Special Report EU external migration 
spending in Southern 
Mediterranean and 
Eastern Neighbourhood 
countries until 2014EN 2016  NO 09
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
Enquiries: eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ContactForm.aspx   
Website: eca.europa.eu  
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016
Print ISBN 978-92-872-4791-9 ISSN 1831-0834 doi:10.2865/407918 QJ-AB-16-010-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-872-4781-0 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/18042 QJ-AB-16-010-EN-N
EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-4785-8 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/753679 QJ-AB-16-010-EN-E
© European Union, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
EU external migration 
spending in Southern 
Mediterranean and 
Eastern Neighbourhood 
countries until 2014
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)Special ReportEN 2016  NO 09
02
 Contents
Paragraph
 Abbreviations and acronyms
 Glossary
I-V Executive summary
1-20  Introduction
2-20  EU external migration policy 
2-5 The policy framework
6-8 A global approach to external migration
9 Priority given to neighbourhood countries
10 -11  Varied institutional and financial instruments
12-16  Different sources of the EU’s external migration spending
17-20  Financing and management arrangements
21-26  Audit scope and approach
27-65  Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country needs and 
monitoring instruments need improving
27-31  A wide range of policy objectives not always interlinked
32-37  Identification of partner countries’ needs requires better attention
38-51  Monitoring and assessment arrangements need improving
52-60  Geographic and thematic priorities were difficult to verify
61-65  Intervention spread over a wide geographical area
03 Contents 
66-89  Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU’s external migration spending 
(TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership 
countries
67-69  Shortcomings in operational objectives and result indicators made projects’ effectiveness difficult 
to assess
70-73  Factors hindering effectiveness
Box 8 An example of good practice
74 Effectiveness issues in three key areas
75-81  The link between migration and development
82-86  Support measures for returns and readmissions: limited impact and unequal support from non-EU 
countries
87-89  Human rights protection: included in projects audited but not always successfully implemented
90-103  A difficult coordination between several partners at different levels
91-100  Governance was complex
101-102  Mobility partnerships: the need to clarify coordination
103 Outlook for the future
 Conclusions and recommendations
 Annex I —  Mobility partnerships signed between the EU, EU Member States and non-EU countries
 Annex II  —  Amounts committed, contracted and paid in the external dimension of migration 
policy during the 2007-2013 period (million euro)
 Annex III  —  Spending on external migration policy: multiple EU spending instruments, each 
with its own objectives and strategies
 Annex IV —  Summary of projects audited
 Annex V —  Implementing mechanisms for EU financial assistance (M & A external dimension)
 Replies of the Commission
04
 Abbreviations 
and acronyms
DCI : Development Cooperation Instrument
DG: directorate-general
ECHO : Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO)
EDF : European Development Fund
EEAS : European External Action Service
EIDHR : European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights
ENPI : European Neighbourhood (and Partnership) Instrument
Frontex : European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member 
States of the European Union
GAMM : global approach to migration and mobility
IFS: Instrument for Stability
IOM : International Organisation for Migration
IPA: Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance
ISF: Internal Security Fund
JMDI : Joint Migration and Development Initiative
TPMA : thematic programme for migration and asylum
UNDP : United Nations Development Programme
UNHCR : United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
05
 Glossary1
Asylum seeker : Migrants are granted asylum-seeker status when they have applied for either refugee status or 
subsidiary protection status and their application is still being processed.
Border management : Facilitation of authorised flows of business people, tourists, migrants and refugees and the 
detection and prevention of irregular entry of aliens into a given country. Measures to manage borders include the 
imposition by states of visa requirements, carrier sanctions against transportation companies bringing irregular 
aliens on to the territory, and interdiction at sea.
Capacity-building : Increasing the autonomous capacity of governments and civil society by strengthening their 
knowledge, skills and attitudes. Capacity-building can take the form of a project implemented with a partner 
government, or bilateral or multilateral dialogue.
Irregular migration : There is no clear or universally accepted definition of irregular migration, which concerns the 
movement of persons outside the regulatory structure of the sending, transit and receiving countries. From the 
perspective of destination countries it means irregular entry, stay or work in a country. From the perspective of the 
sending country, the irregularity arises in cases where, for example, a person crosses an international boundary 
without a valid passport or travel document. Irregular migrants comprise those who enter the sovereign territory 
of a state without a valid entry document and those who, having entered with a valid document, fail to renew their 
authorisation and remain (overstay) in the receiving country.
Migration : The movement of a person or a group of persons, either across an international border or within a state. 
The length, composition and causes of migration can be varied; it includes the movement of refugees, displaced 
persons, economic migrants and others, such as persons moving to rejoin their families.
Mobility2: A broader concept than migration, as it applies to a wide range of people, e.g. short-term visitors, 
tourists, students, researchers, business people and visiting family members.
Project results : In order to measure the results of a project, the following aspects need to be defined.
(a) Clear operational objectives (e.g. access to electricity for all households in a given village).
(b) Input and output indicators for evaluating the quantity, quality and provision time of the services, goods or 
work provided by the project (e.g. the purchase and installation of 200 electricity poles and 4 000 metres of 
line).
(c) Baseline and target values (e.g. where there are already 500 poles and 10 000 metres of line, the aim is to 
achieve 700 poles and 14 000 metres of line).
(d) Result indicators measuring the effects of project implementation and describing the achievement of an 
objective (e.g. all 200 households now have access to electricity). Here too, baseline and target values may be 
specified (e.g. an increase from 150 to 200 households served).
1 All definitions adapted from the International Organisation for Migration’s (IOM) Glossary on migration , unless specifically stated otherwise.
2 COM(2011) 743 final of 18 November 2011, ‘The global approach to migration and mobility’.
06 Glossary 
Readmission agreement : An agreement which addresses procedures for a state to return foreigners or stateless 
persons in an irregular situation to their home country or a third country through which they passed en route to the 
country seeking to return them.
Refugee : Refugees are individuals who, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, 
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, are outside the country of their nationality 
and are unable or, owing to that fear, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.
Reintegration : Reinclusion or reincorporation of a person into a group, e.g. the process of a migrant rejoining 
society in his/her country of origin.
Return : Refers broadly to the act or process of going back, either within the territorial boundaries of a country or, 
once all legal avenues to stay in an EU Member State have been exhausted, from a host country to the country of 
origin or transit, as in the case of refugees, asylum seekers and qualified nationals.
07
 Executive  
summary
I
The external dimension of the EU’s common migration policy aims to promote effective management of migration 
flows in partnership with countries of origin and transit. This report deals with the two main financing instruments 
in 6 out of the 11 Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Partnership countries, the thematic programme for migra -
tion and asylum (TPMA), and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), both established for 
the 2007-2013 period. The audit does not cover the developments in migration after 2014 nor the EU’s reaction to 
the current refugee crisis.
II
The EU’s external migration spending was governed by a wide range of general objectives. The total amount of 
expenditure charged to the EU budget could not be established in the course of the audit, nor was it clear whether 
expenditure had been directed in line with the intended geographical and thematic priorities.
III
Based on an examination of selected projects, we conclude that the effectiveness of the EU’s external migration 
spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Partnership countries can be improved. It 
was often difficult to measure the results achieved by EU spending because of objectives covering a very broad 
thematic and geographical area and the lack of quantitative and results-oriented indicators. The contribution of 
migration to development, which is one of the priorities of the global approach to migration and mobility (GAMM), 
was difficult to assess. Finally, to judge from the projects examined, the contribution made by migrants returning to 
their home country was limited.
Executive summary 08
IV
The EU’s external migration spending was implemented by a wide range of stakeholders. It necessitated coordina -
tion between the Commission’s various departments, in particular its directorates-general, the European External 
Action Service, EU delegations in non-EU countries and a number of EU agencies, in partnership with Member 
States, neighbourhood countries and third countries. This complex governance required stronger coordination, at 
all levels, and better involvement of EU delegations in migration issues.
V
We conclude our report by recommending that the Commission develop clear and measurable objectives to be 
implemented by a coherent set of EU funding instruments supported by effective monitoring and evaluation, and 
by an appropriate information system. Governance arrangements must be simpler and better coordinated.
09
 Introduction
01 
The EU’s external migration policy covers a wide range of issues such as mo -
bility and legal migration, irregular migration, migration and development or 
international protection. This audit is based on work done up to the end of 2014, 
examining the EU’s external migration spending in Southern Mediterranean and 
Eastern Neighbourhood Partnership countries (see also paragraphs 21 to 26). It 
was not an audit of assistance within the EU, nor of assistance to the EU Member 
States. It also did not cover directly measures set up explicitly to deal with claims 
for asylum or data on irregular migration. The audit examined the two main EU 
financing instruments and their expenditures in six countries3 in the Eastern and 
Southern Neighbourhood, during the 2007-2013 period. The external migration 
spending audited by the Court was not related to spending on the Syrian refugee 
crisis. So the report does not cover events and EU actions, nor data, from 2015. 
We are publishing the results of this audit now, since we consider that the find -
ings and recommendations of this audit have relevance as the EU seeks to devise 
appropriate policy and budgetary responses to the external migration policy.
EU external migration policy
The policy framework
02 
Article 67 of the Treaty requires the EU to frame a common policy on asylum, im -
migration and external border control based on solidarity among Member States. 
The European Council defined the corresponding strategic guidelines (Article 68); 
these were set out in the Stockholm programme (2009-2014)4, which provided 
a roadmap for the EU in the area of justice, freedom and security. New strategic 
guidelines for the 2014-2019 period were adopted by the Council in June 2014.
03 
The main aim of the common immigration policy (Article 79 of the Treaty)  is 
to ensure the efficient management of migration flows, fair treatment of non-EU 
nationals residing legally in Member States and the prevention of, and enhanced 
measures to combat, irregular immigration and trafficking in human beings.3 Algeria, Georgia, Libya, 
Moldova, Morocco and 
Ukraine.
