nt policies at the EU 
level have been defined: the practical coopera tion, the political and the financial component. 
They form the starting point for the elaboration of the policy options.  
 
POLICY OPTIONS 
1st option: Maintain Status quo 
 
-maintain status quo practical cooperation 
 practical cooperation would be  developed through EASO 
-maintain status quo political component 
 no development 
-maintain status quo financial component 
 no development 
2nd option: Medium option 
 
-develop practical cooperation 
 Practical cooperation would be  developed through EASO 
 
-develop political component Sub option A  Political and financial component s allowing for a dynamic annual 
EN 20   EN  definition of resettlement prio rities will be developed by: 
amendment of ERF 
establishment of a new Committee under Comitology -develop financial component 
  
Sub option B Political and financial component s allowing for a dynamic annual 
definition of resettlement prio rities will be developed by: 
amendment of ERF 
the use of existing structures (Solid Committee and Resettlement Expert 
Platform) 
 
3rd option: Maximum option 
 
-develop practical cooperation 
 
-develop political component 
 
-develop financial component 
 Fully developed EU wide resettlement scheme; 
Total of available resettlement places within EU would  
be set and filled at EU level; Full harmonization of resettlement criteria;
 
Resettlement selection process fully centralized; EU would act collectively towards UNHCR,  IOM, third countries on resettlement
 
 
4.1. Short description of 1st op tion: no further EU action  
Practical cooperation component : 
The status quo situation already foresees th e establishment of a Eu ropean Asylum Support 
Office, which is expected to be operationa l by 2010 (the proposal tabled by the Commission 
is currently discussed with the Council and the EP). This will provide a framework for 
carrying out practical co operation activities, including activities with respect to resettlement. 
The experiences over the past ye ars and the consultation of stak eholders have showed that 
there is a strong need for pract ical cooperation activities. Many  practical cooperation activities 
have been carried out on an ad-hoc ba sis between different governmental and non-
governmental actors over the past years. They were  financed on an ad-hoc basis, primarily by 
ERF Community Actions. The establishment of the European Asylum Support Office will be 
well-placed to provide a structural framework for these activities.  
There is potentially a wide range of practical cooperation  activities which EASO could 
develop with respect to resettlement. 
(1) Sharing of information on resettlement: th is covers a wide range of issues and may 
cover both factual information as well as an alysis, studies and results of resettlement 
projects; 
(2) Identify best practices on resettlement; (3) Trainings, seminars etc., both for persons  working on resettlement  and for persons in 
Member States which are not engaged in resettlement yet; 
EN 21   EN (4) Twinning arrangements targeted at Me mber States which are not involved in 
resettlement yet; 
(5) Fostering and organizing joint activities and operations between existing resettlement 
countries, such as:  
• joint selection missions (joi nt use of interpreters, other facilities, medical 
screening, security screening);  
• joint pre-departure activities;  
• joint travel arrangements for reset tled refugees (provided by IOM);  
• Joint activities with respect to reception and integration of resettled refugees; 
• Leading and coordinating a specific expert  group on resettlement  submissions (eg: 
dossier submissions, emergency submissi ons, humanitarian criteria etc.); 
• setting up an EU 'clearing house' which receives resettlement submissions from 
UNHCR; 
A recent development is the establishment in Ro mania of an Evacuation Transit Center (ETC) 
for resettlement (see par. 4 above). This re quires specific attention, since several Member 
States have recently demonstrated an interest in  the use of this Evacuation Transit Center as a 
facility from which they can resettle specific  categories of refugees in urgent need of 
resettlement. 
Political component : if the status quo is maintained, this will not be further developed. 
– This means that the EU resettlement expert  group which was convened by the Commission 
since 2007 will continue its work on an ad-hoc basis. 
– It also means that the JHA Council may continue  to have occasional high-level discussions 
on resettlement in specific cases, such as the recent example of the discussion on the resettlement of Iraqi refugees.  
Financial component
: if the status quo is maintained, this will not be further developed. 
– This means that financial support for resettl ement activities will be continued to be 
provided by ERF III on the basis of the current criteria. As explained above, these criteria 
are fixed and the current mechanism is thus quite rigid. Se e paragraph 2.2.3.  
 
4.2. Short description of 2nd option: medium option  
This option is based on the voluntary particip ation of Member States in an EU joint 
resettlement scheme. There is an important polit ical consideration in this respect, which is 
mentioned in paragraph 1.3. This is the empha sis which some Member States put on the 
particular migration and asylum pressures which th ey currently face. In th e light of this these 
Member States insist on th e voluntariness of particip ation in resettlement.  
EN 22   EN Practical cooperation component :  
Under this option practical c ooperation will also be developed by the EASO. The tasks which 
EASO could have are described above in para graph 4.1. The distinction between the practical 
cooperation under this option and op tion 1 (status quo) is primarily  related to the link between 
practical cooperation activities and the further development of the political and financial 
component. As described below, under this opti on it is foreseen that  a political framework 
would be created which would set political priorities with respect  to resettlement, particularly 
with respect to geographic areas , nationalities as well as specific groups. W ithin this political 
framework resettlement will also be discu ssed more generally and coordinated with EU 
external asylum policies and EU external policie s in general. The fram ework will include all 
relevant stakeholders (experts from MS, Co mmission, UNHCR, NGO's). Furthermore, the 
political framework will discuss how resettlement  can be promoted and what sorts of practical 
cooperation activities are particul arly needed. It will thus en able the resettlement-related 
activities to be carried out by EASO to be be tter-focused on the most important and current 
needs of Member States and will  facilitate more e ffective steering of th ese activities. Under 
this option development of the practical cooperation component is  therefore expected to be 
stimulated and reinforced by the devel opment of the other two components.  
Political and financial components : 
As described above, there is currently very lim ited structured political cooperation with 
respect to resettlement.  It is envisaged to develop this further through the establishment 
of a political framework and to underp in it via the financial component.   
Political component :  
• A mechanism would be establ ished to enable the of setting of common EU annual 
priorities with respect to resettlement , both with respect to nationalities and specific 
categories of refugees to be resettled. The cu rrent framework of ERF stipulates that extra 
financial assistance is granted to Member St ates if they resettle refugees who fall under 
four specific categories, namely (1) unaccomp anied minors, (2) children and women at 
risk, particularly from psychological, physic al or sexual violence  or exploitation, (3) 
persons with serious medical needs that can onl y be addressed through resettlement and (4) 
persons from a country or re gion designated for the implementation of Regional Protection 
Programmes. The ERF framework today is rigid and not adaptable, which is particularly 
relevant with respect to geographic prioriti es. See also paragraph 2.3, under points 4 and 5. 
The political framework will therefore be re sponsible for setting annual resettlement 
priorities in order to resp ond to newly arising needs. 
• The political framework would also ensure an integrated approach between 
resettlement, external asylum policies and EU external policies as a whole . The setting 
of resettlement priori ties would be done on the basis of current needs as regularly 
identified by UNHCR and on the basis of humanitarian and political considerations identified by the Member States and the Commission. The departments responsible for 
external relations, humanitarian assistance and development will contribute to formulating priorities in order to ensu re an integrated approach. 
• Implications of formulating EU wide resettlement priorities . Firstly, it would be 
politically important to have EU endorsed rese ttlement priorities. Secondly, Member States 
EN 23   EN would receive extra financial assistance under Article 13 of ERF III, if they resettle 
according to EU priorities. It should, however , be underlined that the formulation of EU 
wide resettlement priorities does not impact on the freedom of Member States to carry out 
resettlement of other categories of refugees.  
• There would, moreover, be an added-value in coordinating  and promoting resettlement 
efforts generally at the EU level . The political framework woul d therefore not necessarily 
limit itself to deciding on strategic and political  priorities. It coul d also, for example, 
discuss whether Member States are willing to set quantitative targets. The framework 
would also discuss activities aimed at ensuri ng that Member States which are not engaged 
in resettlement yet, have the opportunity to  become familiar with resettlement, through 
training, twinning arrangements etc. 
• Identification of needs for specifi c practical cooperation activities , which would be the 
basis for EASO to develop these in c ooperation with its operational partners; 
Financial component:   
• The intensification of practical cooperation acti vities in the field of resettlement will be 
covered largely by the budget of the EASO and to some extent by ERF-Community 
Actions. The envisaged total budget of EASO is scheduled to be  after its establishment as 
follows: 5,25 million Euros (2010), 8 million Euros (2011), 12 million Euros (2012) and 
15 million Euros (2013). This covers all sort s of asylum related practical cooperation 
activities, including t hose on resettlement.  
• As described above under the political compone nt, the political framework will set annual 
resettlement priorities in orde r to respond to newly arising n eeds. In order to provide an 
effective financial underpinning of these priori ties Article 13 of ERF III will be amended.  
• The specific assistance which is provided by ERF under Article 13 gives also an incentive 
to Member States which are not resettlement countries to engage de  novo in resettlement. 
It should also be recalled that – in order to  familiarize themselves with resettlement – these 
Member States can include re settlement activities in their ERF annual programmes under 
priority 3 as defined in the ERF strate gic guidelines. 
• The proposal which will be made by the Commission has a potential impact on the 
quantitative allocations whic h are provided by the ERF. The ERF provides financial 
assistance to different asylum related activities; resettlement is one of them. If the principal 
objective, namely the increase in the total of resettlement places within  the EU, is reached 
and if Member States resettle  refugees on the basis of the priorities which are set jointly, 
the allocation under arti cle 13 may increase substantially. Under the pledging exercise in 
2008 Member States announced that they w ould resettle 2.393 pers ons for whom they 
would qualify to receive additi onal financial assist ance under article 13. This equalled a 
total allocation under article 13 of 9.572.000 Euro s. Under the pledging exercise in 2009 
Member States announced originally that th ey would resettle 2.711 persons for whom they 
would qualify to receive additi onal financial assist ance under article 13. This equalled a 
total allocation under article 13 of 10.844.000 Euros. The pledgi ng in 2009 was, however, 
revised following Council Conclusions which ca lled upon Member States to resettle Iraqi 
refugees from Syria and Jordan. This led to a revised pledging by Member States to resettle 
4.976 persons, for whom they would qualify to  receive additional fi nancial assistance 
EN 24   EN under article 13, which equalled a total a llocation under article 13 of 19.904.000 Euros. 
The revised pledging, however, was mainly due  to a pledging by Germany to resettle 2.160 
Iraqi refugees from Syria and Jordan, for wh om they would qualify to receive additional 
financial assistance under ar ticle 13. This was an excep tional development which is 
unlikely to be sustained on an annual basis. Ne vertheless, it is like ly that the allocation 
under article 13 will increase somewhat, and po ssibly substantially. The extent of this 
increase depends on the increase in the number of the persons who will be resettled by Member States and on the way in which resettlement priorities will be formulated, on the basis of which Member States qualify to re ceive the specific fina ncial assistance under 
article 13. Although it is difficult to estimate this effect, it is not unlikely that the increase 
may be around 25 % on average. This would im ply an increased allo cation under article 13 
of 2.711.000 Euros on average per year.  
• A disproportionate increase in the allocati on under article 13 may potentially penalize the 
allocations under the ERF generally to Memb er States which do not participate in 
resettlement. However, a total budget increase  will take place grad ually over a number of 
years and the "assigned revenues" made available in the ERF budget each year, which is expected to be up to 2 million Euros per year  from 2010, could also match the increase in 
the allocation. The total ER F budget will increase as fo llows: 92,5 million Euros (2010), 
103,33 million Euros (2011) and 122,13 million Euros (2012). It is therefore considered 
unlikely that the increase in the allocation und er article 13 for resettlement activities will 
have a disproportionate effect  on the allocation of ERF fundi ng to other asylum activities. 
At this stage it is therefore not considered n ecessary to include a "cei ling" with respect to 
the allocation of ERF funds under article 13 ER F III (the existing structure of the Fund 
does not provide a ceiling with  respect to these allocations), but the Commission will 
monitor the allocations under article 13 ERF III closely each year in order to decide 
whether the establishment of a "ceiling"  at a later stage is necessary.   
The difference between sub-option 2A and 2B  relates to the way in which the political 
framework is going to be organized. In terms of intended output  there is no distinction 
between sub-options 2A and 2B. 
Description sub-option 2A: To formulate political and strategic priorities a new Committee 
on Resettlement chaired by the Commission would be establis hed, in which all Member 
States would participate. Other stakeholde rs (i.e. UNHCR, IOM, ECRE, NGO's which are 
active in resettlement) would participate in the Committee as consultative partners. This 
Committee on Resettlement would be a new Co mmittee to be set up and would function 
according to Comitology rules. The allocation of  financial assistance  provided by ERF III 
under Article 13 would be on the basis of th e priorities as set by the Committee on 
Resettlement. 
Description sub-option 2B: To formulate political and strategi c priorities existing structures 
would be used. Since, as is indicated in chapte r 6, this is the preferre d option, this option is 
described hereunder in more detail. 
In spring each year UNHCR will provide an indi cative forecast of the resettlement needs for 
the following year. The Commission will thereupon convene a meeting of the Resettlement Expert Platform, in which all Member States  and other stakeholde rs (i.e. UNHCR, IOM, 
ECRE and NGOs) will participate. In this meeti ng resettlement prioriti es will be discussed 
and identified on the basis of the forecast provided by UNHCR. Priorities may relate to 
EN 25   EN nationalities, geographic areas or specific groups of  refugees, such as particularly vulnerable 
persons, or on the basis of any other relevant  criteria. The Commission will subsequently 
make a draft Decision specifying the resettlement  priorities for the coming year, on which the 
SOLID-Committee - which is the existing Committee of Member States for the management of the 'General Programme on Solidarity and Ma nagement of Migration Flows' and which is 
chaired by the Commission - will be consul ted. After the consu ltation of the SOLID 
Committee the Commission will deci de on the resettlement priori ties for the following year, 
which will be published in the form of a Decision.  
ERF III will provide for the financial underpinni ng of these common EU annual resettlement 
priorities. Article 13 of the ERF Decision will  be amended and will provide for financial 
assistance of 4.000 Euros per resettled person to Member States which resettle according to 
the common EU priorities. After the Commissi on Decision on the resettlement priorities has 
been published, Member States will communi cate to the Commission how  many persons they 
intend to resettle during the following year according to the common EU priorities (pledging-
exercise according to Article 13 ERF). On th e basis of the pledging Member States will 
receive financial assistance. The timing of the annual Commission Decision will need to be 
such as to enable Member States to submit  resettlement pledging, for the purposes of 
qualifying for the financial payments under Article 13 ERF, in line with th e decided priorities.  
The current Resettlement Expert Group, whic h has been convened by the Commission on an 
informal and ad-hoc basis, will be developed into a Resettlement Expert Platform, in which 
all Member States and other stakeholders participate, and which will meet on a regular basis. This Platform will serve as a political framew ork and will discuss, apart from the annual 
priority setting, also other issues rela ted to resettlement within the EU.  
One of the main challenges for this Platform will be to ensure that more Member States 
within the EU will participate in resettlement. An important way to reach this objective, will 
be to provide training on resettlement and to  organize twinning operati ons in which different 
actors are involved, both from Member States wh ich currently carry out resettlement as well 
as from other Member States. To this end the Resettlement Expert Platform will need to cooperate closely with the European Asyl um Support Office (EASO), which will be 
responsible for practical cooperation activ ities, including thos e on resettlement.  
The Platform will be the primary interlocutor w ith the EASO also on other issues related to 
resettlement, for example with respect to th e monitoring and eval uation of resettlement 
activities, the identification of best practi ces, the examination and development of new 
practices with respect to resettlement, such as the sponsorship-model,  as well as identifying 
priorities for the next years.  
The fact that political and prac tical cooperation on resettlement is further developed at EU 
level, is expected to make it easier for Memb er States, which until r ecently were not engaged 
in resettlement, to become involved. The Resett lement Expert Platform and the EASO will be 
able to supply relevant expertise. If joint EU policies are in place, the threshold for Member States to engage in resettlement w ill also be lower in political terms. 
 