4 OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1.
10 Introduction 
04 
The EU also accords particular importance to managing migration flows in co -
operation with migrants’ countries of transit or origin, and to strengthening the 
link between migration and development.
05 
The EU’s common migration policy therefore has both an internal and an external 
dimension. This report deals with the external dimension, which is described in 
the next section.
A global approach to external migration
06 
In 2005, the Council adopted the global approach to migration in Africa and the 
Mediterranean. In 2011, this evolved into the global approach to migration and 
mobility (GAMM)5. The GAMM, which was adopted by the Council6 but is not 
legally binding, represents the EU’s overarching policy framework for political 
dialogue and cooperation on external migration policy.
07 
The GAMM identifies four general thematic priorities which it describes as 
‘equally important’:
(a) better organising legal migration and fostering well-managed mobility;
(b) preventing and combating irregular migration and eradicating trafficking in 
human beings;
(c) maximising the development impact of migration and mobility;
(d) promoting international protection and enhancing the external dimension of 
asylum.
08 
Respect for human rights is a cross-cutting priority within this policy framework.5 COM(2011) 743 final; Council 
document No 9417/12 of 
3.5.2012 ‘Council conclusions 
on the global approach to 
migration and mobility’.
6 Adopted by Council 
conclusions in May 2012 
(Council document 
No 9417/12) and reiterated in 
April 2014 (Council document 
No 8443/14).
11 Introduction 
Priority given to neighbourhood countries
09 
Although the GAMM (2011 communication from the Commission) was global in 
scope, the European Neighbourhood (see Figure 1 ) was its first priority7: notably 
the Southern Mediterranean (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia) and 
the countries of the Eastern Partnership (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, 
Moldova and Ukraine). The aim in the Neighbourhood region was to ‘move to -
wards strong, close partnerships that build on mutual trust and shared interests, 
paving the way for further regional integration’8. The European Neighbourhood 
countries are important countries of origin and transit to the EU, as well as being 
countries of destination in their own right.
Varied institutional and financial instruments
10 
The GAMM was implemented though a wide range of instruments: see Box 1  for 
more detail. Box 1Instruments used to implement the GAMM
 οPolitical instruments, such as regional policy dialogue and mobility partnerships (MPs).
 οLegal instruments, such as visa facilitation and readmission agreements with non-EU countries 
(17 such agreements in 2015).
 οOperational support by EU agencies, such as Frontex.
 οA range of EU financial contributions to non-EU national administrations and other stakeholders (such 
as international organisations). These include programmes or projects financed from different budget 
sources and a specific thematic programme focused on capacity-building and cooperation in the area of 
migration and asylum, covering most non-EU countries including those in the European Neighbourhood.7 The 2005 global approach to 
migration (GAM) prioritised 
Africa (including north Africa) 
as the main geographic focus. 
The GAM was expanded to 
include eastern and 
south-eastern countries in 
2007 (COM(2007) 247 final of 
16 May 2007, ‘Applying the 
global approach to migration 
to the eastern and south-
eastern regions neighbouring 
the European Union’). The 
priority of the European 
neighbourhood was reiterated 
in the GAMM (COM(2011) 743 
final) and its first 
implementation report 
(COM(2014) 96 final of 
21 February 2014, ‘Report on 
the implementation of the 
global approach to migration 
and mobility 2012-2013’). 
These priorities have been 
reiterated in numerous 
Council conclusions.
8 COM(2011) 743 final, p. 8.
12 Introduction Figure 1
"
""
"""
""""
"
"
""
""
""
"
"
"""
"
""
"""
"""
""""
""
""
""
""
""
"
"""
"""
""
"
"LichtensteinBakuKyïvRigaOslo
Bern
RomeMinsk
VaduzParis
AmmanSofia
CairoTunis
RabatMoskow
Warsaw Berlin
ZagrebViennaPrague
BeirutAthensAnkara
TiranaSkopje
Madrid
LisbonLondonDublin
TbilisiTallinn
Vilnius
BaghdadYerevan
Nicosia
TripoliAlgiersHelsinki
Chisinau
BudapestBrussels
DamascusBelgrade
Sarajevo
VallettaReykjavík
LjubljanaStockholm
Amsterdam
Bucharest
PodgoricaBratislavaCopenhagen
LuxembourgRUSSIAN FEDERATION
SAUDI ARABIATURKEY
IRAQSPAINFRANCESWEDEN
ITALYFINLAND
POLAND
GERMANYNORWAY
ROMANIA
WESTERN SAHARA 'ICELAND
HUNGARYUNITED KINGDOM
BULGARIA
GREECEAUSTRIALATVIA
PORTUGALIRELANDLITHUANIA
CROATIASLOVAKIAESTONIA
CZECH REPUBLIC
SERBIABELGIUM
ALBANIASWITZERLANDNETHERLANDSDENMARK
SLOVENIA
BOSNIA AND
HERZEGOVINA
CYPRUSTHE FORMER YUGOSLAV
REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA MONTENEGROLUXEMBOURG
MALTAANDORRAMONACO
ALGERIAEGYPT
LIBYAMOROCCO
TUNISIAJORDANSYRIA
ISRAELLEBANON
ALGERIAUKRAINEBELARUS
GEORGIA
AZERBAIJAN
ARMENIAMOLDOVA
Cartography: Eurostat — GISCO , 05/2015Administrative boundaries: © EuroGeographics © UN-FA O © Turkstat
0 200 400 600 800 km
The European Neighbourhood
Key:  
Blue = European Union; 
Green = countries covered by the European neighbourhood policy.
Source:  Eurostat.
13 Introduction 
11 
The EU has engaged in several regional9 and bilateral  dialogues on implementing 
the GAMM. The seven main regional dialogues at the time of the audit covered 
key regions to the south and east of the EU and consisted of regular official meet -
ings and strengthening of cooperation instruments. The principal bilateral frame -
work for asylum and migration policy dialogue with neighbourhood countries 
are MPs. These aim to address relevant migration and mobility issues of mutual 
concern, including, where appropriate, short- and long-term mobility. Member 
States’ participation is voluntary and legally non-binding. MPs set priorities and 
agree on specific initiatives, and Member States may voluntarily participate by 
providing financing or expertise. Annex I  provides an overview of the eight MPs 
signed since 2008, including Member States’ participation.
Different sources of the EU’s external migration spending
12 
This section describes the two main EU spending instruments supporting 
 external migration policy, and other programmes that have contributed to 
 external migration policy.
13 
The thematic programme for migration and asylum  (TPMA) was the only pro -
gramme specifically dedicated to addressing challenges in the area of external 
migration and asylum in the 2007-2013 period. It had its legal basis in Article 16 
of the DCI regulation10. Its general objective was to support non-EU countries in 
ensuring ‘a better management of migratory flows in all their dimensions’. To this 
end, the TPMA sought to focus intervention on eastern and southern migration 
routes, and to enhance capacity-building and encourage cooperation initiatives 
in the areas of migration and asylum. It was ‘not established to directly address 
the root causes of migration’11 12.
14 
The programme was implemented under the responsibility of the Directorate-
General for International Cooperation and Development. About two thirds of the 
funded measures were selected through calls for proposals, and the remainder 
through targeted initiatives by the Commission.9 The main regional dialogue 
processes were the Budapest 
Process, the Prague Process, 
the Eastern Partnership Panel 
on Migration and Asylum, the 
Africa-EU Migration, Mobility 
and Employment (MME) 
Partnership, the Rabat Process, 
the ACP–EU Dialogue on 
Migration and Development 
and the EU–CELAC Structured 
and Comprehensive Dialogue 
on Migration.
10 Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
18 December 2006 
establishing a financing 
instrument for development 
cooperation (OJ L 378, 
27.12.2006, p. 41).
11 Thematic programme 
‘Cooperation with third 
countries in the areas of 
migration and asylum’, 
2011-2013 multi-annual 
strategy paper:  
http://ec.europa.eu/
europeaid/thematic-  
programme-cooperation-
third-countries-areas-
migration-and-asylum-2011-
2013-multi-annual_en
12 For the 2014-2020 period, the 
TPMA has been replaced by 
the migration component of 
the global public goods and 
challenges programme.
14 Introduction 
15 
The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument  (ENPI)13 became 
operational in 2007 as a vehicle for the European neighbourhood policy14. The 
ENPI regulation did not set objectives, which were instead laid down in agree -
ments between the Commission and non-EU countries. The ENPI financed actions 
designed, among other things, to support reform and strengthen capacity in the 
field of justice and home affairs, including migration and asylum (e.g. integrated 
border management, readmission, and the fight against, and prevention of, 
 human trafficking), organised crime and terrorism.
16 
Several other programmes may also contribute to the external migration policy, 
such as the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), the European Instrument 
for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) or the Instrument for Stability. The In -
strument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) and the European Development Fund 
(EDF) may also be used, but not for Neighbourhood countries.
Financing and management arrangements
17 
Over the 2007-2013 period, we estimated the EU’s total contracted external 
migration amount to be approximately 1.4 billion euro (see Annex II ). However, 
financial data were available only for the TPMA, payments for which totalled 
304.3 million euro over the same period (see paragraphs 52 to 56).
18 
In addition to the Commission’s funding, measures have been co-financed by 
Member States over the 2007-2013 period.
19 
Responsibility for programming EU spending under the external migration policy 
is shared among the European External Action Service (EEAS) and a number of 
Commission directorates-general. The responsibility for managing EU funds un -
der the external migration policy is a responsibility of the Commission.13 Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
24 October 2006 laying down 
general provisions 
establishing a European 
Neighbourhood and 
Partnership Instrument 
(OJ L 310, 9.11.2006, p. 1).
14 For the 2014-2020 period, the 
ENPI has been replaced by the 
European Neighbourhood 
Instrument (ENI), which was 
not part of the scope of this 
audit.
15 Introduction 
20 
Reflecting the wide range of EU spending instruments mentioned above, several 
Commission directorates-general may intervene in this area: DG International 
Cooperation and Development is responsible for the DCI, the EDF, the EIDHR 
and the ENPI, but this responsibility was taken over in 2015 by DG Neighbour -
hood and Enlargement Negotiations, which is also responsible for the IPA. DG 
Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO) manages humanitarian aid, includ -
ing for refugees. Only in the case of the thematic programmes funded under the 
DCI (such as the TPMA) is DG International Cooperation and Development solely 
responsible for programming and implementation. Projects implemented under 
direct management were managed either directly by the Commission in Brussels 
or by EU delegations. Member States may participate and provide co-financing 
under certain instruments (see details in Annex III ).
16
 Audit scope  
and approach
21 
We examined whether EU spending from the TPMA and the ENPI, both estab -
lished for the 2007-2013 period, in the area of migration had clear objectives and 
whether it had been effective and well coordinated in 6 of the 11 countries of the 
Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Partnership. The audit does not cover the 
developments in migration after 2014 nor the EU’s reaction to the current refu -
gee crisis. In particular, our audit checked whether migration spending:
(a) pursued a clear and coherent set of objectives — accompanied by an effec -
tive monitoring system — which responded to well-identified needs and 
priorities in the Neighbourhood countries;
(b) was achieving its objectives in the Neighbourhood countries;
(c) had been well coordinated among EU bodies and with Member States.
22 
The audit of the clarity of spending objectives and monitoring systems focused 
on the various spending instruments used to support the EU’s external migration 
policy (see Annex III)15. The audit of effectiveness and coordination focused on 
projects financed by the TPMA as well as the ENPI.
23 
The audit covered countries in the Eastern and Southern Neighbourhood, specifi -
cally Algeria, Georgia, Libya, Moldova, Morocco and Ukraine.
24 
The audit was based on the following.
(a) Interviews and the collection of information from the Commission and three 
countries (Algeria, Georgia and Morocco) covering 12 projects, with visits to 
EU delegations, the responsible national and local authorities and, where 
possible, final beneficiaries. Interviews were also conducted with other stake -
holders, such as Member State representatives (both in Brussels and on the 
spot), international organisations, civil society and think tanks.
(b) A desk review of 11 projects implemented in Libya, Moldova and Ukraine.
(c) Documentary reviews of policy, programming and project documents, 
a questionnaire sent to 11 Member State administrations and a review of the 
related literature and relevant evaluations.15 Neither the EDF nor the IPA 
are used in the Southern 
Mediterranean and Eastern 
Partnership countries.
17 Audit scope and approach  
25 
The 23 projects, one of which happened to be an extension of another project 
sampled, represent a total contract value of 89 million euro (see Annex IV ) on 
a total contracted amount of 742 million euro. Those projects were selected on 
the basis of: (i) the amount of expenditure; (ii) balanced coverage of the various 
thematic priorities of the GAMM; (iii) location; (iv) project status (closed or on -
going); (v) whether the assistance supported MPs (see Annex I ).
26 
We carried out our audit against the backdrop of the new spending regula -
tions adopted for the 2014-2020 period. In a partial internal reorganisation since 
the new Commission took office, the European neighbourhood policy (which 
includes migration issues) was moved from the Directorate-General for Devel -
opment and Cooperation to the Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and 
Enlargement Negotiations. Where relevant, the audit took these changes into 
account.
18
 Coherence of objectives, identification of 
partner country needs and monitoring 
instruments need improving
A wide range of policy objectives not always 
interlinked
27 
We examined whether the two spending instruments (TPMA and ENPI) support -
ing implementation of the EU’s external migration policy were implemented 
through clearly defined and coherent objectives. We also examined whether 
oper  ational objectives reflected the well-identified needs of non-EU countries 
and were accompanied by a set of indicators to measure results. Finally, we veri -
fied whether the available financial resources were allocated to well-defined 
priorities so as to maximise the impact of intervention.
28 
The general objective of the TPMA was to help non-EU countries ensure ‘better 
management of migratory flows in all their dimensions’. It was divided into five 
intervention priorities16 that were presented in Commission documents as pro -
gramme objectives. Specific objectives were set out in thematic strategy papers.
29 
The ENPI (2007-2013), which partly included migration, did not in itself define 
policy objectives. The applicable regulation referred to the setting of priority ob -
jectives in strategy papers — to be adopted by the Commission — for a country 
or region. Where the EU had agreed no specific objectives with the country con -
cerned, EU policy objectives were to be pursued (but it is not specified which).
30 
The framework of EU external migration spending also called upon five other 
instruments which each have their own objectives and intervention frameworks 
and thus do not focus on or include migration provisions. It was not clear from 
the legislation how the different objectives were interlinked or what they were 
intended to achieve at EU level with respect to external migration (see Annex III ).
31 
Even though these EU spending instruments may address situations where mi -
gration is an issue, and contribute to migration spending, legally and financially 
they provided no clear strategy or monitoring arrangements by which to identify 
the scale of that contribution .16 Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006, 
Article 16(2): (i) fostering the 
links between migration and 
development; (ii) promoting 
well-managed labour 
migration; (iii) fighting 
irregular immigration and 
facilitating the readmission of 
irregular immigrants; 
(iv) promoting asylum and 
international protection, 
including through regional 
protection programmes, in 
particular in strengthening 
institutional capacities and 
protecting stateless persons; 
and (v) protecting migrants 
against exploitation and 
exclusion, and fighting 
trafficking in human beings.
19
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
Identification of partner countries’ needs requires 
better attention
32 
We found that the needs analysis was properly documented in 10 projects, while 
in nine others, the needs assessments were only partially documented for various 
reasons (for instance in one third of those projects this was mainly because of 
difficult local context and political instability). In four projects, we could not find 
documentary evidence.
33 
MPs17 signed by the Commission, Member States and partner countries provide 
a political framework for a policy dialogue on migration which also contributes 
to the identification of needs (see also paragraph 36). MPs, which have been 
signed with eight countries18 (see Annex I ), may also involve Member States: 24 
have signed up to one or more of the eight partnerships. Even though MPs are 
not legally binding, a process of dialogue makes it easier to identify needs and 
take them more comprehensively into account. Moldova — which has one of the 
oldest MPs — has, for example, sought to refocus the implementation of its MP 
to ensure a better balance between all four thematic priorities of the GAMM. The 
Commission regularly reminds Member States to implement the MPs in a bal -
anced manner, including by giving more emphasis to actions with regard to legal 
migration, human rights and refugee protection.
34 
The role of the EU delegations in partner countries is crucial in identifying and 
defining needs. We found that there were no specialised migration officials in 
EU delegations. Migration was managed by staff handling EU spending, whose 
knowledge of and expertise in migration varied. The Directorate-General for 
Migration and Home Affairs has seconded a number of specialists to delegations 
to cover the range of home affairs policies, but none were in post in any of the 
Neighbourhood countries or in any MP partner country at the time of the audit.
35 
Greater understanding of migration issues can translate into a better response to 
non-EU countries’ needs. DG International Cooperation and Development has de -
veloped a number of training tools and workshops on a range of relevant topics.17 These establish a set of 
political objectives and 
provide for a series of 
initiatives which are designed 
to ensure that people 
movements are managed as 
effectively as possible.
18 Armenia, Azerbaijan, 
Cape Verde, Georgia, Jordan, 
Moldova, Morocco and 
Tunisia.
20
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
36 
The identification of needs in a partner country also depends on the country’s 
prioritisation of and commitment to migration management. For many Neigh -
bourhood countries, however, particularly in the south, it has not been a prior -
ity. Reluctance to engage constructively with the EU in this domain hinders the 
identification of needs, especially given the partner countries’ perception that 
some actions were primarily intended for the EU’s benefit. An example of this was 
the lack of success in signing up north African countries to the Seahorse Mediter -
ranean border surveillance network.
37 
Similarly, the project of an I‘nteractive map on irregular migration routes and 
flows in Africa, the Middle East and the Mediterranean region’ (I-Map) (0.7 mil -
lion euro), aiming to support migration dialogue processes and facilitate the 
exchange of information, has been criticised by some partner countries for being 
of more benefit to the EU and its Member States than to non-EU countries. Ac -
cording to the data available in July 2014, only 6 % of a total of 668 system users 
were Neighbourhood countries, while the principal users were EU Member States 
(50 %), followed by the Commission and the EU agencies (30 %).
Monitoring and assessment instruments need 
improving
38 
Relevant, coherent and timely indicators are an essential tool for guiding and 
assessing a policy and the related instruments. The Court found little evidence 
of precise and systematic indicators geared to each intervention level, and a lack 
of consistency between the indicators at the various policy levels: the strategic 
framework, budget and Commission activity reports, i.e. the operational frame -
work for each financial intervention (see Figure 2 ).