4.3. Short description of 3
rd option: maximum option  
Political, financial and prac tical cooperation components : 
EN 26   EN A fully developed EU wide resettlement sche me could imply some or all of the following 
elements: 
(a) All EU Member States would commit them selves to contribute to resettlement by 
effectively making a certain number of rese ttlement places available. The number of 
places made available by the Member Stat es would be based on a distribution 
calculated on the basis of fixed criteri a, which would be set at EU level. 
(b) The total number of available resettlement places within the EU would be set and 
filled at EU level. This would imply that  at EU level decisions would be made on 
priorities to be resettled and that the sele ction of resettled refugees would be made 
fully in accordance with th ese joint EU criteria.  
(c) The fact that resettlemen t priorities would be  decided upon at central EU level would 
enable to fully integrate resettlement into  external asylum polic ies and EU external 
policies as a whole. 
(d) No resettlement would be carried out by the Member States outside of the joint 
resettlement scheme. There would be no disc retionary power left to Member States 
therefore to decide themselves on the rese ttlement of particul ar nationalities or 
specific groups. 
(e) Full harmonization of resettlement criteria, as well as the status which resettled 
refugees would receive after arrival, w ould be necessary through a legislative 
instrument. 
(f) The resettlement selection process would be fully centralized at the EU level. All 
pre-departure operations woul d be carried out jointly. The capacity at the central 
level would have to be reinforced and cap acity at national level with respect to 
resettlement could be reduced. In this option EASO would most likely not have a 
support role vis-à-vis national authorities with respect to resettlement activities, but 
would have a leading organizational role. The necessary increase in capacity of 
EASO with respect to resett lement would impact on the capacity of EASO to carry 
out practical cooperation in other fields. The enlarged tasks of EA SO with respect to 
resettlement would possibly require amendm ent of the regulation on the EASO as it 
is currently proposed by the Commission. 
(g) The EU would act collectively towa rds UNHCR, IOM and third countries on 
resettlement, both with respect to political  discussions as well as with respect to 
practical and logistical arrangements.  
(h) The financial component would need to be reviewed completely under this option. 
Since all Member States would participate in  a fully-fledged EU resettlement scheme 
and priorities would be set at  the EU level, there woul d be no need for additional 
financial assistance as provi ded under Article 13 of ERF.  ERF would need to be 
revised.  
(i) A fully-fledged joint EU resettlement sc heme would require a separate legal base, 
probably in the form of a regulation.  
EN 27   EN 5. ANALYSIS  OF IMPACTS 
In the paragraphs below an anal ysis of the options is made against the following criteria: 
- effectiveness of the options  in reaching the objectives; 
- impacts of the options; - political feasibility and proportionality. The different impacts are defined as follows: (1) The first impacts are the direct financial costs  related to resettlement. These costs 
relate to all the different resettlement activities , such as selection and pre-departure 
activities as well as reception and integration activities during the first year after 
the resettlement . They are mainly paid by the gove rnments of Member States, even 
if in some Member States some of thes e activities are carried  out by local NGO's. 
During the consultations with stakeholders  data were collected from the existing 
resettlement countries within the EU with respect to these costs.  See also paragraph 
2.2.2. In annex 7 is an overview of the financ ial costs of resettlement in the Member 
States.  
(2) The second impact is the effect of in creased practical coop eration among Member 
States on the financial costs of resettle ment per resettled refugee  (per capita).   
(3) The third and fourth categor ies of impacts relate to the economic and social costs 
related to the integration of resettled  refugees, after the first year of 
resettlement: housing, education, medical assistance,  social assistance, employment 
and integration potential within  the EU at the local level. Apart from costs there are 
also benefits to society, such as labour capacity, cultural divers ity etc. It is not 
possible to quantify this impact with a ny precision, given the wide divergence 
between costs in the different Member Stat es and the widely differing characteristics 
of refugees resettled.  
(4) The fifth category of impacts relates to the direct humanitarian impact  (on 
resettled refugees themselves), the indirect humanitarian impact  (on improvement 
of the protection situatio n to other refugees in third countries ) and the effectiveness 
of EU external relations . 
(5) The sixth impact relates to the degree in which the option leads to increased 
equality in providing protect ion to refugees (equal treatment of a particular 
group).   
(6) The seventh impact which needs to be assessed is the effect on fundamental rights . 
As explained above, resettlement become s necessary when there is inadequate 
protection in the country of first asylum. This inadequacy of protection can have 
various reasons, including among others, viol ation of fundamental rights, e.g. if the 
living conditions are so deplorable that  they amount to inhuman or degrading 
treatment (see Article 3 Charte r of Fundamental Rights of the EU). In other cases, 
resettlement may be necessary because the country of first asylum does not offer 
legal recognition of refugees  and thus puts into questi on the fundamental right to 
EN 28   EN asylum as such (see Article 18 EU Charter) . EU measures that aim at enhancing and 
strengthening the use of resettlement sc hemes therefore implement and promote the 
fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter and notab ly, human dignity, the right 
to asylum, prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, non-
discrimination and the rights of the child.  
5.1. Assessment of 1st option: maintenance status quo   
As described in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 the "baseline" is an evolving picture, 
particularly because of the expected esta blishment of the European Support Office 
(EASO) in 2010. In order to quantify the expect ed impacts of the c reation of EASO, we 
have made a distinction between the baselin e now (situation in spring 2009) and the 
baseline in two years time (situation expe cted after the creation of EASO without 
further EU action taken).  
Impact Assessment  Option 1 
Objectives   
now progressive 
1 ensure greater solidarity by the EU to thir d countries in receiving refugees  0 Low/medium 
2 ensure that more EU Member States participate in resettlement  0 Low/medium
3 ensure that resettlement efforts are bet ter targeted, on ongoing basis, towards 
those most in need (e.g. children, re fugees from specific regions)  0 Low/medium
4 Increase strategic use of resettlement at an EU level 0 Low 
5 reinforce the international role of t he EU regarding resettlement by developing 
it as an integral and coherent compo nent of EU external policies  0 Low 
6 improve through cooperation the quality of the resettlement procedures in the 
EU  0 Low/medium
7 reduce through cooperation the economic and financial costs per capita of 
resettlement in the EU 0 Low/medium
8 reduce the differences among EU Member States regarding protection 
standards and to increase efficiency through the convergence of resettlement criteria 0 Low 
Impacts 
 1 Direct financial costs related to resettlement (selection, reception, 
integration) (total costs)  0  Small 
increase 
 2 Effect of economies of scale on direct financial costs related to resettlement 
(selection, reception, integration) (total costs)   0 Small 
decrease 
 3 Economic and social costs related to the integration of resettled refugees, in a 
wide sense (total costs)  0 Small 
increase 
 4 Economic and social costs related to the integration of resettled refugees, in a  0 Low 
EN 29   EN wide sense (pro capita costs) 
 5 Impact of resettlement on third countries, specific categories and EU external 
relations  0 Low 
 6 Increased equality in providing protection to refugees  0 Low 
 7 Impact on fundamental rights   0 Low 
Political feasibility  
 1 Support among key stakeholders for this option   0 Medium 
 2 Proportionality  0 Some 
concern 
 
5.1.1.  Effectiveness in reaching objectives  
The status quo situation is discussed and analyzed in paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. As 
highlighted above there have been important  positive developments with respect to 
resettlement within the EU. These recent develo pments demonstrate that there is certainly a 
political momentum which is favourable to rese ttlement. Furthermore, the establishment of 
the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), which is expected in 2010, will provide a 
framework for carrying out pr actical cooperation activities,  including those related to 
resettlement.  
As pointed out above in para graph 2.2 and 2.3, there are, how ever, a number of important 
drawbacks to the current situation. These drawb acks have implications on its effectiveness in 
attaining the defined objectives. 
Specific objectives 1, 2 and 3 
• The current trend is positive a nd it is likely that the practical  cooperation which EASO will 
develop on resettlement will lead to some increas e in resettlement in the EU. However, this 
increase is likely to be limited;  
• If the status quo is maintained, it is likely th at a couple of EU Member States, which have 
until now not been engaged into resettlement, w ill decide to become engaged; this increase 
is estimated to be low; 
• If the status quo is maintained, it is possibl e that Member States will from time to time 
decide ad hoc  to prioritise the resettlement of pers ons currently in particular need of 
protection (e.g. the recent Counc il decision to resettle 10.000 Iraqis in Syria and Jordan. 
However, the absence of a regular, structur ed priority-setting framework means that 
resettlement efforts in the EU  will not always be optimally targeted, on an ongoing basis, 
towards those persons or groups of persons  (who are most in need of protection; 
• There are, however, some serious deficits to the status quo. In particular, the absence of a 
framework for structured poli tical cooperation on resettleme nt. This will also hamper 
EN 30   EN practical cooperation on resettlement within EA SO. This will remain a barrier for Member 
States to newly engage into resettlement.  
Specific objectives 4 and 5 
• If no EU action is taken on resettl ement, there will be little strategic use of resettlement at 
EU level. This means that priorities with respect to nationalities and categories to be 
resettled, would continue to be set at the nati onal level. This would lead to the maintenance 
of a fragmented situation in terms of priorities; 
• If no EU action is taken, resettlement will become less integrated and developed as a 
component of EU external asylum policies. Th is would make the external asylum policies 
and the EU's external policies as a whole less effective; 
• Common initiatives such as the resettlement  of Iraqis from Syria and Jordan would 
continue to be engaged in  on an ad-hoc basis.  
Specific objectives 6 and 7 
• Through the establishment of EASO the exchan ge of information concerning resettlement 
within the EU will improve. As a result, the qua lity of resettlement is expected to improve. 
• A very important aspect of resettlement is reception and integration. Cooperation on these 
aspects is likely to be mainly  in the form of exchange of information and identifying 'best 
practices'. This is an important tool to impr ove the quality of the reception and integration 
systems in the Member States. The way recepti on and integration of resettled refugees is 
organized differs considerab ly among Member States.  
• The development of practical cooperation on rese ttlement is expected to deliver important 
synergy effects. In this respect one can think of  concrete activities wh ich can be carried out 
together by Member States, such as selection missions, cu ltural orientation 
missions/programmes, medical screenings, travel  or visa arrangements, but one can think 
also of other forms of cooperation such as ex change of information on characteristics of 
specific resettlement caseloads, etc.  
• Joint activities will lead to advantages relate d to economies of scale.  Economies of scale 
are expected to lead to improve d quality at a lower level of costs per refugee, which will 
lower the threshold for Member States to newly engage in to resettlement.  
• If the status quo is maintained, the financial costs per capita of resettlement are expected to 
decrease slightly (through intensified practic al cooperation within EASO), compared to 
their current levels. See below under impacts. 
However, if there is no further political coop eration with respect to resettlement, this 
will also have a negative impact on practical cooperation regarding resettlement 
activities.  Practical cooperation on resettlement woul d be likely to remain largely ad-hoc and 
fragmented, even if EASO is goi ng to provide a structural basi s for these activities. In this 
context it should be emphasized that EASO will have a mandate which is limited strictly to 
operational cooperation. EASO w ill not be in a position to ma ke political or strategic 
decisions. Under the status quo practical cooperation activities on resettlement are 
therefore likely to grow, but the positive effect will be consid erably less than it could be 
EN 31   EN with the added impetus of structured politi cal prioritising accompanied by appropriate 
financial incentives.  
Specific objective 8 
• If no EU action is taken, the resettlement criteria which the different Member States rely 
on, are expected to remain divergent. As a c onsequence of this, protection will be provided 
to different categories of pers ons, depending on the individual  Member State which carries 
out resettlement. This maintains a situation of  inequality vis-à-vis those persons who seek 
protection. It also reinforces the perception of fragmented non-harmonized asylum policies 
throughout the EU. 
  