21
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improvingFigure 2Links between objectives and indicators of policy and implementing  
documents for the TPMA
DCI Regulation
(TPMA) – 2006
5 activity areas
No indicators, targets or
expected results
Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM) – 2011
Four pillars
No indicators, targets or expected resultsLegal basis Policy framework
TPMA
Strategy Papers
2007-2010
2011-2013
5 activity areas
Expected results; 
indicators; no baseline 
or targetsStrategy
Calls for Proposals 
Guidelines
Objectives; priorities; 
no indicators
2007-2008: 5 Lots 
(geographic)
2009-2010: 6 Lots
(5 geographic + Mobility 
Partnerships)
2011-2012: 4 Lots
(3 geographic + 1 global)Implementing
guidelines
Implementation
Projects
Objectives; 
indicators; results
Excel table
5 activity areas
Indicators; 
partial results
Draft Budget
Activity Statement
Year Y-1
Four speciﬁc objectives
Indicators, targets, 
expected resultsStrategy
DG for International 
Cooperation and 
Development
 Annual Management Plan
Year Y
Four speciﬁc objectives
Indicators, targets, 
expected results
DG for International 
Cooperation and 
Development
Annual Activity Report
Year Y+1
Four speciﬁc objectives
Indicators, targets, resultsPlanning Accountability/
Reportingx
x
xxxx
√
Key to consistency and coherence of indicators
x
√Expected consistency and coherence
Lack of consistency and coherence
Identi/f_ied consistency and coherence
22
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
39 
At the strategic level , the arrangements for monitoring the GAMM were very 
broadly defined. The plan was to guide implementation of the programme 
by means of a comparative evaluation method identifying changes over time. 
This very vague definition was neither explained nor assigned indicators, refer -
ence values or targets for evaluating the achievement of objectives, which were 
themselves very general. The public consultation carried out in 2011, in which 
86 % of respondents favoured the introduction of management indicators, led 
the Commission to conclude, in agreement with most of the Member States, that 
the policy’s targets and indicators should be ‘flexible and more qualitative than 
quantitative’.
40 
The general objective of the TPMA was divided into five intervention priorities 
(see paragraph 28). Specific objectives, expected results and performance indica -
tors were to be set out in a thematic strategy paper.
41 
Two strategy papers followed for two periods, of 4 years (2007-2010) and 3 years 
(2011-2013) respectively. For the 2011-2013 period, 26 expected results and 37 
indicators were defined. However, no reference values or quantified targets were 
set.
42 
The weaknesses of the monitoring and accountability process can be illustrated 
by the programme’s first area of activity  (presented as an objective in the 
strategy paper), the general aim of which was to strengthen links between 
migration and development . This objective was supposed to be monitored, for 
the 2011-2013 period, by means of nine indicators (see Box 2 ).
23
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
43 
However, these indicators did not make it possible to monitor and evaluate how 
this programme objective was implemented. Most were complex, sometimes 
involving several parameters (for instance the transparency, reliability and cost of 
services responsible for financial transfers), and at most covered outputs rather 
than results. Data sources, definition and compilation methods were not speci -
fied. Certain concepts, such as experts (in analysing data or managing migra -
tion flows) and the financial literacy of migrant households, could be difficult to 
interpret.
44 
The same confusion affected the programme indicators listed in budgets, DG 
International Cooperation and Development management plans and an -
nual activity reports . For the purposes of monitoring programme implemen -
tation, these documents should also have included indicators for assessing the 
performance of EU intervention in terms of the use of resources and the results 
obtained. The documents were based around four objectives19, with indicators, 
targets and results that varied each year. Box 2Indicators related to the objective to strengthening links between migration and 
development
 οNumber of projects involving the diaspora communities in the EU aimed at the development of countries 
of origin.
 οNumber of productive or development activities in which migrants or returning migrants or emigrant com -
munities were involved.
 οTransparency, reliability and cost of remittance transfer services.
 οScale of financial literacy of migrants’ households.
 οNumber of third-country experts on the management of migratory flows.
 οNumber of legislative documents designed or adopted on migration issues in third countries.
 οDialogue and cooperation frameworks on the topic of migration between third countries and between 
third countries and the European Union.
 οNumber of awareness-raising activities or campaigns.
 οNumber of third-country experts on migration data collection and analysis.
19 The specific objectives 
covered migration and 
development, legal and 
labour migration, curbing 
irregular migration and 
promoting asylum and 
international protection. The 
protection of migrants’ rights 
and measures to address 
trafficking were not covered 
by a specific objective. The 
AMP and AAR included a fifth 
specific objective in 2011 (but 
not thereafter), which related 
to mainstreaming migration 
into the political dialogue with 
non-EU countries.
24
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
45 
There was also little consistency between these indicators and those in the TPMA 
strategic framework. Thus, the nine indicators for the first objective of the stra -
tegic framework (strengthening the link between migration and development) 
were reduced to two in the 2011 budget, only one in the 2012 budget and two in 
the 2013 budget. None of these indicators was present in all 3 years. The indica -
tors selected for the Commission’s activity reports (three in 2011, four in 2012 
and three in 2013) were not always used by the budget and only partially corres -
ponded to it.
46 
Examples in Box 3  illustrate the inconsistency and liability to change over time of 
the indicators for the first programme objective. Box 3Strengthening links between migration and development: inconsistent and 
unstable indicators
 οIn DG International Cooperation and Development’s 2011 annual activity report, the indicator of the num -
ber of local businesses supported by EU-funded programmes under specific objective 1 (strengthening the 
link between migration and development) did not correspond to the indicators in the strategic framework 
of the TPMA. It was not used in the 2012 and 2013 annual activity reports.
 οIn the 2012 budget, the sole indicator for this objective was the number of local businesses in receipt of 
aid. In the annual activity report for the same year, there were four indicators for this objective: the cost to 
migrant workers of transferring funds to their countries of origin, the extent of participation by diaspora 
organisations in the development of migration projects, the number of non-EU countries provided with 
support for designing and implementing a migration strategy and/or including migration issues in devel -
opment strategies, and the geographical coverage of migration profiles.
25
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
47 
The indicators selected for the other programme objectives were scarcely any 
more consistent. The aim of promoting legal, work-related migration was cov -
ered by a consistent indicator in the budgets and annual activity reports for 2010 
to 2013, i.e. ‘the number of agreements on skills transfer and circular migration 
schemes’. However, in the strategic framework of the TPMA, the indicator was 
defined as ‘the return rate of migrants involved in circular schemes’.
48 
Lastly, as stated above, there were no targets in the TPMA’s strategy papers. They 
were set in budgets (chapter 19 02 in 2013), but here they were often very specific 
to certain countries or a given region or were not updated. The quantitative in -
formation for these targets was therefore poor or lacking, and the indicators were 
rendered irrelevant where their function should be to quantify a phenomenon 
and monitor its progress over time. For example, the same results were provided 
in 2009 and 2010 for the indicator on the number of irregular immigrants identi -
fied and readmitted by non-EU countries, for which an identical target value was 
 selected in the budgets for 2012 and 2013. The Commission has defined a new 
set of indicators for the 2014-2020 period. While there are some improvements, 
persist  ent weaknesses include, for example, the absence of baseline and target 
values.
49 
Regarding the projects themselves, we found the same shortcomings and incon -
sistencies in the indicators defined in the strategy and budget documents. DG 
International Cooperation and Development endeavours to monitor the results 
obtained with the aid of indicators developed for the Excel table (see para -
graph 54). However, there were inconsistencies between the indicators defined at 
project level and those in the Excel table, the annual activity report or the TPMA 
strategic framework. Moreover, the results presented were often incomplete. For 
the 18 audited projects (of 23 in the sample) that were included in the Excel table, 
results were fully included in three cases, partially included in eight and not 
shown at all in the remaining seven. These factors compromised the Excel table’s 
reliability and its effectiveness for measuring the results and progress achieved.
26
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
50 
We noted that the data given in the annual activity report on the results of the 
TPMA were compiled by the Commission staff responsible for the project on 
the basis of ad hoc requirements, not as part of a continuous and systematic 
information-gathering process. The fact is that the existing arrangements did not 
provide a systematic account of the action taken based on a series of stable and 
consistent indicators (in the case of the TPMA). Nor was there a matrix for corre -
lating objectives and indicators at all levels between the projects and the an -
nual activity report. Lastly, most of the funds spent on external migration policy 
came from EU spending instruments other than the TPMA. However, in the case 
of migration, the annual activity report (from DG International Cooperation and 
Development) covered only the implementation of the budget chapter devoted 
to the TPMA and provided no information about the chapters covering the other 
spending instruments. No other documents gave consolidated results for all 
spending instruments.
51 
Implementation of the EU’s external migration policy was also covered, to 
varying degrees, by many other reports20. These reports provided information 
about the progress achieved in various policy areas and they did not specifically 
focused on the overview of the results being achieved by the EU’s spending in 
this area.
Geographic and thematic priorities were difficult to 
verify
52 
The GAMM names the European Neighbourhood countries as a geographic 
priority. The DCI, earmarked 465 million euro (out of a total of approximately 
5.6 billion euro for the 2007-2013 period) for thematic programmes (including the 
TPMA) in the European Neighbourhood21.20 For example, the GAMM 
implementation report, the 
annual European 
neighbourhood policy 
country progress reports, EU 
reports on policy coherence 
for development, Task Force 
Mediterranean updates, visa 
liberalisation action plan 
progress reports;,annual 
reports on immigration and 
asylum (including staff 
working documents), 
evaluations of EU readmission 
agreements, the EMN report 
‘A descriptive analysis of the 
impacts of the Stockholm 
programme 2010-2013’, the 
strategic review of EUBAM 
Libya and biannual updates to 
SCIFA, the Council’s Strategic 
Committee on Immigration, 
Frontiers and Asylum, on the 
EU action on migratory 
pressures.
21 Article 38(4) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1905/2006.
27
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
53 
It was difficult, in the course of the audit, to assess whether spending has been in 
line with these priorities since it was not possible to determine the total amount 
of EU spending charged to the EU budget for funding external migration meas -
ures in Neighbourhood countries. Annex II  summarises the amounts contracted 
for migration spending over the 2007-2013 period, i.e. a total of approximately 
1.4 billion euro. These data, which are provided by DG International Cooperation 
and Development and DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations, did 
not provide details of actual payments.
54 
We analysed this information on the basis of an Excel table 22 DG International 
Cooperation and Development kept that consolidated all expenditure in this 
area. The Excel table covered all expenditure incurred since 2001. For the 2007-
2013 period, the amounts recorded came from seven EU spending instruments23. 
However, the figures were incomplete: data on areas of expenditure other than 
the TPMA had not been regularly updated since 2012. Of the 23 contracts in the 
audited sample, five (total value 22.8 million euro) had not been included in the 
Excel table.
55 
The data in the Excel table were extracted from the Commission’s financial infor -
mation system CRIS (Common Relex Information System), which the Commission 
introduced in 2002 to facilitate the management of external action. CRIS is the 
main reference information system for the management and documentation 
of external action. In our 2012 special report on CRIS24, we noted certain weak -
nesses in the system, due in particular to the fact that CRIS data codes were not 
adequately defined. Consequently, the consolidation of data in CRIS had become 
particularly complex and error-prone, making it impossible easily to obtain ag -
gregated data from CRIS on external aid by beneficiary country, EU spending 
instrument or policy.22 This Excel table was not 
designed to serve the purpose 
of real-time project 
expenditure reporting.
23 The TPMA, the non-TPMA part 
of the DCI, the EDF, the ENPI, 
the EIDHR, the Instrument for 
Stability and the IPA.
24 Special Report No 5/2012, 
‘The Common External 
Relations Information System 
(CRIS)’ ( http://eca.europa.eu ).
28
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
56 
The Commission uses codes defined by the OECD25 to categorise contracts by 
sector of activity. However, there are no specific codes for migration in the area 
of public development aid. Consequently, the allocation of individual con -
tract codes is left to the discretion of programme managers, who choose from 
among existing codes. Thus the codes used may not correspond to the sectors 
concerned. This was true of a certain number of contracts audited by the Court 
(see  Box 4 ). This processing method precluded any relevant analysis of the break -
down of geographical or thematic expenditure and did not permit a complete 
overview of the level of spending. Box 4Examples of inappropriate coding of external migration spending
The provision of 54 four-wheel-drive vehicles for Ukraine’s border control service was entered under code 
15110 (public sector and administrative management policy) but could also have come under code 15130 
(support for institutions aiming to support the reform of security systems). The project entitled ‘Supporting 
the creation of activity and employment in the Maghreb — migration in support of local development’ was 
entered under code 15150 (democratic participation and society) rather than code 13010 (employment and 
administrative management policy). However, neither of these two codes was suited to migration projects or 
identified them as such.
No code exists for migration projects which do not fulfil the OECD criteria for qualification as a public devel -
opment-aid project — a concern which the European Parliament raised in 201126. Nevertheless, the Commis -
sion sometimes mistakenly allocated a code to them, as in the case of the Saharamed and Seahorse Mediter -
ranean projects27, which included some significant activities that did not fulfil the OECD criteria.
26 European Parliament Resolution of 8 June 2011 on Regulation (EC) 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation: 
lessons learned and perspectives for the future.
27 This was noted in the mid-term review of the TPMA in 2010, which examined Seahorse Atlantic and other projects and noted that a number of 
TPMA projects had no code.25 Organisation for Economic 
Cooperation and 
Development — 
Development Aid Committee.
29
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
57 
We examined to what extent TPMA spending was allocated to the European 
Neighbourhood, the first priority of the GAMM (see paragraph 9). The geograph -
ical distribution of expenditure is shown in Figure 3  below. However, this is only 
an estimate, as some contracts covered more than one country or region (e.g. 
global measures may also concern Neighbourhood countries). Analysis shows 
that, even if a substantial proportion of contracts were devoted to Neighbour -
hood countries, approximately half were allocated to other regions. Between 
2007 and 2013, 42 % of the total amounts were contracted in the Eastern and 
Southern Neighbourhoods (and 59 % when combined with global actions) 
which cannot rightly be termed a high geographical priority, and might even be 
considered an insufficient concentration of available funds to tackle the growing 
instability in the area of migration. Figure 3Cumulative geographical distribution of TPMA contracts 2007-2013
Source : European Court of Auditors based on data provided by the Commission.Eastern and Southern Neighbourhood Global actions including Neighbourhood Rest of world excluding Neighbourhood100 %38 %42 %41 %44 %47 %42 %
29 %23 %13 %14 %14 %17 %
33 %35 %46 %42 %39 %41 %
19.087.6107.8185.9213.5267.9375.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013millions400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
30
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
58 
It was also difficult to quantify how funds were distributed among the various 
thematic areas, as certain measures fell under several themes. Total expenditure 
for the TPMA for the 2007-2013 period is shown in Figure 4  below.Figure 4Cumulative thematic distribution of TPMA contracts 2007-2013
Source : European Court of Auditors, based on data provided by the Commission.millions400
350
300
250
200150
100
50
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Prevention and detection of irregular migration Promotion of legal and labour migrationAsylum and international protection Strengthening the nexus between migration and developmentMigrants’ rights and the /f_ight against traﬃcking in human beings Multi-themed19.087.6107.8185.9213.5267.9375.0
21 %
5 % 7 % 79 % 8 %32 %18 %12 %25 %79 %
11 %
14 %
30 %
8 %6 %8 %22 %22 %11 %30 %28 %
11 %
22 %
22 %
8 %
9 %23 %
19 %
19 %
22 %
9 %
8 %10 %12 %20 %20 %18 %20 %
31
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
59 
A similar analysis of contracts signed under the European Neighbourhood Instru -
ment for 2008-2013 yields the results in Figure 5 .Figure 5Cumulative thematic distribution of ENPI contracts 2008-2013
Source:  European Court of Auditors, based on data provided by the Commission.Prevention and detection of irregular migration
Asylum and international protection
Migrants’ rights and the /f_ight against traﬃcking in human beingsPromotion of legal and labour migration
Strengthening the nexus between migration and development
Multi-themed2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0millions
1949171222232367
68 %7 %17 %7 %
32
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
60 
The combination of these two tables shows that Europe’s two main spending 
instruments in the area of external migration, i.e. the TPMA and the ENPI, concen -
trated most of their activity on the prevention or detection of irregular immigra -
tion (including border control). The fact that security and border protection were 
the predominant element in European migration spending supersedes other 
objectives highlighted by the global approach, such as development of the link 
between migration and development and an emphasis, in partnership with non-
EU countries, on organising effective management of migration to reflect the 
economic needs of host countries, the development needs of countries of origin 
and migrants’ rights.
Intervention spread over a wide geographical area
61 
The EU’s external migration spending covered a wide range of objectives, instru -
ments and geographical areas. This may limit its effectiveness.
62 
The resources allocated to assisting non-EU countries fell considerably short of 
the need for rapid growth resulting from the significant increase in irregular im -
migration in the Mediterranean region, in particular since 2013. The fact that pro -
jects were part of a series of thematic priorities in many countries ensured that 
no critical mass of financial resources was concentrated in one partner country. 
The TPMA thus covered a large geographical area and a wide range of interven -
tions the nature and scope of which differ considerably. The scope of the TPMA’s 
action and the ambition of its objectives bore no relation to the limited volume 
of available resources, meaning that projects were spread too thinly to have 
a critical mass sufficient to produce significant results in the countries concerned. 
This situation limited the EU’s ability to ensure that its intervention produced 
a genuine incentive effect in non-EU countries, or to develop effective cooper -
ation with them on migration concerns. At a time when resources are scarce, they 
must be allocated to priorities where there is the greatest potential for adding 
value.
33
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country 
needs and monitoring instruments need improving
63 
The same observation was made in the 2011-2013 TPMA strategy paper, which 
stated that ‘its large geographical scope and wide range of objectives, combined 
with the limited resources available, result in a lack of ‘critical mass’, which re -
duces considerably its impact in the countries concerned, preventing the EU from 
using such funding as a real incentive in its cooperation with non-EU countries 
and thus effectively engaging with those countries’ governments in cooperation 
in this field.’
64 
This was also illustrated in a project audited by the Court — the EU–UN Joint Mi -
gration for Development Initiative, which aimed to help strengthen the positive 
impact of migration and development by supporting and engaging small-scale 
actors and disseminating global best practices. While aware that this programme 
was a pilot, we came to similar conclusions as those presented in the Commis -
sion’s evaluation of this initiative, which criticised its lack of a thematic and 
geographical focus: ‘due to the requirement to have a global programme, and 
as 50 % of funding was allocated to countries falling under the ENPI instrument 
(European Neighbourhood Countries) and 50 % to DCI countries, there was no 
critical mass of projects within any of the countries or regions.’
65 
Given the limited resources available to tackle increasing migration challenges, 
EU action is at risk of dissipation due to a lack of clearly stated and quantified 
priorities.
34
 Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the  
EU’s external migration spending (TPMA and  
ENPI) in the Southern Mediterranean and the  
Eastern Partnership countries
66 
We examined the effectiveness of EU spending, specifically whether projects 
were well designed, results were measured, implementation took place within 
the stipulated deadlines and the planned results were obtained. The examination 
involved analysing the projects we had selected and any available monitoring 
and evaluation documents. Although we found a number of weaknesses, we also 
identified a limited number of good practices.
Shortcomings in operational objectives and result 
indicators made projects’ effectiveness difficult to 
assess
67 
In order to measure the results of a project, quantify progress made and estab -
lish how far results comply with original objectives, it is necessary to specify 
oper  ational objectives and define outputs and outcomes based on baseline and 
target values (see Glossary ).
68 
We found that project objectives were often set in general terms, thus making 
it particularly difficult to assess results in relation to the stated objectives (see 
Box 5 ). Result indicators often failed to reflect the achievement of objectives and 
in fact took the form of output indicators. Few of the audited projects had indica -
tors with the essential baseline or target values for measuring the progress result -
ing from project implementation.