5.1.2.  Impacts 
• As stated above, it is expected that there will be a limited increase in the total number of 
available resettlement places with in the EU, if the status quo is maintained. This is in line 
with the current positive trends, which show so me increase in resettlement, and can also be 
attributed to the modest efficiency ga ins likely to be brought about by EASO. ( See above 
under objective 1 and 2. ) In line with these current trends , the increase is estimated to be 
small, perhaps around 5 % over the next five years. Since the tota l resettlement capacity 
within the EU is currently 5.100 places this means an increase of 255 places. Based on an 
average cost within the EU of Euro 15.000 per resettled ref ugee (see par. 2.2.2) this means 
an increase of Euros 3.825.000. These are the expected total costs of resettlement, 
including pre-departure costs and reception and integration costs during the first year after 
the arrival. As explained on page 22 under the definition of impacts, these costs are mainly 
paid by the governments of Member States, alth ough part of these costs are also likely to 
be paid through the specific financia l assistance provided by article 13 ERF. 
• Economies of scale are estimated to lead to a small decrease in the financial costs of 
resettlement per resettled refugee (per cap ita) of an estimated 10%. The savings of 
practical cooperation, however, apply mainly to the pre-departure costs (reception and integration costs will remain more or less the same). Pre-departure costs are estimated to be around 1.500 Euros per person. (see par. 2.2.2) A 10 % savings per person implies a 
decrease in total costs of Euros 803.250.  
• The third and fourth categories of impacts relate  to the economic and social costs related to 
the integration of resettled refugees, after the fi rst year of resettlement . It is not possible to 
quantify this impact with any precision, give n the wide divergence between costs in the 
different Member States and th e widely differing characteristics  of refugees resettled. The 
total costs and benefits will show a small incr ease, commensurate with the expected total 
increase of 5%. The impact per person is, however, estimated to remain the same, 
regardless of which option is chosen.  
• Maintenance of the status quo will not lead to a substantial increase of  the strategic use of 
resettlement and will therefore not lead to a substantial improvement in the protection 
situation in third countries. Maintenance of  the status quo will not lead to the further 
development of resettlement as a component of  EU external relations and to the improved 
effectiveness of EU external relations.  
EN 32   EN • The current situation is marked by a lack of harmonized resettlement criteria and status 
conferred upon resettled refugees. The conseque nce of this is a rela tively large degree of 
inequality: there are important differences among Member States with respect to which 
refugees qualify for resettlement. Under the ba seline scenario this will remain the same. 
See also above paragraph 2.2, point 8.  
• Due to the small increase in the number of  resettlement places expected, the positive 
impact on fundamental rights of this  option can be considered low.  
 
5.1.3.  Political feasibility, subs idiarity and proportionality 
• It is politically feas ible to maintain the status quo. Ho wever, stakeholder consultations 
have shown that there is considerable s upport for moving beyond the current situation and 
putting in place an EU structure for resettleme nt, even if the general preference would be 
for a light structure. Particularly those Member States which currently carry out 
resettlement are in favour of having more c ooperation at EU level on resettlement, because 
they regard this as a useful step to get othe r Member States involved in resettlement. Also 
many Member States, which currently do not ca rry out resettlement, have expressed their 
support for more EU cooperation on resettleme nt, although most have emphasized that 
participation in resettlement should rema in voluntary. There is wide support for the 
strategic use of resettlement and to develop resettlement further as a component of the 
external dimension. Maintenance of current s ituation does not respond to this need. There 
is therefore reason to believe that maintenance of the current situation will not be 
sustainable. Political feasibility  is therefore rated as medium. 
• As explained in par. 2.5 the nature of the needs and the obj ectives to be achieved, require 
action to be taken at the EU level. Maintenance of the st atus quo does not provide for 
sufficient political cooperation at EU level and is therefore not satisfactory from the 
perspective of subsidiari ty and proportionality.  
5.2. Assessment of 2nd option: medium option  (the dynamic process) 
Since the expected output of sub-options 2A  and 2B is expected to be the same, the 
assessment of the effectiveness in reaching th e objectives as well as impacts is done 
together for sub-options 2A and 2B. However,  what distinguishes sub-option 2A from 
sub-option 2B is the assessmen t of political feasibility and proportionality. These are 
therefore assessed separately.  
Impact Assessment  Option 2 A and 
2B 
Objectives  
1 ensure greater solidarity by the EU to third countries in receiving 
refugees   Medium/high  
2 Ensure that more EU Member States participate in resettlement  Medium/high 
3 ensure that resettlement efforts are better targeted, on ongoing basis, High 
EN 33   EN towards those most in need (e.g. children, refugees from specific 
regions)  
4 Increase strategic use of resettlement at an EU level Medium 
5 reinforce the international role of the EU regarding resettlement by 
developing it as an integral and coherent component of EU external policies  Medium 
6 improve through cooperation the qualit y of the resettlement procedures 
in the EU  Medium/high 
7 lower through cooperation the economic and financial costs per capita of 
resettlement in the EU Medium/high 
8 reduce the differences among EU Member States regarding protection 
standards and to increase efficiency through the convergence of resettlement criteria Medium 
Impacts 
 1 Direct financial costs related to resettlement (selection, reception, 
integration)  Medium/high 
increase 
 2 Effect of economies of scale on di rect financial costs related to 
resettlement (selection, reception, integr ation) (total costs)  medium decrease 
 3 Economic and social costs related to the integration of resettled 
refugees, in a wide sense (total costs)  Medium/high 
 4 Economic and social costs related to the integration of resettled 
refugees, in a wide sense (per capita costs) Low 
 5 Impact of resettlement on third countries, specific categories and EU 
external relations Medium 
 6 Increased equality in providing protection to refugees Medium 
 7 Impact on fundamental rights  Medium/high 
Political feasibility, subsidia rity and proportionality 2A  
 1 Support among key stakeholders for this option  Low/medium 
 2 Proportionality Some concern 
Political feasibility, subsidia rity and proportionality 2B  
 1 Support among key stakeholders for this option  Medium/high 
 2 Proportionality Little concern 
 
EN 34   EN 5.2.1.  Effectiveness in reaching objectives 
Under option 2 the political and financial comp onents will be further developed. This is 
expected to provide also stimulus and political steering to the practical cooperation activities. This distinguishes option 2 from option 1. 
Specific objectives 1, 2 and 3 
• If the practical cooperation act ivities on resettlement are acco mpanied by further political 
cooperation and if a financial unde rpinning is provided, it will be easier, both in practical 
and political terms, as well as more cost -effective for Member States to engage de novo  in 
resettlement. For the following reasons this opt ion is expected to lead to a medium/high 
increase in resettlement as well as to mo re involvement of other Member States in 
resettlement: through enhanced synergies the costs of resettlement per resettled refugee 
will be lower; EASO will provide a basis for joint EU operations on resettlement, which 
makes it easier for Member States to engage in resettlement; through EASO other Member 
States will provide technical assistance, know-how and experience on resettlement; 
through the dynamic priority setting which ta kes place each year Member States can 
influence the resettlement priorities; on the basis of these priorities they will receive additional financial assistance from ERF per resett led refugee; the fact that there is a joint 
EU resettlement scheme in place, makes it pol itically easier for Member States to engage 
in resettlement;  
• It will also provide an incen tive for existing resettlement countries to increase their 
resettlement commitments; 
• This option will enable Member States, within  a structured priority-setting framework, to 
prioritise on an annual basis, the resettlement of those pers ons or groups of persons who 
are most in need of protection;  
• Consequently, if this option is embraced, the in crease in the total number of refugees to be 
resettled in the EU is estimated to be me dium/high. Since 2007 four Member States, which 
were previously not engaged in resettle ment, have introduced annual resettlement 
programmes (PT, FR, RO, CZ). In total th ese programmes have made 500 resettlement 
places available. Under option 2 it is assume d that over the coming years other Member 
States will decide to engage in resettlement a nd that this will lead to an increase of the total 
available resettlement places within the EU of approximately 765 places, i.e. an increase of 
15%. Under this option the increase is expected  to be higher than under options 1 or 3, 
because, for the reasons described in detail above, Member States will benefit from the 
synergies and expertise resulting from enhanced  cooperation, and will have a direct stake 
in the setting of priorities to be underpinne d by financial support, while at the same time 
remaining at liberty to also resettle in accordance with th eir own national preferences. 
Specific objectives 4 and 5 
• Option 2 provides for political cooperation a nd the formulation of joint EU political and 
strategic priorities with respect to resettleme nt. This would lead to less fragmentation of 
priorities and more strategic us e of resettlement at EU leve l. The positive impact on the 
protection situation in thir d countries will be larger. 
EN 35   EN • Political cooperation will ensure that resettle ment will be integrated and developed as a 
component of EU external asylum policies and EU external policies as  a whole. This is 
expected to lead to improved effec tiveness of EU external policies.  
Specific objectives 6 and 7 
• Through the establishment of EASO the exchan ge of information concerning resettlement 
within the EU will improve. As a result, the quality  of resettlement is expected to improve.  
• A very important aspect of resettlement is reception and integration. Cooperation on these 
aspects is likely to be mainly  in the form of exchange of information and identifying 'best 
practices'. This is an important tool to impr ove the quality of the reception and integration 
systems in the Member States. The way recepti on and integration of resettled refugees is 
organized differs considerab ly among Member States.  
• The development of practical cooperation on rese ttlement is expected to deliver important 
synergy effects. In this respect one can think of  concrete activities wh ich can be carried out 
together by Member States, such as selection missions, cu ltural orientation 
missions/programmes, medical screenings, travel  or visa arrangements, but one can think 
also of other forms of cooperation such as ex change of information on characteristics of 
specific resettlement caseloads, etc.  
• Joint activities will lead to advantages relate d to economies of scale.  Economies of scale 
are expected to lead to improved quality at a lower level of costs pro capita, which will 
lower the threshold for Member States to engage de novo  in resettlement.  
Specific objective 8 
• Option 2 does not provide for harmonization of the resettlement criteria which the different 
Member States use. However, improved po litical cooperation a nd improved practical 
cooperation are expected to lead to some im provement with respect to reaching this 
objective.  
 
5.2.2.  Impacts  
• As stated above, it is expect ed that there will be a medi um/high increase of the total 
number of available resettlemen t places within the EU, if option 2 is implemented. Taking 
into account both current trends ( see above under option 1 ) and the anticipated reduction in 
resettlement costs per refugee, particularly fo r those not currently engaged in resettlement, 
this increase is estimated to  be around 15 %. Since the to tal of currently available 
resettlement places in the EU is 5.100 this means an estimated increase with 765 places. Based on an average cost within the EU of  Euro 15.000 per resettled refugee (see par. 
2.2.2) this means an increase of Euros 11.475.000. These are the expected total costs of 
resettlement, including pre-departure costs and reception and integration costs during the 
first year after the arrival. As explained on page 22 under the definition of impacts, these 
costs are mainly paid by th e governments of Member States, although part of these costs 
are also likely to  be paid through the spec ific financial assistance  provided by article 13 
ERF. As explained above in paragraph 4.2 ( under financial component) it is difficult to 
EN 36   EN estimate how large the increase in the al location under article 13 ERF will be. If it is 
assumed that an increase of 765 places leads to an increase of the pledging by Member 
States under article 13 in 50% of these cases, this  will lead to an increase of the allocation 
under article 13 of 1.530.000 Euros.  
• Option 2 provides for practical cooperation to  be carried out by the EASO and for an 
effective political steering and financial unde rpinning. This is estim ated to lead to a 
medium reduction of the financia l costs of resettlemen t per resettled refugee (pro capita) of 
an estimated 20%. The savings of practical c ooperation, however, apply mainly to the pre-
departure costs (reception and integration costs will remain more or less the same). Pre-departure costs are estimated to be around 1.500 Euros per person. (see par. 2.2.2) A 20 % 
savings per person implies a decr ease in total costs of Euros 1.759.500. 
• The third and fourth categories of impacts relate  to the economic and social costs related to 
the integration of resettled refugees, after the fi rst year of resettlement . It is not possible to 
quantify this impact with any precision, give n the wide divergence between costs in the 
different Member States and the widely differing characteri stics of refugees resettled. 
Since this option is estimated top lead to a 15% increase in the total of resettlement within 
the EU these costs are expected also to incr ease with 15%. The impact per person is, 
however, estimated to remain the same, regardless of which option is chosen. 
• Firstly, this option is estimated to lead to 15 % increase of rese ttlement, from which 765 
refugees will benefit annually. Secondly, this op tion will lead to a more strategic use of 
resettlement and will therefore lead to an improvement in the protection situation in third 
countries. Thirdly, this option will also lead to the further development of resettlement as a 
component of EU external re lations and to the improved e ffectiveness of EU external 
relations. These impacts can not be measure d, but are estimated to be medium-size. 
• The current situation is marked by a lack of harmonized resettlement criteria. The 
consequence of this is a relatively large degree of inequality: there are important differences among Member States with respect to which refugees qualify for resettlement. 
Under option 2 the practical and political cooperation are expected to lead to an improvement, which is estimated to be medi um. See also above paragraph 2.2, point 8.  
• The positive impact fundamental rights corresponds to the expected medium/high increase 
in the total number of refugees  to be resettled in the EU.  
 