35
Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU’s external 
migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern  
Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership countriesBox 5Example of results that were difficult to measure
The project ‘Providing better protection for immigrants and boosting the capacity to manage mixed migra -
tion28 flows in Algeria’ had three specific objectives:
1. to consolidate legal capacity and procedures in the area of migration and asylum for the management of 
mixed migration flows and the search for sustainable solutions;
2. to help develop protection and humanitarian assistance for migrants and asylum seekers, in particular 
those from vulnerable groups;
3. to raise awareness and inform civil society about mixed migration flow issues.
(i) Firstly, these objectives were not specific (according to the definition of ‘SMART’ objectives), as they 
concern actions that were too vague or too general to be quantified. Also, the contract stipulated 
no real method for measuring the achievement of objectives. For example, the first and third object -
ives were to be measured using studies published by organisations and newspaper articles on any 
progress noted in the area covered by the project.
(ii) Secondly, there were few indicators for measuring performance and, even where such indicators 
were quantifiable, they were not quantified and did not include baseline or target values. For exam -
ple, one of the activities planned was the voluntary return of refugees (e.g. to Nigeria) with the help 
of an Italian trade union. There was no estimate of the number of returns expected and no analysis as 
to whether the country of origin was ready to receive the returning migrants. Lastly, no details were 
provided of the relevant and reliable information that would need to be gathered in order to meas -
ure results. Under these circumstances, it was impossible to assess how far a project had helped to 
improve the existing situation.
(iii) The third objective displayed the same weaknesses. Implementation was based on the organisation 
of awareness-raising activities for civil society and interinstitutional dialogue. The associated indica -
tor was defined as follows: ‘degree of public awareness of the specific needs of persons requiring 
international protection’. These notions were too vague to be evaluated.
28 The term ‘ mixed  migration ’ refers to complex population movements involving people following the same routes and using the same modes 
of transport but whose profiles are diverse and who travel for different reasons (IOM).
36
Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU’s external 
migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern  
Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership countries
69 
The TPMA was established to boost capacity in countries of origin and transit (see 
Box 6 ). It supported cooperation initiatives and encouraged non-EU countries to 
share their experiences and working methods. TPMA projects typically funded 
research, consultants, study visits to EU Member States, awareness-raising cam -
paigns, etc. Therefore, TPMA projects often had objectives or activities whose 
impact on migration were difficult to assess, or could only be assessed in the 
long term.
Factors hindering effectiveness
70 
We found that eight projects achieved their planned results. In 13 other cases, the 
planned results were partially achieved. These often related to projects’ object -
ives, which were too wide and difficult to measure. One project had not achieved 
its results but was still ongoing, and for another project it was too early to assess 
the achievement of results. In a small number of cases, political instability was 
detrimental to project effectiveness. Lastly, some projects appeared to have 
been more oriented towards Member State interests, which limited their impact 
in partner countries (see Box 7 ).Box 6Example of capacity-building leading to longer-term results
Projects to strengthen labour migration have helped Moldova to negotiate bilateral labour and social security 
agreements with a number of EU Member States and non-EU countries, and to commence negotiations on 
intergovernmental agreements relating to the migration of healthcare professionals.
37
Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU’s external 
migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern  
Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership countries
71 
Considering the context and the complexity of migration issues, we found some 
delays in project implementation. We examined to what extent the selected 
projects had been implemented in good time and had yielded results within the 
envisaged timeframe. Nine projects were implemented within planned dead -
lines, five projects were implemented with a delay of less than 12 months, and 
five projects incurred a delay of more than 12 months. Four projects were still 
ongoing at the time of the audit. Box 7Example of a partially effective project
Seahorse Mediterranean
The purpose of this project was to strengthen the capacity of north African governments by enhancing 
border surveillance so as better to tackle irregular immigration and illicit trafficking. The aim was to establish 
a Mediterranean network (Seahorse) to permit the rapid and reliable exchange of information about irregular 
seaborne immigration using contact points in the African states concerned. Seahorse Mediterranean was of 
strategic importance to the EU given its relevance to the development of the European border surveillance 
and information exchange system Eurosur 29. One year after the start of the project, little had been achieved. 
Although some activities had been set up (training, meetings of technical working groups and the first na -
tional contact point), Libya was the only country to have joined the network, and project implementation was 
severely compromised there by the prevailing climate of insecurity and instability. Acceptance of Libya went 
against the views of the Commission, which would have preferred to avoid politically unstable states. The 
Algerian authorities have confirmed that they were reluctant to take part because the incentives are weak and 
the security demands too onerous.
29 As emphasised by the Foreign Affairs Council on 18 November 2013 — Council document No 16364/13 of 18 and 19.11.2013.
38
Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU’s external 
migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern  
Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership countries
72 
Limited success was in some cases due to political instability. The ‘SaharaMed’ 
project was launched in 2010 against a backdrop of significant migration flows to 
Libya and across the Mediterranean to Italy. Implementation started before the 
2011 revolution in Libya, and was subsequently amended to take account of the 
new post-revolution situation. Broadly defined, the project aims were to improve 
or consolidate resources for combatting irregular immigration, to prevent and 
intercept irregular immigration off the Mediterranean coast, to investigate and 
pursue illicit trafficking, particularly of people, and to efficiently manage not only 
the handling of migrants apprehended in accordance with international rules 
but also search-and-rescue operations. Political instability in the country and 
weaknesses in project management resulted in a 12-month suspension in 2011, 
followed by a 12-month extension, then a further 7-month suspension in 2014, as 
well as the loss of some investment. Out of a total of 10 million euro, only 3 mil -
lion euro was spent under the project, according to the financial report available 
at the time of the audit, with the Commission having advanced 5.8 million euro 
when implementation began. Given the difficulty of the situation, some services 
in support of rescue operations and combatting human trafficking at sea, such as 
delivering ambulances or repairing boats damaged during the war, had not been 
provided at the time of the audit.
73 
The preceding paragraphs describe a number of weaknesses which have an 
impact on project effectiveness. We also found a small number of cases where 
these weaknesses were correctly addressed, which positively influenced the ef -
fectiveness of the projects in question. Box 8An example of good practice
One such example is the project ‘Promoting respect for sub-Saharan migrants’ rights in Morocco’. This on -
going project, which began in January 2013 (2 million euro), aimed to help promote respect for the rights of 
sub-Saharan migrants in the provinces around Rabat, Tangiers and Casablanca. The project was well designed, 
responded to local needs and set a limited number of operational objectives (e.g. ‘Improve the way migrants 
are received and reduce the risk of wholesale exclusion’), as well as concrete expected results (e.g. around 
4 500 extremely vulnerable migrants have been housed at three model reception centres, and migrants’ 
rights were recognised and respected by the institutional partners), and quantifiable indicators have been set 
together with sources and channels for verifying them.
Detailed reporting was provided based on verifiable facts clearly showing that objectives had progressively 
been achieved (at the time of the audit, however, it was too early to analyse the project’s overall impact or 
outcomes). The project works closely with other donor initiatives and tries actively to engage the government 
as well as local authorities. The EU delegation is kept well informed and provides ongoing monitoring.
39
Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU’s external 
migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern  
Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership countries
Effectiveness issues in three key areas
74 
The following sections consider effectiveness in three key areas:
 ο the link between migration and development (the positive impact of migra -
tion on development), which is one of the EU priorities;
 ο the support measures for return and readmission;
 ο the protection of human rights, which is a cross-cutting objective to be im -
plemented in all projects.
The link between migration and development
75 
The link between migration and development is one of the four priorities of the 
GAMM (see paragraph 7). It also figures, in very general terms, in the DCI regula -
tion: ‘maximising the development impact of the increased regional and global 
mobility of people, and in particular of well-managed labour migration, improv -
ing … a common understanding of the migration and development nexus’. It is 
one of the key actions of the fourth pillar, ‘a new policy on legal migration’, of the 
European agenda on migration issued by the Commission in May 2015.
76 
The flagship project of the thematic programme in this area was the Joint Migra -
tion and Development Initiative (JMDI), which had a budget of 15 million euro 
and was implemented with the United Nations Development Programme. The 
general aim of the Initiative was to contribute to strengthening the positive im -
pact of migration through the engagement of small-scale actors and dissemina -
tion of global best practices. Three specific objectives were set:
(a) to reinforce capacities of small-scale actors to be more effective in designing 
and implementing their migration and development initiatives;
(b) to facilitate networking and knowledge-sharing among migration and devel -
opment practitioners;
(c) to produce recommendations to practitioners and policymakers for dissemi -
nation at national and international levels.
40
Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU’s external 
migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern  
Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership countries
77 
That these objectives were too vague to be properly assessed has already been 
noted, by an external evaluation in 201130 which stressed that any results ob -
served could be regarded as being in line with the objectives. The evaluation’s 
conclusions were not discussed by the JMDI Steering Committee.
78 
The JMDI’s overall programme performance and results were to be measured 
by indicators, such as the number of training courses delivered in the area of 
capacity-building, the frequency of communication or level of participation in 
online discussions, the number of downloads, content created and circulated, the 
number of visitors to a virtual fair and a manual on best migration and develop -
ment practices. These indicators did not clearly show how the positive impact of 
migration on development could be increased or what specific results could be 
achieved in terms of quality and quantity.
79 
The main achievements of the JMDI were to design and launch a call for propos -
als for 55 small projects, to be implemented in 16 countries, involving diaspora 
organisations present in the 27 EU Member States, and a manual of best practices 
codified and established on the basis of the project results. It has also allowed 
networking and knowledge-sharing among migration and development practi -
tioners. In addition, the project also achieved high visibility at international fora 
like the annual Global Forum for Migration and Development.
80 
We examined a sample of projects launched under the JMDI pilot initiative fol -
lowing a call for proposals. The results were mixed: objectives were often too 
ambitious, or the link between migration and development was unclear, and not 
all projects were sustainable. In one project in Morocco, women from a high-
emigration region had set up cooperatives and were able to create sustainable 
income-generating activities (e.g. selling spices, managing a cake shop) and 
develop basic reading and writing skills. The cooperatives were to have been 
set up with the close and active involvement of the Moroccan diaspora in Italy. 
Although the cooperatives were put in place, the Moroccan diaspora in Italy was 
not significantly involved.30 Evaluation of the EC/UN Joint 
Migration and Development 
Initiative, IBF International 
Consulting 2011.
41
Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU’s external 
migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern  
Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership countries
81 
The projects we examined were limited in their impact and viability, and con -
cerned development rather than migration. The projects visited in Morocco, 
Georgia and Algeria involved participants on a very local scale and concerned 
a very small number of people. Given the general JMDI aim of identifying best 
practices, the impact of large-scale dissemination was necessarily limited.
Support measures for returns and readmissions: limited 
impact and unequal support from non-EU countries
82 
The EU’s policy on the readmission of irregular migrants was introduced through 
the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999, which empowered the Union to negotiate and 
conclude readmission agreements with non-Member States. These take the form 
of cooperation agreements which make it easier for the country of origin or the 
country of transit to issue laissez-passer  for nationals of non-EU countries who 
have no passport and are in the removal process. The policy was formalised in 
the returns directive of 200831.
83 
The EU has concluded 17 readmission agreements, including five with Neigh -
bourhood countries. In addition, various Member States have signed bilateral 
agreements with non-EU countries. For example, Georgia has both a readmission 
agreement with the EU and a number of bilateral readmission agreements with 
Member States.
84 
EU spending programmes for returns and readmissions provided services for 
migrants facing voluntary or forced return. Help was given with professional 
integration and vocational training, starting up a business and medical care. The 
programmes also assisted public administrations handling returnees and re -
admitted migrants through studies, exchanges and help with the organisation of 
campaigns to raise awareness about the risks of irregular immigration and human 
trafficking.31 Directive 2008/115/CE of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 
16 December 2008 on 
common standards and 
procedures in Member States 
for returning illegally staying 
third-country nationals 
(OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98).
42
Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU’s external 
migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern  
Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership countries
85 
Of the 23 projects examined by the Court, five related to readmission and were 
worth a total of 20.50 million euro. This amount was split between the ENPI 
(16.31 million euro) and the migration and asylum thematic programme (4.19 mil -
lion euro). Projects were often rather small and were limited in their results and 
effectiveness (see Box 9 ).Box 9Readmissions project in Georgia
Support for Georgian returning/repatriated migrants and implementation of the EU’s readmission 
agreements with Georgia
The purpose of this project (value 3 million euro) was to strengthen government capacity in the management 
of returning/repatriated migrants, assist with the economic and social reintegration of Georgian nationals and 
develop an information campaign.
The project contributed to the development of a national strategy and legislation on migration. Two career-
guidance and recruitment centres were set up to help with the reintegration of returnees. However, it was un -
certain at the time of the audit whether these centres would continue to operate once the project had ended 
because further funding was to come from the EU, through the IOM, rather than from local sources.
It was planned that 700 people would benefit from the job placement service; in the end it helped 423 peo -
ple, 119 of whom found work, and 83 were assessed to be still in work at the end of the project.
A final measure was to provide temporary accommodation for 180 people. Thirteen people only benefited 
from this support.
Help with establishing an effective system for managing readmissions in the three Caucasus states
The purpose of this project (value 1.5 million euro) was to help establish an effective system for managing 
readmissions in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. 20 % of the project costs were borne by EU Member States. 
The project activities included a capacity-strengthening programme and study visits to several EU Member 
States (nine officials participated in the study visits), while 110 foreign nationals resident in Georgia benefited 
from assisted voluntary repatriation. The project set up an electronic readmissions case management system 
on the internet for Member States to register and process readmission applications. Several Member States 
signed up to the system in 2014, although it was still too early to quantify any resulting efficiency gains.
43
Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU’s external 
migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern  
Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership countries
86 
Achievements in the audited projects were limited because:
(a) the policy on readmissions is wrongly perceived by some partner countries 
to be a component of the EU’s security policy — it is often seen as a trade-
off for the facilitation of visa arrangements in eastern states or commercial 
agreements with southern governments;
(b) the Member States do not effectively prepare migrants living in the EU for 
their return home32;
(c) finally, many migrants who have returned are not aware that assistance is 
available for their readmission, and the reintegration difficulties which they 
may face result in high levels of re-emigration33.
Human rights protection: included in projects audited but 
not always successfully implemented
87 
Many documents have stated a commitment to respect human rights, among 
them the communication issued by the Commission following the Arab Spring34. 
In its first report on the GAMM, the Commission noted that the building of MPs 
depended on a better balance between thematic priorities; in particular, greater 
emphasis was necessary on ‘legal migration, human rights and refugee protec -
tion’35. When adopting the report, the Council reiterated these conclusions.
88 
We found that most of the audited projects did address human rights, directly or 
indirectly, in their objectives. Examples were the promotion of migrants’ rights 
in Morocco and Algeria and the construction of migrant reception centres to 
international standards in the Ukrainian readmissions programme. In practice, 
however, to take the case of the Ukrainian reception centres, no training was 
envisaged to help the authorities operating the centres comply with international 
human rights standards. The treatment of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees 
in Ukraine has been repeatedly criticised by international organisations and civil 
society.32 Picard, E. and Greco Tonegutti, 
R., Study on the results of 
concrete migration and 
development projects financed 
from the Aeneas and TPMA 
programmes , October 2014,  
http://ec.europa.eu/
europeaid/sites/devco/files/
study-migration-and-
development-20141031_
en.pdf .
33 According to a study 
published on CARIM-East, 
40 % of returnees are 
determined to re-emigrate 
because of the difficulties they 
face on repatriation. Mirian 
Tukhashvili, ‘The demographic 
and economic framework of 
circular migration in Georgia’, 
CARIM-East explanatory 
note 12/89.
34 COM(2011) 303 final of 
25 May 2011, ’A new 
response to a changing 
Neighbourhood’.
35 COM(2014) 96 final.
44
Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU’s external 
migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern  
Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership countries
89 
The SaharaMed project, which received 10 million euro in funding to improve 
capacity in tackling irregular immigration and preventing and intercepting ir -
regular immigrants in the Mediterranean area, included no precautionary meas -
ures to guarantee respect for migrants’ rights, either through activities or the 
purchase of equipment. The risk assessment gave no thought to a machinery for 
responding to human rights violations. When, at the end of 2012, the European 
Parliament called for the establishment of effective monitoring mechanisms for 
the protection of human rights36, the project manager responded by inviting an 
Italian NGO to develop the Libyan authorities’ capacity to provide protection. 
Many reports have spoken of the numerous human rights violations in detention 
centres, and the Libyan authorities refused the NGO’s help despite the existence 
of a formal agreement37. The NGO itself proposed that SaharaMed be terminated 
in 2013, and it was duly suspended. In 2014 the project was complemented by 
two others focusing on the protection of and respect for the human rights of 
migrants in Libya38.36 European Parliament 
resolution of 22 November 
2012 on the situation of 
migrants in Libya 
(2012/2879(RSP)).
37 http://www.amnesty.org/en/
news/libya-refugees-asylum-
seekers-and-migrants-held-
indefinitely-deplorable-
conditions-2013-06-20 ;  
http://www.hrw.org/news/  
2014/06/22/libya-whipped-  
beaten-and-hung-trees
38 ‘Protecting vulnerable 
populations in Libya’ 
(5 million euro) and  
‘Rights-based support for 
the asylum system and 
migration management in 
Libya’ (10 million euro).
45
 A difficult coordination between several 
partners at different levels
90 
A great many partners in the EU, the Member States and non-EU countries play 
a role in the governance of migration policy. Several Commission directorates 
and departments are involved (including DG International Cooperation and 
Development, DG Migration and Home Affairs, DG Enlargement and, more re -
cently, DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations, as well as the EEAS) in 
partnership with the Member States and non-EU countries, whose expectations 
may differ.
Governance was complex
91 
The organisation chart for the implementation of migration policy at the EU in -
stitutions (see Annex V ) was complex. There were weaknesses in the links among 
the major partners — both among the Commission’s directorates and depart -
ments and between the Commission in Brussels and its delegations.
92 
The need to improve internal coordination among the Commission’s key 
departments  — especially between DG International Cooperation and Develop -
ment and DG Migration and Home Affairs, the two main partner directorates-
general — has often been reiterated by the Council, the Commission and a num -
ber of working groups.
93 
Despite efforts by the Commission to manage migration across its various policy 
areas and departments (development cooperation, the Neighbourhood, enlarge -
ment, and foreign and home affairs), there was no workable strategy or mech -
anism to ensure coordination between policy areas, funds or DGs.
94 
Funding for the GAMM is an important ingredient of its successful implementa -
tion. Member States can contribute directly to its financing and therefore an 
effective coordination mechanism is important. However there was no funding 
overview at the level of the GAMM that defined, in particular, who finances what 
or how funds are assigned.
46
A difficult coordination between several partners  
at different levels
95 
The Court notes the recent internal reorganisation at the Commission (e.g. the 
creation of colleges of Commissioners to improve coordination).
96 
Internally, coordination between DG International Cooperation and Development 
and DG Migration and Home Affairs has been strengthened, thanks largely to the 
presence in the latter of staff with development experience and, in DG Inter -
national Cooperation and Development, of staff with home affairs experience. 
There is now a better understanding of the mutual interest of EU action in the 
areas of migration and development.