5.2.3.  Political feasibility, subs idiarity and proportionality 
Assessment of sub-option 2A
 
As described in paragraph 4.2 a new Committee would be established under this sub-option 
which will serve as the political framework.  
• Stakeholder consultations have demonstrat ed that there is wide support for the 
development of an EU wide resettlement sche me, and that the scheme should be based on a 
number of principles. The most important of which are (1) voluntary participation, (2) 
emphasis on broadening the basis of resettlement , (3) incremental appr oach, (4) large need 
EN 37   EN for intensified practical cooperation, (5) more strategic use of  resettlement at EU level, (6) 
further development of external dimension, (7) ERF financial support should be more 
carefully targeted, and (8) sche me should include all interested Member States as well as 
all other stakeholders. This approach is particularly fa voured by those Member States 
which are currently resettlement countries as we ll as other non-Member  State stakeholders 
(UNHCR, NGOs). There are no Member States  which have expressed opposition against 
more cooperation within the EU on resettleme nt, as long as participation is voluntary; 
• Stakeholder consultations have shown that th ere is reluctance among many Member States 
to create a new formal structure to reach these objectives. The establishment of a new 
Committee which is especially dedicated to  resettlement, and which would act under 
Comitology rules, would therefore meet s ubstantial opposition from Member States, 
because Member States fear this would be a bureaucratic burden and might reduce their 
room to decide on resettlement priorities themselves.  
• To reach the set objectives there is a clear ne ed to act at EU level. However, from the 
perspective of proportionality the question can be posed whether the establishment of a 
new Committee is a proportionate means of reac hing these objectives, if the use of existing 
structures can have the same effect ( see sub-option B below ).  
Assessment of sub-option 2B  
As described in paragraph 4.2, under this sub-op tion the existing structures, i.e. the SOLID 
Committee and the EU expert group on resettlement would be used as the political 
framework.  
• Stakeholder consultations have demonstrat ed that there is wide support for the 
development of an EU wide resettlement sche me, and that the scheme should be based on a 
number of principles. The most important of which are (1) voluntary participation, (2) 
emphasis on broadening the basis of resettlement , (3) incremental appr oach, (4) large need 
for intensified practical cooperation, (5) more strategic use of  resettlement at EU level, (6) 
further development of external dimension, (7) ERF financial support should be more 
carefully targeted, and (8) sche me should include all interested Member States as well as 
all other stakeholders;This approach is par ticularly favoured by those Member States 
which are currently resettlement countries as we ll as other non-Member  State stakeholders 
(UNHCR, NGOs). There are no Member States  which have expressed opposition against 
more cooperation within the EU on resettleme nt, as long as participation is voluntary. 
• There is a strong preference among a majority of  Member States to build on the existing 
consultation and decision making mechanisms. Th e current political situation is on the one 
hand positive towards resettlement, but on the other hand reluctant to create any new 
formal structure, because of the bureaucratic burden this might entail and the fear that 
Member States' room to decide on prio rities themselves would be reduced.  
• To reach the set objectives there is a clear need to act at EU level. From the perspective of 
proportionality the use of existing structures is consider ed preferable, if th is is as effective 
as sub-option A in reaching the objectives and if  it is expected to have the same impacts. 
Conclusion: Sub-option 2 B scores considerabl y higher than sub-option 2A in terms of 
political feasibility and proportionality.  
EN 38   EN  
5.3. Assessment of 3rd option: maximum option  
Impact Assessment  Option 3 
Objectives  
1 ensure greater solidarity by the EU to third countries in receiving 
refugees  Medium  
2 ensure that more EU Member States participate in resettlement  High 
3 ensure that resettlement efforts are better targeted, on ongoing basis, 
towards those most in need (e.g. children, refugees from specific 
regions)  High 
4 Increase strategic use of resettlement at an EU level Medium 
5 reinforce the international role of the EU regarding resettlement by 
developing it as an integral and coherent component of EU external 
policies  Medium 
6 improve through cooperation the qualit y of the resettlement procedures 
in the EU  High 
7 lower through cooperation the economic and financial costs per capita of 
resettlement in the EU High 
8 reduce the differences among EU Member States regarding protection 
standards and to increase efficiency through the convergence of 
resettlement criteria High 
Impacts 
 1 Direct financial costs related to resettlement (selection, reception, 
integration)  Medium 
 2 Effect of economies of scale on di rect financial costs related to 
resettlement (selection, reception,  integration) (total costs)  Significant 
decrease 
 3 Economic and social costs related to the integration of resettled 
refugees, in a wide sense (total costs)  Medium 
 4 Economic and social costs related to the integration of resettled 
refugees, in a wide sense (per capita costs) Low 
 4 Impact of resettlement on third countries, specific categories and EU 
external relations Medium 
 5 Increased equality in providing protection to refugees High 
 6 Impact on fundamental rights  Medium 
Political feasibility , subsidiarity and proportionality  
EN 39   EN  1 Support among key stakeholders for this option   Low 
 2 Proportionality  Large concern 
 
5.3.1.  Effectiveness in reaching objectives 
For the purposes of assessing the "maximum opti on" in this section, the assumption is made 
that it incorporates all of the elements mentione d in section 4.3 above. 
Specific objectives 1, 2 and 3 
• If a fully-fledged joint EU resettlement scheme  were established, this would imply – as 
described above – that all EU Member St ates would participate in resettlement. 
• This option would enable Member States, with in a structured priority-setting framework, 
to prioritise the resettlement of  those persons or groups of pers ons who are most in need of 
protection;  
• This option might lead to an increase in the total of resettlement pl aces which are available 
in the EU. A maximalist scheme not allowing fo r "parallel" national resettlement policies 
might, on the other hand, have a negative overa ll impact on the numbers of refugees 
resettled. See also below, under impact 1. 
Specific objectives 4 and 5 
• A fully-fledged joint resettlement scheme would imply that priorities were set at the EU 
level and that all resettlement in the EU would be carried out on the basis of these 
priorities. This would ensure the strategic use of resettlement at the EU level. However, if overall resettlement numbers were not to show  an increase under an integrated scheme, this 
would undermine the effectiveness of any such st rategic use. For this reason, the impact of 
this option on strategic use is rated as medium. 
• Since under option 3 resettlement policies would be  completely formulated at the EU level, 
and since the implementation of resettlement would also be carried  out jointly (through 
EASO), this would be the optim al option to ensure that rese ttlement is integrated and 
developed as a component of EU external as ylum policies and EU ex ternal policies as a 
whole. As stated above, it would, however, be  uncertain whether the establishment of a 
fully-fledged joint EU resettlement scheme woul d lead to more resettlement places being 
available in the EU. For that reason the imp act of this option on the improvement of EU 
relations with third countri es is rated as medium. 
• The EU would act collectively towards UNHCR,  IOM and third countries on resettlement, 
both with respect to political discussions as well  as with respect to practical and logistical 
arrangements.  
Specific objectives 6 and 7 
• Under option 3 the implementation of all pre- departure resettlement activities (selection 
missions, cultural orientation missions/progr ammes, medical and security screenings, 
EN 40   EN travel or visa arrangements etc.) would be  carried out jointly. A very high degree of 
practical cooperation would be required among Me mber States and other stakeholders. The 
capacity of the EASO on resettlement woul d have to be increased considerably.  
• Since resettlement operations would under opti on 3 be carried out jointly, the issue of 
exchange of information is less relevant. Jo int EU resettlement policies would probably 
also lead to more convergence with respec t to reception and integration of resettled 
refugees.  
• A fully-fledged joint EU resettlement scheme would have important a dvantages related to 
economies of scale. The average costs related to resettlement would decrease. There would 
be increased cost-effectiveness and increased efficiency.  
Specific objective 8 
• Under option 3 there would be a complete harm onization of the resettlement criteria which 
the different Member States use.  
 
5.3.2.  Impacts 
• It is difficult to predict what the effect of  a fully-fledged EU rese ttlement scheme will be 
on the number of available resettl ement places in the EU. The effect could be positive, but 
the effect could also be lower than expected, du e in particular to the influence in such an 
integrated scheme of Member States which are less inclined to resettle refugees. Moreover, 
those countries which currently resettle in la rger numbers may be in clined to resettle in 
smaller numbers if they are not satisfied with  the commonly-agreed priorities, and have no 
longer the possibility to resettle  voluntarily in accordance wi th their own priorities. There 
could also be significant resistance against rese ttlement by Member States, which consider 
relocation of refugees and asylum seekers from  their territory to ot her EU Member States 
to be a higher priority than  resettlement. Given this uncer tainty, and taking into account 
both current trends ( see above under option 1 ) and the anticipated re duction in resettlement 
costs per refugee, particularly for those not currently engaged in resettlement, this increase is estimated to be medium, around 10 %. Since th e total of currently av ailable resettlement 
places in the EU is 5.100 this means an estim ated increase with 510 places. Based on an 
average cost within the EU of Euro 15.000 per resettled ref ugee (see par. 2.2.2) this means 
an increase of Euros 7.650.000. These are the expected total costs of resettlement, 
including pre-departure costs and reception and integration costs during the first year after 
the arrival. As explained on page 22 under the definition of impacts, these costs are mainly 
paid by the governments of Member States, alth ough part of these costs are also likely to 
be paid through the specific financia l assistance provided by article 13 ERF. 
• The second impact is the effect of the esta blishment of a fully-fledged EU resettlement 
scheme on the financial costs of resettlement per resettled refugee (per capita). This is 
estimated to lead to a significant reduction of  the financial costs of resettlement per 
resettled refugee (pro capita) of an estimated  30%. The savings, however, apply mainly to 
the pre-departure costs (reception and integrati on costs will remain more or less the same). 
Pre-departure costs are estimated to be ar ound 1.500 Euros per pers on. (see par. 2.2.2) A 
30 % savings per person implies a decr ease in total costs of Euros 2.524.500. 
EN 41   EN • The third and fourth categories of impacts relate  to the economic and social costs related to 
the integration of resettled refugees, after the fi rst year of resettlement . It is not possible to 
quantify this impact with any precision, give n the wide divergence between costs in the 
different Member States and the widely differing characteri stics of refugees resettled. 
Since this option is estimated top lead to a 10% increase in the total of resettlement within 
the EU these costs are expected also to incr ease with 10%. The impact per person is, 
however, estimated to remain the same, regardless of which option is chosen. 
• The impact of option 3 in terms of numbers of  persons who will benefit from resettlement 
is difficult to forecast. However, this is estimated to lead to a 10 % increase of 
resettlement, from which 510 refugees will be nefit annually. Since resettlement will be 
carried out jointly under option 3 this is likely to  lead to more strategic use of resettlement 
at EU level and will therefore lead to an improvement of the protection situation in third 
countries. Option 3 will also lead to the fu rther development of resettlement as a 
component of EU external re lations and to the improved e ffectiveness of EU external 
relations.  
• Under option 3 there will be most likely harmonized resettlement criteria. The 
consequence of this is more equality. 
• The positive impact fundamental rights corresponds to the expected medium/high increase 
in the total number of refugees  to be resettled in the EU.  
 
5.3.3.  Political feasibility, subs idiarity and proportionality 
• As stated above stakeholder consultations have  shown that there is strong support for more 
EU cooperation on rese ttlement. Some stakeholders, pa rticularly the non-governmental 
stakeholders, would be favourable to the es tablishment of a sche me, which would imply 
full harmonization of criteria. A majority of Member States, however, favour an approach 
which is incremental and which puts emphasis on closer cooperation and familiarizing new Member States with resettlement, rather than on harmonizing resettlement criteria. 
Particularly on the voluntary nature of par ticipation in the scheme , positions of Member 
States are very firm. The establishment of a truly EU wide joint resettlement scheme in 
which all Member States participate seems th erefore politically not feasible at present. 
• Even if there was sufficient support for th e establishment of a fully-fledged joint EU 
resettlement scheme, it is doubtful whether so me Member States would under the current 
situation be sufficiently prepared – in terms of capacity – to implem ent resettlement. Many 
Member States are currently not familiar with resettlement. The experience shows that thorough preparation is required (t raining, facilities etc.) befo re a resettlement programme 
can be actually implemented.  
• Another relevant concern relates to aspects of subsidiarity and proportionality. It is 
questionable whether the establishment of a fully-fledged joint EU resettlement scheme is necessary and proportionate at this stage to reach th e set objectives.  
EN 42   EN 6. COMPARISON OF OPTIONS / PREFERRED OPTION  
See table with the comparison of impacts of options (page 34).  
Effectiveness in rea ching the objectives   
– Options 2 and 3 score better than option 1. 
– Option 2 scores better on the principal objective, i.e. to ensure greater solidarity by the EU 
to third countries in receiving refugees. Op tion 3 scores worse than option 2 on the 
principal objective, because of the uncertainty  with respect to the outcome. As explained 
above, there is a possibility that  option 3 would fail to result in  an increase of resettlement 
due to important political opposition on the pa rt of some Member States. It is not 
unrealistic to assume there woul d be opposition against an incr ease of resettlement from 
Member States, which consider relocation of  refugees and asylum seekers from their 
territory to other EU Member States to be  a higher priority than resettlement.  
– Option 2 and 3 score equally well on the objective to reinforce the international role of the 
EU regarding resettlement by developing it as an integral and coherent component of EU 
external policies. 
Conclusion : In terms of effectiveness in reaching th e objectives option 2 is  to be preferred. 
This is primarily the case because it scor es better on the principal objective.  
Impacts  
– The direct financial costs and the indirect so cial economic costs and benefits of option 2 
are estimated to be higher that  those of option 1 and 3. This is  due to the fact that option 2 
is expected to lead to the highest increase in  resettlement numbers. Most of the direct 
financial costs and the indirect  social economic costs are paid by the governments of those 
Member States which carry out resettlement . There will be financial assistance with 
respect to these costs through ERF funding, pa rticularly through th e specific financial 
assistance procured by article 13.  
– Option 3 leads to the best result with respect to reduction of financial costs of resettlement 
per refugee, and in term s of increased equality. 
– Option 2 scores highest with respect to the impact on fundamental rights. 
– With respect to impact on third countries and EU external relations options 2 and 3 score 
the same: the impact is estimated to be medium improvement.  
Political feasibility, subsid iarity and proportionality  
– Sub-option 2B scores best (medium/high) on polit ical feasibility. With respect to this sub-
option there is no concern in terms of proportionality. 
– The political feasibility of option 3 is assessed as low, while there is a large concern with 
respect to proportionality with respect to this option.  
Conclusion : In terms of political feas ibility and proportionality sub- option 2B is the preferred 
option.  
EN 43   EN Over-all assessment : 
A comparison of option 1 and 2 shows a clea r preference for option 2. There are two sub-
options distinguished within option 2. Both sub- options have equal scores on effectiveness in 
reaching the objectives and impacts. Option 2B is the preferred option on grounds of political 
feasibility . Option 2B should also be pref erred to option 2A on grounds of proportionality . 
If the need for joint action at  the EU level is acknowledged (see above, under subsidiarity), it 
is necessary to assess how far EU measures should go and whether these are proportionate to the objectives to be reached. Option 2B re sponds effectively to the objectives in a 
proportionate manner.  
7. MONITORING
 AND EVALUATION 
In order to monitor the progress made with re spect to the implementation of the preferred 
option – and the progress of resettlement in ge neral within the EU – the Commission will 
carry out an evaluation within three years afte r the introduction of the EU joint resettlement 
scheme. The evaluation will include the progress made with respect to political cooperation, 
notably in the framework of the SOLID Committ ee and the Resettlement Expert Platform, as 
well as the allocations under ERF. The EASO will also have a key role in monitoring 
progress, because it will coordinate practic al cooperation activities on resettlement. The 
progress made in this field will al so be included in the evaluation. 
As for indicators to assess progress and effectiv eness of the preferred option in achieving the 
policy objectives, the following indicato rs will be taken into consideration: 
• Persons effectively resettled a nnually in the Member States; 
• Number of Member States introduci ng annual resettlement programmes;  
• Number of Member States which engage in  resettlement through other activities, for
 example ad-hoc resettlement of specific groups of refugees, projects or twinnings; 
• Level of financial allocations under ERF with respect to resettlement, including 
 whether modulation of the lump sum accord ing to categories of resettled persons 
 might be appropriate;  
• Volume of practical cooperation activ ities on resettlement carried out under
 coordination of EASO; 
• The degree in which annual pr iority setting leads to alignment of resettlement within
 the EU  
• More visible EU role in the political decision making and consultations with UNHCR
 and other major stakeholders in Gene va (Annual Tripartite Consultations on
 Resettlement, Working Group on Resettlement)  
• The impact of resettlement on EU  relations with third countries  
 
EN 44   EN Comparison of impacts of options  
 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 
Objectives   
now progressive dynamic maximum 
1 ensure greater solidarity by the EU to 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  
 
EN 45   EN  2 Direct financial costs related to resettlement (selection, reception, 
integration) pro capita  0 Small 
decrease medium decrease significant 
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 
 
 
EN 46   EN ANNEXES15  
 
1. UNHCR Resettlement Departures by (primary) Characteristics 2007 – 2008 
2. List of stakeholders consulted 
3. Global Resettlement Needs 2009 by Region of Asylum 
4. UNHCR Resettlement Submissions /Departu res per country of origin  – 2005 – 
2008 
5. UNHCR Resettlement Departures per resettlement country 2003 – 2008 
6. UNHCR Resettlement Submissions p er resettlement country 2003 – 2008 
7. Approximate capacity of resettlement countries in 2008 
8. Main Features of European Resettlement Programmes 2009 
9. Financial costs of resettlement 
10. Resettlement under the European Refugee Fund III 
11. Resettlement activities under ERF national programmes  
12. UNHCR Resettlement - Top 10 Arrivals to EU, by Country of EU vs. Country of 
Origin 2007 -2008 
13. UNHCR Resettlement Departu res - RPP Countries of Asylum by Country of 
Origin - 2004 – 2008 
                                                 
15 Please note that most of the above annexes are statistics  provided by UNHCR (submissions and departures). Please note 
that there may be a difference between these numbers and the numbers provided by individual Member states.  
 
 
EN 47   EN ANNEX 1 
Source: UNHCR  
Who qualifies for resettlement?  
 
Resettlement is geared primarily towards the protection of refugees whose life, liberty, 
safety, health or fundamental human rights are at risk in their country of refuge.  
Resettlement is normally only promoted by UNHCR when the other durable solutions – voluntary repatriation or local integration in the country of asylum – are inappropriate or 
unavailable, or where the specific protection needs of the refugee cannot be met by the host State, even if there is a willingness to grant asylum.  
Refugee resettlement is distinguished from  other forms of migration by the primary 
consideration of “protection a nd durable solutions needs” above  all other concerns.  States 
and UNHCR have repeatedly affirmed that the pr imary purpose of resettlement must always 
be the provision of individual protection for those who cannot be provided with adequate 
protection in the first country of asylum. They also affirm that resettlement can provide a 
durable solution and a tool for burden and re sponsibility sharing. 
 Accordingly, individuals supported for resettle ment by UNHCR are (i) re cognized as refugees 
under UNHCR's mandate; and (ii) deemed e ligible according to UNHCR’s resettlement 
guidelines and criteria.  The UNHC R resettlement criteria and rela ted considerations form the 
basis for the identification of refugees in need  of resettlement.  They are contained in the UNHCR Resettlement Departures by (pri mary) Characteristics 2007 - 2008 
  2007 2008 
  EU All Others EU All Others 
Woman-at-Risk 526 1.993 550 3.642
Children & Adolescents 20 194 27 568
Family Reunification 187 568 93 375
Legal & Physical Protection Needs 2.297 24.243 2.060 33.418
Medical Needs 240 379 273 2.117
Older (elderly) refugees 12 37 18 135
Refugees without Local Integration Prospects 180 16.531 817 17.089
Survivor of Violence & Torture 449 2.034 536 3.863
Unspecified. 24 14 4 11
Total 3.935 45.993 4.378 61.218
 
EN 48   EN UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, which was e ndorsed by UNHCR's Executive Committee in 
1996. UNHCR encourages States to use these criteria to inform  and guide their decisions on 
resettlement. 
 
The agreed global criteria for UNHCR to determ ine its resettlement interventions encompass 
both its use as a tool of intern ational protection and as a durable solution. They were endorsed 
by UNHCR's EXCOM in 1996 and include the following:  
 when there is no other way to guarantee the legal or physical security of the 
refugees concerned in the country of first asylum; th is includes a  threat of refoulement;   
 survivors of torture and violence, where the conditions of asylum could result in 
further trauma or where appropria te treatment is not available; 
 persons with medical needs, in particular life-saving treatment, that is unavailable 
in the country of first asylum; 
 women and girls at risk, wher e there is a real risk that  they could be exposed to 
sexual or gender-based violence; 
 children and adolescents, where a best interests determination supports this; 
 elderly refugees who may be particularly  vulnerable and for whom resettlement 
appears to be the best solution, generally due to family links; 
 when it represents the only means to re unite refugee families who, owing to 
refugee flight or displacement, find themselv es divided by borders or by entire continents; 
 when voluntary repatriation or local integrat ion are not available or feasible in the 
foreseeable future.  As can be seen, most of the criteria relate to specific international protection needs, such as 
where the physical or legal security of a refugee is at stake or where specialised services (e.g. 
psychosocial or medical) are requi red that are not available in the country of asylum. The use 
of resettlement as a tool for international pr otection generally requires the identification of 
particularly vulnerable persons within  a much larger group of refugees.  
 At times, the resettlement of an entire re fugee population in a country may be warranted 
based on international protection grounds. This c ould be the case, for example, where refugee 
status is not acknowledged or recognized and where all refugees face a risk of deportation 
and/or refoulement . This could arise where a country has not ratified any of the international 
or regional refugee treaties, or where it has ma intained a geographical re striction with respect 
to the 1951 Convention. It could also apply in situations wh ere States have not adopted 
domestic legislation and policies in line with  the responsibilities th ey have assumed under 
international or regional conventions. In some cas es, the reliance on resettlement as a tool for 
international protection may thus involve  a considerable nu mber of refugees. 
 Even if voluntary repatriation should become viable and feasible, local integration and 
resettlement may still continue to be the most appropriate durable solution for certain refugees. This may be the case, for example, for refugees who for reasons of trauma do not 
wish to return, or who might f ace particular protection problems with respect to the country of 
origin, despite important improvements or cha nges there. Particular ly in post-conflict 
situations, it may take quite some time before peace and order have been fully re-established, 
and administrative and judicial inst itutions are functioning effectively.  
 
EN 49   EN  
Where political impasses prevent voluntary repa triation as a feasible or viable option, a 
comprehensive approach could additionally involv e concerted efforts to improve the situation 
in the country of origin, through political processes and interven tions. Since UNHCR is a 
non-political organization, any such efforts would need to take place under the leadership of 
the UN or through multilateral or bilateral efforts of States. 
 States recognize that resettlement – as a burde n and responsibility sharing tool – can be used 
strategically to help open possi bilities for self-relia nce and even local integration. Even where 
this is not possible, more extend ed use of resettlement in a part icular situation could serve to 
improve the protection situation generally in the first country of asylum. Such a strategic use of resettlement is core to the Multilateral Framework of Understandings on Resettlement  
agreed in 2004  as part of the Convention Plus initiative. It em phasizes indeed both 
comprehensive approaches and the strategic us e of resettlement, and specifically sets out 
understandings related to such appr oaches in a multi lateral context. 
 
Source: UNHCR 
 
 
EN 50   EN ANNEX 2 
List of stakeholders consulted  
 
Experts' meeting on resettlement 12 December 2008 
INS The Netherlands 
INS The Netherlands 
ECRE  
ICMC  
MOI Czech Republic 
IOM  
UK Border Agency UK 
CGRS Belgium 
UNHCR  
UNHCR   
Ministry of Justice  The Netherlands 
Ministry of Justice Sweden 
Migration Board Sweden 
 
Questionnaire sent to the Member States 
Replies received from 22 Member States :  Ireland, Portugal, Cz ech Republic, Austria, 
Finland, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Be lgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, Poland, 
Sweden, Estonia, Germany, United Kingdom, It aly, France, Slovakia, Spain, Lithuania, 
Hungary. 
Committee on Immigration and Asylum 
The Netherlands, Italy, France, Romania,  Belgium, Finland, Czech Republic, United 
Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Ireland,  Germany, Greece. 
Written input with respect to Joint EU Resettlement Scheme 
UNHCR ' Background paper from UNHCR: EU Resettlement Scheme' 
 
EN 51   EN IOM 'IOM Contribution to an  EU resettlement Scheme' 
ECRE ' Concrete steps towards a European Resettlement Programme' 
 
EN 52   EN ANNEX 3 
Source: UNHCR, Refugee Resettlement: Perform ance Outcomes 2007 And Global Projections 2009 Global Resettlement Needs 2009 by Region of Asylum 
Sub-Region Individuals in  need of Resettlement 
AFRICA 
Great Lakes 15,680
East and Horn of Africa 90,575
West and Central Africa 1,175
Southern Africa 3,484
Chad and Sudan Operation 5,550
Africa TOTAL                                                              116,464
THE AMERICAS 
The Americas TOTAL                                                1,252
ASIA 
South Asia 32,061
East Asia 37,892
Central Asia 1,096
South-West Asia 259,900
Asia TOTAL 330,949
EUROPE 
Eastern Europe 1,145
South-Eastern Europe 6,332
Europe TOTAL 7,477
MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA 
Middle East and North Africa TOTAL 104,995
 
GLOBAL TOTAL  
561,137 
 
EN 53   EN Source: UNHCR ANNEX 4 
  
 UNHCR Resettlement Submi ssions – 2005 – 2008 
 2005  2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 
 Country of 
Resettlement       
Region of Origin EU  All Others EU All 
Others EU All 
Others EU All 
Others 
Africa 1.364 18.578 2.010 18.645 1.802 18.798 1.573 23.921
Americas 556 642 479 554 185 843 131 950
Asia & Pacific 2.600 19.842 2.571 28.129 2.613 52.106 2.743 56.354
Europe 149 463 183 162 271 300 220 207
Middle East & 
North Africa 562 1.481 239 1.188 2.029 20.034 2.883 31.788
Stateless 4 19 4 18 4 14 4 37
Total 5.235 41.025 5.486 48.696 6.904 92.095 7.554 113.257
         
UNHCR Resettlement Departures – 2005 – 2008 
 2005  2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 
 Country of 
Resettlement       
Region of Origin EU  All Others EU All 
Others EU All 
Others EU All 
Others 
Africa 870 18.522 1.141 15.980 1.061 18.936 1.199 10.446
Americas 398 435 328 293 139 436 65 472
Asia & Pacific 1.499 15.435 2.072 8.849 1.806 23.205 1.765 33.305
Europe 125 212 31 127 85 206 91 145
Middle East & 
North Africa 229 761 105 613 841 3.116 1.256 16.839
Stateless 9 12 19 2 3 34 2 11
Total 3.130 35.377 3.696 25.864 3.935 45.933 4.378 61.218
 
EN 54   EN ANNEX 5 
UNHCR Resettlement Departures 2003 – 2008    
Country of 
Destination 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Argentina   31 19 32 78
Australia 3.961 3.933 5.117 4.647 6.056 5.133
Austria 154   1 1 20
Belgium 34 74 23 14 17 6
Brazil 16 75 76 50 163 19
Canada 4.668 5.279 5.811 5.218 5.998 5.542
Chile 21 26 52 42 32 45
Czech Rep.   15  8 46
Denmark 520 379 454 750 480 407
Finland 443 727 584 548 714 674
France 5  2 1 5 276
Germany 82 29 14 10 3 
Greece      2
Iceland 24  31  30 29
Ireland 43 64 116 119 107 87
Israel     1 
Italy 37 26 2 6 40 30
Mozambique 4     
Netherlands 129 252 479 327 425 575
New Zealand 351 107 307 622 629 775
Norway 1.856 859 636 871 978 721
Portugal     12 5
Rep. of Korea 4  1   23
Spain 3 1 8  3 8
Sweden 873 1.645 1.190 1.571 1.772 1.545
Switzerland 5 6 27 13 7 12
United Kingdom 118 272 242 349 348 697
USA 13.987 28.253 23.289 14.382 32.007 48.836
Unspecified  1    5
Total 27.338 42.008 38. 507 29.560 49.868 65.596
 
Resettlement departures 2002-08 to  EU and all other countries 
 
Year EU % All Others % Total 
2003 2.441 9 24.897 91 27.338 
2004 3.469 8 38.539 92 42.008 
2005 3.130 8 35.377 92 38.507 
2006 3.696 13 25.864 87 29.560 
2007 3.935 8 45.933 92 49.868 
2008 4.378 7 61.218 93 65.596 
 Source: UNHCR 
 
EN 55   EN ANNEX 6 
UNHCR Resettlement Submissions 2003 - 2008   
Country of 
Destination 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
Argentina   60 94 153 109 
Australia 3.079 4.689 4.872 8.582 8.422 7.639 
Austria 13    1 305 
Belgium  16 3 10 12 18 
Benin 8      
Burkina 
Faso  3     
Brazil 99 396 171 95 217 75 
Canada 6.022 9.088 6.264 7.262 7.694 8.424 
Chile 87 163 75 34 119 145 
Czech Rep.   40 1 9 84 
Denmark 612 833 706 646 735 757 
Finland 1.053 1.160 1.195 879 1.242 952 
France 4 1 3 1 25 581 
Germany 73 33 27 12 5 2 
Greece      2 
Iceland   62  43 72 
Ireland 46 30 133 260 252 271 
Italy 21 1 2  40  
Rep. of 
Korea 4 1    31 
Liechtenstei
n      4 
Luxembourg      17 
Mexico     20  
Netherlands 281 635 968 733 1.021 790 
Norway 1.691 1.935 1.449 1.431 1.744 1.369 
New 
Zealand 437 141 621 996 1.244 778 
Poland   1    
Portugal     84 5 
Spain 3 1 11  5 67 
Swaziland    5   
Sweden 1.017 2.335 1.929 2.142 2.412 2.712 
Switzerland 8 17 22 7 7 20 
United 
Kingdom 263 304 217 802 1.061 987 
USA 20.378 17.667 27.429  30.190 72.431 94.590 
Unspec. 115 60   1 5 
Total 35.314 39.509 46.260 54.182 98.999 120.811 
 
EN 56   EN Sou rce: UNHCR 
 
    Resettlement submissions 2002-08 to EU and all other countries
 
Year EU % All 
Others % Total 
2003 3.386 10 31.928 90 35.314 
2004 5.349 14 34.160 86 39.509 
2005 5.235 11 41.025 89 46.260 
2006 5.486 10 48.696 90 54.182 
2007 6.904 7 92.095 93 98.999 
2008 7.554 6 113.257 94 120.811 
 
EN 57   EN ANNEX 7 
 
 Source: UNHCR  
 
EN 58   EN ANNEX 8  
Main Features of European Resettlement Programmes 2009 
The table below summarises the research carried out on resettlement  programmes in eight European countries for the ICMC publica tion 'Welcome to Europe! A Guide to 
Resettlement: A Comparative Review of Resettlement in Europe',  Brussels, First edition 2007, Second Edition-Update, 2009.  
 
 
        
 1978 
 1979 
 1996 
 1992  
 1950 
 2003 
 1998 
 1977 
 
         
 1500 (3-year) 
 750 (yearly) 
 25-30 (yearly) 
 1200 (yearly) 
 1900 (yearly) 
 750 (yearly) 
 200 (yearly) 
 2000 (4-year) 
 
         
 - 1951 refugee 
definition 
- Humanitarian 
grounds  - 1951 refugee 
definition 
- Persons in 
need of 
protection 
who do not fall under the 1951 
Convention
 1951 refuge e
definition 
 1951 refugee definition 
 - 1951 refugee
definition 
- Persons in need o f
protection who do
not fall under the
1951 Convention(risk of execution, corporal 
punishment, torture,
armed conflict)
 1951 refugee definition 
 1951 refugee definition
-humanitarian grounds - 1951 refugee definition 
- Humanitarian grounds 
 
         
 
EN 59   EN  - Protection needs 
- Integration 
potential  - Protection 
needs 
- Cf. HCR 
criteria for 
RST  
- Conditions to 
receive and 
integrate in FI  Cf. UNHC R
criteria  for RST  
 - Protection  
needs 
- Service capacity  -Protection needs 
 -Protection needs 
 - Protection needs - Majority on legal & 
physical protection 
grounds 
 - Protection needs 
- Humanitarian considerations  -Integration potential  
 
 
         
 TOM (30) 
 VOT, medical, 
WAR, UAC, 
elderly 
 WAR 
 Medical  
(20 cases), 
UAC, WAR 
 No specific 
formulation o f 
special categories 
 Elderly, WAR, VOT 
 WAR, elderly, 
 medical, VOT 
 (20% of quota) 
 TOM (30), VOT, WAR 
 
 
         
 
        
 Roughly 400 
(yearly) 
 650 
 30 
 Remaining quota 
places 
 Roughly 950 
 750 
 Around 160 
 400 (yearly) 
 
         
Roughly 100 100 (urgent & No 100 Remaining quota Roughly 100 unde r Vulnerable cases o r 100 (yearly) 
 
EN 60   EN  (yearly) 
 emergency) 
   places 
 Mandate Programme 
 20% of quota 
  
         
 75 
 100 
 No 
 90 persons 
(no urgent) 
 350 
 No 
 No emergency 
 Yes (no fixed number set) 
 
         
 1 week; Gov (municipality a
t 
times) 
 3 days; IOM 
 Before selection ;
Gov & Red Cross
 4 days; IOM 
 1 week; Gov & municipality (no
t 
implemented on 
regular basis) 
 3 weeks; IOM 
 1-2 days, Gov 
 4 days; COA 
 
         
 Convention, 
subsidiary protection or 
humanitarian 
status (TRP) 
 Convention refugee status (PRP) 
 Convention  refugee status (TRP) 
 Convention  refugee status (TRP) 
 Application for refugee status after arrival (PRP) 
 Convention refugee status (PRP) 
 Programme refugee status (TRP) 
 Revocable residence permit for asylum 
 
Sources: Ministries of Immigration, Integr ation and Foreign Affairs and other Government bodies involved in decision-making, se rvices and oversight of annual quotas for resettlement.  
More detailed descriptions can be found in chapters 3 and 4 of 'Welcome to Eur ope! A Guide to Resettlement: A Comparative Revie w of Resettlement in Europe', Brussels, First edition 2007, Second Edition-Update, 2009.  
Abbreviations and acronyms:   
TOM:   Twenty-Or-More or Ten-Or-More                        
 (medical programme) VOT:  Victim of Torture or violence 
WAR:  Women at Risk 
UAC:   Unaccompanied Children  
 Gov:   Government  
RST:    Resettlement 
UNHCR:   United Nations High Commission for Refugees  
IOM:   International Organisation for Migration  
COA:   Central Agency for the Receptio n of Asylum Seekers and Refugees 
PRP:   Permanent Residence Permit  
TRP:  Temporary Residence Permit 
 
EN 61   EN ANNEX 9 
 
Financial costs of resettlement 
United 
Kingdom - What is the total budgetary allocati on with respect to resettlement? 
- If available, could you provide a specification of the budgetary allocations with respect to the different 
resettlement activities (such as selection and pre-departure activities, post-arrival and integration)?   
UKBA and the European Refugee Fund (ERF) provide funding to  cover the full costs of a local authority or other 
service providers to assist and support the rese ttled refugees for thei r first 12 months.  
 Whilst UKBA has a £9.4 million budget in 2007/8 and 2008/9 it is di fficult to say what the definitive is cost to the 
programme is as this is dependent of a number of factor s, i.e. the type of model being run in the UK. The key 
consideration for the UKBA is whether the overall package is cost effective. For example, where other categories 
create savings, extra categories such as police work may be paid for (efficiency savings).  
 The amount of funding for individual activities will vary according to: 
•          The size of the refugee group accepted  
•          Specific refugee needs (including language and social needs); 
•          Support services model used e.g. housing model. 
 In addition, UKBA will provide contingency funds to th e service providers (e.g. LAs and PCTs) on a case by case 
needs assessment. Specific health conditi ons such as HIV, mental health or refugees with disabilities will attract 
extra funding due to their complexities and long-term funding implications.  
 Typically, the programme funding for th e resettled refugees would cover: 
•  The education of refugees and th eir dependants e.g. learning th e English language via English for 
speakers of other languages (ESOL) classes;  
•  Interpretation services for those refugees who require it (and where fi rst language would be preferred for 
clarity e.g. when explaining heal th concerns or social problems); 
•   Housing refugees (including costs associated w ith negotiations with private landlords and Housing 
Associations); 
•   Refugee casework support services;  
•   Monitoring the progress of integration of the ref ugees (e.g. data collection and input, writing of the 
required quarterly reports); 
•   Training of the support caseworkers; 
•   Health – registering to GPs / secondary care costs for those with serious medical conditions. 
Unless agreed beforehand, most costs are paid after actual expenditure has been incurred.  
  
- Do you have a specific reception and integration programme which is available only for resettled refugees 
or do these receive the same facilities in terms of re ception and integration as refugees who have arrived in 
your country as a spontaneous arrival? Could you in both cases indicate the costs of the reception and 
integration of resettled refugees?   
The arrangements and funding for the reception and integration of Gateway refugees is separate from that of 
spontaneous arrivals.  Asylum seekers who are waiting for their asylum decisions to be made will be supported by 
National Asylum Support Service.    
 
EN 62   EN The package of support consists of accommodation, adequate for the needs of the assisted person and any 
dependants and/or subsistence suppor t for essential living needs.  
 
The amount of subsistence support provide d is set at 70% of the level of In come Support and is means-tested. Any 
income or capital available to the individual is taken into account for the means test.  
Individuals do not have to apply for the full package of support they can apply for subs istence support only. They 
are able to so if they are able to stay with a friend or relative for accommodation.  
Once a refugee has been afforded humanitarian protection or discretionary leave status will then be assisted by 
mainstream services. 
- Do you have any data available concerning the financia l costs per person or case which  is resettled? Can 
you provide a breakdown of these costs? 
Costs vary depending on the number of refugees being resettl ed to one LA and the LA to which they are resettled. 
We are therefore unable to provide a breakdown in this area.  
Ireland Can you provide information with respect to the financial costs of resettlement? 
- What is the total budgetary allocati on with respect to resettlement? 
Each Government Department  must provide for resettlement within their existing budgets.  No special budgetary 
allocation is made for resettlement.  
- If available, could you provide a specification of the budgetary allocations with respect to the different 
resettlement activities (such as selection and pre-departure activities, post-arrival and integration)? 
N/A 
- Do you have a specific reception and integration programme which is available only for resettled refugees 
or do these receive the same facilities in terms of re ception and integration as refugees who have arrived in 
your country as a spontaneous arrival? Could you in both cases indicate the costs of the reception and 
integration of resettled refugees?   
The resettlement team of the Office of the Minister for Integration coordinate a special programme for resettled 
refugees.  This includes an accommodation and training progr amme in the National Orientation and Training Centre.  
The team liaise between the refugees and service providers .  The Resettlement team also works with the receiving 
communities to ensure that they are aware of and prep ared to meet the needs of the resettled refugees. 
From 2009, funds will be provided through the ERF for special  initiatives to support resettlement and integration of 
refugees into the local community. 
- Do you have any data available concerning the financial costs per person or case which is resettled? Can 
you provide a breakdown of these costs? 
The total expenses for pre-departure, reception and integr ation activities during one ye ar for 200 resettled refugees 
are estimated to be 4,5 Million Euro. Per person :22.500 Euros. 
Netherlands Structural costs made by COA for recept ion of quota refugees per bed per year 
 
Regular costs for reception per person  €    14.000 
Extra costs for reception per bed per quota refugee €      3.968*  
T o t a l        €     1 7 . 9 6 8  
  
 
EN 63   EN  
*Social intake during select ion missions  €    48.000 
IOM services (flights and training facilities)  €  500.000 
Extra staff reception centre    €  512.000 
Food packages (at arrival in reception centre) €    20.685 
Information materials     €    10.000 
Interest and depreciation costs   €    40.268  
Total       €1.130.953:285 beds= €3.968 per bed 
 
IND: 
The costs are variable depending on the facilitation by the local UNHCR office, number of staff, country 
destination. Expenses of staff for travel and stay, use of the rooms and equipment, use of interpreters and local 
transport, gifts, daily expenses, vacc inations, entry visa, etc. For a mission in 2008 to Thailand € 25.234 was 
needed to cover the costs. Costs are exclusive the amount s for paying the fines for Burmese refugees to the Thai 
government because they do not have the ri ght travel documents to leave Thailand. For a mission in Syria in 2007 € 
19.746 was needed and for a mission in Tanzania in 2007 € 32.526 was paid.  
 
Sweden -If available, could you provide a speci fication of the budgetary allocations with respect   to the different 
resettlement activities (such as selection and pre-departure activities, post-arrival and integration)? 
 Governmental allocation for reception and integration is  313 880 00 SEK (ca 31 million euros), selection, travel 
and pre-departure CO-programs is 16 150 000  SEK (ca 1,6 m illion euros). The salaries for civil servants are funded 
separately within the Mi gration Board’s budget.  
- Do you have a specific recep tion and integration programme which is  available only for resettled refugees 
or do these receive the same facilities in terms of recep tion and integration as refugees who have arrived in 
your country as a spontaneous arrival? Could you in both cases indicate the costs of the reception and 
integration of resettled refugees?    
Same program for both categories. Munici palities claim their initial costs for resettled refugees are much higher but 
the governmental support in this regard is fully the sa me as for those spontaneous  arrived and accepted.   
- Do you have any data available concerning the financial costs per person or case which is resettled? Can 
you provide a breakdown of these costs?  
The medium cost/refugee funded by the gover nment is 165 200 SEK (ca 16,5 thousand Euros ) 
 
EN 64   EN Denmark Can you provide information with respect to the financial costs of resettlement? 
- What is the total budgetary allocation with respect to resettlement? 
- If available, could you provide a specification of the budgetary allocations with respect 
to the different resettlement activities (such as selection and pre-departure activities, post-arrival and integration)?   
  
 
 
 - Do you have a specific reception and integration programme which is available 
only for  resettled refugees or do these receive the same facilities in terms of reception and  integration as refugees who have arrived in your country as a spontaneous 
arrival? Could  you in both cases indicate the costs of the reception and integration of 
resettled  refugees?   
 Resettled refugees and refugees who have arrived in Denmark as a spontaneous 
arrival receive the same facilities in terms of reception and integration as both groups are covered by the Integration Law. The average cost of the three year integration 
program me is 59.290 Euros pr. person. 
  - Do you have any data available concerning the financial costs per person or case which 
 is resettled? Can you provide a breakdown of these costs? 
 
  Total annual budgetary allocation with respect to resettlement* (745 kr. for 100 Euros) –  
Finance Law of 2008 
 Number of resettlements                     500  
 Health Car e               67.1 
14 Euros 
 Transportation            316.242 Euros   
 Selection Missions               40.268 Euros   
 Pre-departure Programmes            214.765 Euros   
  
 Total   638.389 Euros  
* The salaries of employ ees working with resettlement related tasks have not been included. The budgetary  allocation related 
to cost of the three year integration  is not included,  
Average financial costs of a quota refugee - 2008-price level (745 kr. for 100 Euros)* 
 2008-price level   
Expenses related to selection missions, pre-departure programmes and 
tra nsporta tion etc.  
- Cost pr. quota refugee before reception in municipality 1.653 Euros 
  
State expenses related to the integration of refugees  
- Cost pr. quota refugee for the three year introduction programme                      59.290 euros  
  
Total average financial cost pr. quota refugee                   60.943 Euros 
  
* The calculation does not include potential social security or similar support 
financed by the state.  
 
EN 65   EN France - What is the total budgetary allocati on with respect to resettlement? 
Il est très difficile d’estimer avec précision le coût de la réinstallation d’un réfugié dans la mesure où ceux-ci ont en 
France accès à l’ensemble des droits sociaux et des progr ammes d’intégration de dro it commun (notamment pour ce 
qui concerne les formations linguistiques, l’accompagnement social ou l’accès au logement). 
On peut toutefois estimer comme suit la  partie des dépenses spécifiquement en gagées pour la préparation du départ, 
le financement du voyage, ainsi que l’accueil et l’héberg ement des réfugiés pendant une  période de six mois après 
leur arrivée en France. 
L’estimation du budget nécessaire pour l’accueil de 450 réfugiés réinstallés est de 3 M€ (organisation du voyage et 
mesures d’accueil) : 
- les frais de préparation au départ (notamment bilan de santé et orientation cu lturelle) et le coût du 
voyage sont estimés à 500 000 € pour 450 personnes, 
- les frais d’hébergement en CPH de 450 personnes ré installées pour une durée de six mois et avec un 
coût à la journée de 30,35 € représentent un coût  total de 2,5 M€, étant précisé qu’il est parfois 
nécessaire de renouveler cette prise en charge pour une nouvelle période de six mois dans le cas des 
réfugiés les moins autonomes.  
- If available, could you provide a specification of th e budgetary allocations with respect  to the different 
resettlement activities (such as selection and pre-departure activities,  post-arrival and integration)?   
Cf. supra. 
- Do you have a specific rec eption and integration programme which is available only for resettled refugees 
or do these receive the same facilities in terms of recep tion and integration as refugees who have arrived in 
your country as a spontaneous arrival? Could you in both cases indicate the costs of the reception and 
integration of resettled refugees?   
Les personnes réinstallées sont pour l’ instant orientées vers le s centres provisoires d’hébergement destinés aux 
réfugiés statutaires ou bénéficiaires de la protection subsid iaire ou vers des dispositifs de logements transitoires pour 
les réfugiés. La question de la  mise en place de structures d’accueil sp écifiques pour l’accueil et l’hébergement des 
personnes réinstallées est à l’étude. 
-Do you have any data available concerning the financia l costs per person or case which  is resettled? Can 
you provide a breakdown of these costs? 
On peut estimer à 6 700 € le coût moye n des mesures mises en place pour la préparation du départ, le financement 
du voyage ainsi que l’accueil et l’hébergement des réfugiés pendant une période de six mois après leur arrivée en 
France. Ce coût moyen n’inclut pas celui des dispositifs de droit commun mobilisés au profit des réfugiés tels que le 
contrat d’accueil et d’intégration ou les diverses actions menées en vue de fa voriser leur accès au logement et à 
l’emploi, difficile à estimer dans la mesure où ils bénéficient aux autres ré fugiés ou même aux autres étrangers 
primo arrivants. Enfin, ce coût n’inclut pas non plus les dépenses qui pourront être  engagées à l’avenir dans 
l’organisation de missions de sélection sur lesquelles le service de l’asile n’a pa s de visibilité dans la mesure où la 
sélection s’est effectuée uniquement sur dossier pendant l’année 2008. 
 
Czech 
Republic - What is the total budgetary allocati on with respect to resettlement? 
The total budget with respect to resettlement of 40 Burmese refugees in  2008:  7 600 000 CZK;  
- If available, could you provide a specification of th e budgetary allocations with respect  to the different 
resettlement activities (such as selection and pre-departure activities, post-arrival and integration)?  
Specification of the budget with respect to the differe nt resettlement activities in 2008 (with respect to 
resettlement of 40 Burmese refugees in 2008):  pr e-departure activities and selection - 150 000 CZK; 
transfer of refugees organized by IOM – 800 000 CZ K; post-arrival and integrat ion phase (interpreters, 
social assistance, cultural orientation, temporarily accommodation) 400 000 CZK; courses of Czech language – 600 000 CZK; subsidy for development of th e infrastructure of municipalities -   5 600 000 
CZK;  
 
EN 66   EN - Do you have a specific reception and integration programme which is available only for resettled refugees 
or do these receive the same facilities in terms of re ception and integration as refugees who have arrived in 
your country as a spontaneous arrival? Could you in both cases indicate the costs of the reception and 
integration of resettled refugees?   
There is no a specific reception and integration progra mme which is available only for resettled refugees 
in the Czech Republic. Resettled persons receive the same facilities in terms of reception and
 integration as refugees who have arrived in th e Czech Republic as a spontaneous arrival. There 
is a programme called the State Integration Programme which has existed in the Czech Republic for more 
than 13 years and is focused on assistance to refugees  in securing rented housing, learning Czech language 
and on assistance in finding work. Implementation of  the State Integration Programme is in close 
cooperation with regional authorities, municipalities and NGOs. Each year the Czech government 
approves the release of financial re sources (grants) for securing the housing of asylum-seekers which are 
used for acquiring necessary integration flats and de velopment of the infrastru cture of municipalities 
which provide rental accommodation to asylum-seekers and their families.  
The costs of the reception and integration of resettled refugees: see above  
Do you have any data available conc erning the financial costs per person or case which is resettled?  
 Approximately 190 000 CZK;  
Source: Responses to the Commission  questionnaire on resettlement to the Me mber States, Jan 2009 
 
EN 67   EN  
ANNEX 10 
 
RESETTLEMENT UNDER THE EUROPEAN REFUGEE FUND III 
Legal framework 
¾ Articles 3(1)(d), 6 and 13 of Decision No  573/2007/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council establishing the European  refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 
as part of the general programme "Solidar ity and management of Migration Flows" 
(Legal base). 
 ¾ Priority 3 of Commission Decision im plementing Decision No 573/2007/EC as 
regards the adoption of the st rategic guidelines (2007/815/EC). 
 
¾ Article 41 of Commission Decision layi ng down rules for the implementation of 
Decision No 573/2007/EC (2008/22/EC). 
 
Definition 
According to Article 3(1)(d) of Decision No  573/2007/EC, resettlement means the process 
whereby, on a request from UNHC R based on a person's need fo r international protection, 
third-country nationals or statel ess persons are transferred from  a third country to a Member 
State where they are permitted to reside with a refugee status within the meaning of Article 
2(d) of Directive 2004/83/EC, or with a status which offers the same rights and benefits under 
national and Community law as refugee status. 
 
General objective and eligible actions 
To support and encourage the efforts made by the Member States in receiving, and in bearing 
the consequences of receiving, refugees and displaced persons, taking account of Community 
legislation on those matters, by co-financing  the actions provided for in the Decision 
establishing the ERF. The Fund shall support ac tions based on the voluntary efforts made by 
Member States to provide international protectio n and a durable solution in their territories to 
refugees and displaced persons identified as eligible for resettlement by the UNHCR. 
 Priority 3 of the strategic guidelines provides for the support of actions helping to enhance 
responsibility sharing be tween Member States and third coun tries. This incl udes the transfer 
of third-country nationals or stateless persons  from a third country to  a Member State where 
they are permitted to reside with refugee status or a status which offers the same rights and benefits under the national and Co mmunity law as refugee status. 
 
 
Sources of co-financing for resettlement 
1. Community actions:  
¾ Based on the Annual work programmes set up by the Commission 
 
EN 68   EN ¾ Projects selected by the Commission following the call for proposal 
¾ Projects focused on transnational coope ration, pilot projects (new form of 
cooperation / EC law), studies awareness raising campaigns 
¾ Co-financing percentage: up to 90% for the call 2008 
¾ Ex: for instance, Trans-national Resettlement Project UK & Ireland was 
selected for co-financing (up to  495.000 EUR) under the ERF CA 2007 
 
2. National programmes of Member States 
¾ Based on the annual programmes presente d by Member States and adopted by 
the Commission 
¾ Concrete actions of Member States relati ng to persons to be resettled (from the 
selection to the integration process) 
¾ Co-financing percentage: up to 50% or  for Cohesion countries up to 75% for 
actions 
¾ Co-financing percentage: 75% for actions relating to resettlement of persons 
from a country or region designated for the implementation of a regional Protection Programme (specific priority  defined in the strategic guidelines) 
 
3. Additional financial support to Member States  whose resettlement actions are targeted 
at certain particularly vuln erable categories of persons and persons falling under the 
Regional Protection Programmes (incentive of 4000 EUR for each resettled person). 
 
 
Distribution of annual resources between Member States  
The annual allocation under the ERF is distributed to the Member States for the 
implementation of their annual programmes according to Article 13 of Decision No 
573/2007/EC. Part of the calculation of allocat ion is based on the following information: 
 
1. Data collection exercise 
 
The data collection exercise is covered by the Migration Statistics Re gulation which provides 
for a regular data collection of  asylum statistics by EUROSTAT . Annual breakdowns of data 
over the three previous years re levant for the distribution of financial resources under the ERF 
are provided by EUROSTAT to DG JL S. According to Article 6(a) to (e) of the legal base, the 
data relevant for the distribution of the fina ncial resources are related to the number of: 
- Third-country nationals admitted over the previous three years and having the 
status defined by the Geneva Convention a nd permitted to reside as a refugee;  
- Third-country nationals admitted over the previous three years and enjoying a 
form of subsidiary prot ection within the meani ng of Directive 2004/83/EC; 
- Third-country nationals w ho have applied for refugee or subsidiary protection 
status over the previous three years; 
- Third-country nationals who have en joyed temporary protection within the 
meaning of Directive 2001/55/EC ove r the previous three years and 
- Third-country nationals resettle d over the previous three years. 
 
EN 69   EN  
According to Article 6(e) of the legal base, on e of the categories of data relevant for the 
allocation of resources concerns the number of third-country nationals resettled over the three 
previous years.  
 Member States such as Finland, Ireland, Neth erlands, Sweden or United Kingdom have their 
national resettlement programmes which impl ementation is supported with the financial 
resources from the ERF. The resettlement actions  are presented under the priority 3 of the MS' 
annual programmes and they aim at actions such as training of selection officers, development 
of specific integration programmes, raising awareness activities, etc. 
 
2. Data on future resettlement of speci fic categories ("pledging exercise") 
 
According to Article 13(6) of legal base Member States are requested to provide additional 
data on future resettlement which are not c overed by the Statistics Regulation. This means 
that every year an ad hoc data request is sent by DG JLS to Member States to obtain these additional data by completing a reporting form on estimate of persons to be resettled in the 
course of the calendar year. These data relates to four specific categories of persons falling 
within Article 13(3) of legal base who are c onsidered as particular ly vulnerable groups: 
 
a) persons from a country or region designa ted for the implementation of a regional 
protection Programme; 
 
b) unaccompanied minors; 
 
c) children and women in risk, particularly  from psychological, physical or sexual 
violence or exploitation; 
 
d) persons with serious medical needs that can  only be addressed thought resettlement 
 
Member States are requested to provide in the reporting form the number of persons under 
each of the four specific categories which they  intent to resettle during the calendar year. 
Following this pledging exercise , Member States are allocated additional financial resources 
based on the fixed amount of 4000 EUR for each re settled person falling into one of the four 
specific categories. 
Member State Pledging 2008 
x 4000 € Pledging 2009 
x 4000 € 
Austria 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Belgium 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Bulgaria 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Cyprus 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Czech Republic 0 0,00 € 16 64.000,00 €
Estonia 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
 
EN 70   EN Finland 98 392.000,00 € 300 1.200.000,00 €
France 0 0,00 € 170 680.000,00 €
Germany 0 0,00 € 2.160 8.640.000,00 €
Greece 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Hungary 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Ireland 40 160.000,00 € 170 680.000,00 €
Italy 0 0,00 € 50 200.000,00 €
Latvia 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Lithuania 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Luxembourg 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Malta 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Netherlands 145 580.000,00 € 145 580.000,00 €
Poland 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Portugal 30 120.000,00 € 30 120.000,00 €
Romania 20 80.000,00 € 0 0,00 €
Slovakia 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Slovenia 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Spain 0 0,00 € 0 0,00 €
Sweden 1.380 5.520.000,00 € 1.435 5.740.000,00 €
United Kingdom 680 2.720.000,00 € 500 2.000.000,00 €
SUMS 2.393 9.572.000,00 € 4.976 19.904.000,00 
€
 
 
EN 71   EN ANNEX 11 
 Resettlement activities under ERF national programmes 
Member States' answers to the question : Did you include resettlement activities in your ERF 
Multi-annual programme? If so, can you shortly describe what sort of activities and the 
starting date of these activities? 
Belgium Yes some activities have been included in the ERF Annual programme of 2008 and 2009 to allow the preparation of a future national resettlement programme. 
Czech 
Republic Yes. In 2009 in the framework of ERF the actions planned are: 
-setting up an asylum integration centre intended for resettled persons 
-informing the host country on resettlement issues -creation of a methodology for managing pre-departure programmes and their pilot implementation 
-pre-departure and travel measures for resettlement projects. 
Finland Finland has included resettlement activities in ERF Multi- annual Programme 2008-2013 and in the 
Annual Programmes 2008 and 2009. Finland has included in the Programmes the optional priority 3 of the ERF strategic guidelines and aims to develop further cooperation with Member States in the 
field of resettlement as well as to develop further its own resettlement activities. 
 
France Yes, it is planned to develop resettlement operations under the MAP 2008-13. Resettlement activities are included in the 2009 Annual programme. Flat rate assistance of 4000 euro per person 
under Article 13( 3) ERF Decision has been pledged in December 2008 for a total of 170 persons. 
Hungary Yes. An operational objective of Hungary in the ERF Multi-annual Programme 2008-2013 is 
"Preparation of a resettlement program", with special attention to : 
-awareness raising (campaigns, programmes,  events, leaflets exhibitions etc…) 
-preparing the asylum system for a resettlement program -elaboration of information material, supporting measures aiming to provide pre-departure 
information 
-securing participation in other Member State's selection mission(s) as observers -establishment of a resettlement programme in the future 
The ERF Annual programme 2009 includes the actio n "First steps in the preparation of a 
resettlement programme". According to the Annu al Programme, the upcoming call for proposals 
will enable the applicants to design programmes with  the following scope of this action: preparation 
of audiovisual information brochures, raisings campaign, culture-orientation trainings etc… 
Italy Yes a resettlement activity is included in the MAP. Not included in the AP 2008 but  planned for AP 
2009 . 
Luxembourg Yes a resettlement activity is included in the ERF Multi-annual programme 2008-2013 but doesn't provide more details. 
Netherlands Yes. In the ERF Multi-annual Programme the Netherland included the following measures: 
-project for improving the resettlement programme and it's implementation fitting in with the policy 
framework and the policy as applied -project for improving and intensifying the information issued to invited refugees both in the 
Netherlands and in the refugee camps 
-projects aimed at assistance to traumatised refugees and developing programmes for promoting 
expertise to professionals at regular health care institutions 
-projects to improve the reception of invited refugees -projects for social integration and participation of invited refugees, particularly aimed at acquiring 
language skills, getting refugees on educational courses, stimulating employment, health and 
assistance courses and meeting with Dutch nationals and creating networks -projects to stimulate cooperation between Eu ropean countries and sharing best practices. 
 
In the Annual programmes 2008-2009 they included the same measures  as for the Multi-annual programme plus for 2009: 
-a project for the development of a methodology fo r the integration of hi ghly educated resettled 
refugees -a project for the development of a methodology for the support of resettled refugees aiming to 
improve the social integration and participation. 
-a project that evaluates and improves the rece ption of the resettled refu gees, the pre-departure 
training and activities in  the reception centre. 
 
 
EN 72   EN Portugal Yes. Portugal includes resettlement in both ERF Multi-annual Programme 2008-2013 and ERF 
Annual programmes (2008 and 2009).  
Spain Yes. Spain will include resettlement activities in the ERF Multi-annual programme from 2011, 
having as an aim the amount of 500 persons to be re settled in Spain at the end of the ERF III period 
in 2014. 
There are no activities planned under th e Annual programme of 2008 and 2009. 
Sweden Yes. Sweden has included resettlement activities in the ERF multi-annual programme 2008-2013 
and the ERF annual programme 2008. The activities include persons transferred to Sweden within the frame of the refugee quota (resettled persons). 
Actions concerning resettled persons for programmes  year 2008 are mainly directed at integration 
for this group. There are also actions aiming at developing strategies for information to resettled persons prior to moving to Sweden, as well as actions aiming at creating a national network for 
resettlement, the purpose being deeper coopera tion between authorities, municipalities and non-
governmental authorities. All actions began during 2008. 
United 
Kingdom Yes. The UK have included resettlement activities in both ERF III Multi-annual programme funding 
cycles.  The UK will utilise ERF funding to expend the current target of 500 persons to be settled 
per annum to 750. 
The UK, through the existing Gateway Protec tion Programme commenced ERF funding on 1 
January 2008. The types of activities under ERF III are: 
-expansion of the existing Resettlement Programme the UK operate 
-invest in the development of new models, exploring how we can make cost saving and increase 
efficiencies 
-develop new models of post-arrival support, par ticularly in relation to securing housing provision 
-pre-arrival: complete up to 4 mission per annum selecting suitable refugees for resettlement; review 
existing procedures; prepar ed refugees for the journey to the UK and their longer-term experience. 
-post-arrival: provide refugees for the journey to the UK and their longer-term experience; provide a 
12 month fully funded structured programme of resettlement needs. 
Cyprus No, only intra EU reallocation is foreseen  
Austria No 
Bulgaria For Bulgaria, including resettlement in the national migration and integration strategy as well as partnerships with states that have best resettlemen t practices is an option. Developing pilot programs 
for resettlement in Bulgaria is being discussed by the Government.  Nevertheless, whether or not 
Bulgaria will become a country of  resettlement is still pending and is to be decided by the 
Government.  Nothing included in AP 2008 nor AP 2009. 
Denmark No. Denmark doesn't include resettlement activities in ERF as a consequence of Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol on the position of Denmark, annexe d to the Treaty on European Union and to the 
Treaty establishing th e European Community. 
Estonia No 
Germany Resettlement operations are planned for 2009. Flat rate assistance of 4000 euro per person under 
Article 13, 3 ERF Decision has been pledged in December 2008 for a total of 2.160 persons. For 
subsequent years this is subject to a political decision. 
Lithuania No 
Poland No 
Greece No resettlement activities in the ERF Multi-annual programme 2008-2013, only intra EU reallocation of asylum seekers and other pe rsons benefitting international protection. 
Ireland Ireland has included resettlement activities in the MAP . The objective of the strategy will be to 
enhance the resettlement programme at present being implemented in cooperation with the UNHCR. 
Actions will include projects which will improve supports in the communities in which  persons are 
resettled, for  example by providing interpretation and translation services.  Actions will in some 
cases concern persons from a region designated for the implementation of a Regional Protection 
Programme and so will address specific priority 1 of the Commission Decision on the strategic 
guidelines. In the AP 2008 there was one action c onsisting of  capacity building in the community 
receiving resettled persons, to develop a support ne twork and to do other wo rk which will enable the 
target group to live independently in a new and unfamiliar society.   
Latvia  
Malta No, only intra EU reallocation is foreseen 
Romania Yes, in the framework of the AP 2008 Romania envisages to enhance the knowledge and skills of 
the staff involved in resettlement activities. In AP 2009, Romania envisages to implement 
 
EN 73   EN resettlement operations under priority 3 in accordan ce with the national legislation which establishes 
the resettlement quota for Romania for the period 2008-2010 (120 selected and transferred), the 
procedure and the institutions responsible for resettlement. 
Slovakia No 
Slovenia No 
Source: Responses to the COM questionnaire on resettlement to the Member States, Jan  2009 
 
EN 74   EN ANNEX 12 
UNHCR Resettlement - Top 10 Arri vals to EU, by Country of EU vs. Country of Origin 
2007  Country of Resettlement 
Country 
of Origin Austr
ia Belgium Czech Rep Denmar
k Finlan
d Franc
e German
y Irelan
d Netherland
s Portugal Spain Swede
n UK  Total 
Myanmar    213 347   97 55   343 111 1.166 
Iraq    12 19  1  120  3 650 25 830 
Congo, DR  8  142 73   7 54   61 141 486 
Afghanista
n     62       196  258 
Uzbekistan   8 15 4    4   106  137 
Columbia    4     6   122  132 
Iran    5 46 5  1 9   52  118 
Somalia  1   64    19 10  8 6 108 
Burundi    26 10    53   9  98 
Russia 1   4 9   2 6   60  82 
Total 1 9 8 421 634 5 1 107 326 10 3 1.607 283 3.415
2008  Country of Resettlement 
Country 
of Origin Austr
ia Czech Rep Denmark Finland Franc
e UK Greece Irelan
d Italy Netherland
s Portug
al Spain Sweden Total 
Iraq   33 99 250 304  6  107 5 1 247 1.052 
Myanmar  46 156 281 1 63    135   270 952 
Congo DR 1  125 128 1 123    82  2 87 549 
Afghanista
n   10 5  2      5 301 323 
Iran   3 103  2 2 6  17   128 261 
Ethiopia      181   2 37   16 236 
Occ. Pal. 
Terr.   21       36   123 180 
Uzbekistan   10       16   103 129 
Burundi 8  24 3      41   19 95 
Russia   9 17 23   2  7   27 85 
Total 9 46 391 636 275 675 2 14 2 478 5 8 1.321 3.862
    Source: UNHCR  
 
EN 75   EN ANNEX 13 
Origin BEL FIN GBR IRE NET SWEEU 
TotalAll 
Others FIN GBR NET SWEEU 
TotalAll 
Others BEL DEN FIN GBR NET SWEEU 
TotalAll 
Others DEN FIN NET SWEEU 
TotalAll 
Others DEN FIN NET SWEEU 
TotalAll 
Others
Burundi 17 8 25 405 7 7 934 84 84 1.205 6 53 59 5.806 23 29 18 70 2.883
Congo, DR 341 216 7 7 226 39 39 163 84 46 130 119
Regional 
Protection Program Ethiopia 1 33
Rwanda 4 4 39 1 1 34 2 2 43 55Somalia 2 2
Uganda 1 1 1
Sub-total RPP 17 0 8 0 0 4 29 787 1 2 1 7 11 1.184 0 0 0 0 93 0 93 1.474 0 6 92 0 98 6.024 107 0 78 18 203 3.002
Afghanistan 15 23 1
Iran 11
Turkmenistan 1
Moldova Eritrea 1
Afghanistan 8 14 22 15 4 3 7 1 17 2 10 10 6Angola 3 3 5 12 3
Armenia 1
Burundi 1
Congo, DR 1 11
Cuba 2 11
Eritrea 1 1
Ethiopia 5 1 3 1 1 1 4 4 1Cote d'Ivoire 1 5
Iran 1 1 4 13 8 15 5 5Iraq 11 3 3 4 3
Mauritania 4
Niger 1
Occ. Pal. Terr. 3
Russia 3 10 13 1 3 1 2 5 11 4 4 5 1 31 41 1 2 21 24 1Somalia 11 1 1 8
Sudan 22
Syria 2
Uganda 1
Uzbekistan 64 0 4 0 4 1 5 8 8 6
0 10 3 8 2 7 3 9 3 040 1 3 8 7 031 01 3 4 8 5 6 4 78 5 1 3 4 4 8 5 5 0 1 2 5 0 5 3 2 1
17 1 8 3 8 31 68 817 5 2 2 10 19 1.254 3 1 0 1 96 48 149 1.521 8 11 93 34 146 6.079 107 1 80 68 256 3.023 Grand Total of two RPP programs2005 2006 2007
Sub-total - RPP WNIS2004
Regional 
Protection 
ProgramTanzania
Belarus
UkraineUNHCR Resettlement Departures - RPP Countries of Asylum by Country of Origin - 2004 - 2008
2008
Country of Asylum