97 
Over the audited period, the EEAS, which only became operational as of 
2010/2011, was not in a position to fully play its role, despite the Council’s em -
phasis on the need, as expressed in the GAMM, to bring the internal and external 
dimensions of the EU’s migration policy more closely together. This was partly 
explained by the EEAS’s lack of sufficient thematic expertise in areas that include 
migration and asylum policy — a lack which the Court identified in a special 
report published in 201439.
98 
Poor coordination between the Commission in Brussels and the EU delegations 
in partner countries resulted in ineffectiveness. It was damaging that the delega -
tions were insufficiently involved in planning, given that many of the audited 
projects were found to lack any real understanding of the partner country’s 
expectations and specific situation.
99 
To some degree, these weaknesses were the responsibility of the Commission in 
Brussels for not providing the delegations with the requisite information, espe -
cially in the case of projects involving more than one country. We found that the 
delegations concerned were not always informed about this. The Commission 
had also neglected to follow up an external evaluator’s recommendations con -
cerning the general pooling of good practices identified in the local implementa -
tion of projects.39 Special Report No 11/2014 
’The establishment of the 
European External Action 
Service’ ( http://eca.europa.eu ).
47
A difficult coordination between several partners  
at different levels
100  
Insufficient coordination therefore led to the loss of intelligence and the duplica -
tion of effort. For example, project effectiveness was compromised when studies 
already available were repeated unnecessarily.
Mobility partnerships: the need to clarify coordination
101  
MPs are constructed around a standard model that varies according to respective 
needs, interests and capacity of the partner country and the EU. The negotiation 
and implementation of MPs are monitored (at strategic/policy level) by the High-
Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration. In addition, the more techni -
cal and operational aspects of the implementation are monitored by an expert 
group composed of representatives from the Member States, the Commission 
dir ectorates concerned (DG Migration and Home Affairs, DG International Co -
operation and Development and DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotia -
tions), the EEAS and relevant EU agencies.
102  
Coordination remains necessary in order to ensure, for example, that Member 
States duly update and share partnership ‘scoreboards’ on a regular basis, and to 
inform Frontex about bilateral projects so as to avoid duplication.
Outlook for the future
103  
The new multiannual financial framework (2014-2020) and the start of the new 
Commission’s term of office at the end of 2014 have opened a window of oppor -
tunity to enhance coordination of the EU’s external migration policy. Migration 
is recognised as a priority for the new Commission, and one Commissioner has 
been given specific responsibility for this area. The European agenda on migra -
tion, issued by the Commission in May 2015, identifies ‘four pillars to manage 
migration better’ and calls for ‘an enhanced coherence between different policy 
sectors, such as development cooperation, trade, employment, foreign and home 
affairs policies’. Better cooperation with countries of origin and transit, backed up 
by EU delegations with a more active role, will help to improve the monitoring of 
readmissions. The Commission is also calling for stronger action to link migration 
and development policy by maximising the development benefits for countries 
of origin.
48
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
Conclusion 1 — The EU’s external migration spending was 
governed by a wide range of policy objectives which were not 
sufficiently broken down into operational goals supported 
by result indicators. Monitoring and evaluation need further 
improvements.
(a) External migration was implemented through multiple spending instru -
ments, each with its own objectives. The objectives were not interlinked and 
the instruments provided no clear strategy by which to identify the scale of 
their contribution. Thus it is unclear what they intended to achieve at EU level 
(see paragraphs 27 to 31).
(b) The very general objectives of the thematic programme were not broken 
down into operational goals tailored to partner countries’ needs. The indica -
tors used for monitoring covered just a few of the objectives and were mutu -
ally inconsistent; the indicators were also liable to change over time and were 
not carefully monitored; numerical data were sparse and generally unreliable. 
There was inconsistency between the indicators used at various policy levels 
(strategic framework, budget and annual activity report) and between these 
indicators and those defined at project level (see paragraphs 32 to 47).
(c) There was no correlating matrix of objectives and indicators at all levels (from 
individual projects to the annual activity report) for all spending instruments. 
Thus policy results could not be monitored or correctly reported in a compre -
hensive and coordinated manner (see paragraphs 49 to 51).
(d) Owing to weaknesses in the Commission’s information systems, it could not 
be established to what degree EU funds were assigned (through the TPMA) 
to the main priorities of Neighbourhood countries. Failing a quantitative 
assessment of priority needs, it was not possible to assess whether or not cur -
rent levels of support in the Neighbourhood countries were appropriate (see 
paragraphs 52 to 56).
(e) External migration spending in the Neighbourhood countries was character -
ised by great thematic and geographical diversity. This placed limits on its 
effectiveness by making it impossible to assemble a critical mass of funding 
with which to target real needs in priority regions (see paragraphs 58 to 65).
49 Conclusions and recommendations 
Recommendation 1 — Clarify objectives, develop, expand 
and improve the performance measurement framework and 
focus available financial resources on clearly defined and 
quantified target priorities
The Commission should set clear and specific policy objectives implemented 
through a coherent set of EU spending instruments. To maximise impact, it 
should allocate resources to actions and geographical areas in line with clearly 
defined and quantified priorities. Budget and project management should be 
sufficiently flexible to adapt to situations of rapid change. The Commission 
should ensure that result indicators, measurable targets and baselines are de -
fined at project level on the basis of the activities undertaken. Indicators should 
remain stable over time and be comparable, and quantitative data should be col -
lected systematically. A correlating matrix of objectives and indicators at all levels 
and for all EU spending instruments should be developed so that policy results 
can be correctly represented and reported in a comprehensive and coordinated 
manner.
Recommendation 2 — Develop an appropriate coding in the 
Commission’s information systems
The Commission should pursue the introduction of an appropriate coding system 
for external migration actions or develop an appropriate methodology so as to 
make it possible to have a more comprehensive overview of migration spending 
in order to identify and monitor EU spending (by type and place) in this area and 
to complement the OECD DAC coding system.
Conclusion 2 — Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of 
the EU’s migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in Southern 
Mediterranean and Eastern partnership countries
(a) Because of ambitious or too-general objectives, projects’ results often could 
not be measured. Result indicators often took the form of output indicators 
and therefore did not state whether objectives had been achieved (see para -
graphs 67 to 72).
(b) The objective to strengthen the relationship between migration and devel -
opment was partially implemented. To judge from the projects examined, the 
contribution made by migrants returning to their home country was limited 
(see paragraphs 75 to 81).
50 Conclusions and recommendations 
(c) The projects aimed at facilitating returns and readmissions had limited re -
sults notably because the underlying policy was wrongly perceived by some 
partner countries to be a component of the EU’s security policy, which made 
it hard for them to accept. Furthermore, the Member States do not effectively 
prepare migrants for their return home (see paragraphs 82 to 86).
(d) The objectives of most of the audited projects included a commitment, in 
theory, to respect for human rights, but we found several cases where this 
was not supported in practice (see paragraphs 87 to 89).
Recommendation 3 — Improve project preparation and 
selection
The Commission should improve the initial planning of projects by requiring 
relevant, achievable and measurable objectives (and ensuring that such require -
ments are clearly embedded in contractual templates and guidelines and, subse -
quently, applied). Project indicators should include result indicators.
Recommendation 4 — Further consolidate the link between 
development and migration
The Commission should further clarify its approach for ensuring that migra -
tion positively influences development. It should ensure that programmes and 
projects place greater emphasis on migration, and should seek to define what 
policies are necessary to produce positive impacts.
Conclusion 3 — The coordination of the EU’s external 
migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) between actors at 
different levels was difficult.
The complex governance arrangements weaken coordination at all levels among 
EU bodies, in particular between DGs and between the Commission in Brussels 
and the EU delegations in partner countries. Notwithstanding recent initiatives in 
this area, further rationalisation is required. There was no funding overview at the 
level of the GAMM that specified who finances what between the Commission 
and the Member States (see paragraphs 91 to 100).
51 Conclusions and recommendations 
Recommendation 5 — Internal and external dialogue to 
improve coordination
The Commission and the EEAS should strengthen the capacities of EU delega -
tions on migration issues. The Commission should seek the development of 
a funding overview of who finances what under the GAMM.
This Report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting 
of 25 February 2016.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
 President

52
 Annexes
Mobility partnerships signed between the EU, EU Member States and non-EU 
countries
Cape Verde Moldova Georgia Armenia Morocco Azerbaijan Tunisia Jordan
Date 2008 2008 2009 2011 2013 2013 2013 2014
EU X X X X X X X X 8
France X X X X X X X X 8
Germany X X X X X X 6
Italy X X X X X X 6
Poland X X X X X X 6
Sweden X X X X X X 6
Belgium X X X X 4
Bulgaria X X X X 4
Czech Republic X X X X 4
Netherlands X X X X 4
Portugal X X X X 4
Romania X X X X 4
Spain X X X X 4
Denmark X X X 3
Greece X X X 3
Lithuania X X X 3
United Kingdom X X X 3
Cyprus X X 2
Hungary X X 2
Slovakia X X 2
Slovenia X X 2
Estonia X 1
Latvia X 1
Luxembourg X 1
Austria 0
Croatia 0
Finland 0
Ireland 0
Malta 0
Total Member 
States4 15 16 10 9 8 10 11Annex I
53 Annexes 
Amounts committed, contracted and paid in the external dimension of migration 
policy during the 2007-2013 period (million euro)
Budget commitments Contracts by value Number of contracts Payments
TPMA 379.78 375 256 304.30
ENPI 376 64
DCI (excl. TPMA) 190 64
EDF 156 27
EIDHR 7 43
IFS 5 4
IPA 309 76
TOTAL 1 418 534 304.30
Data not availableAnnex II
54 Annexes 
Spending on external migration policy: multiple EU spending instruments, each with 
its own objectives and strategies
 Development Cooperation Instrument (1. DCI — TPMA, 2. DCI — others) : the applicable regulation sets 
primary and overarching objectives, refers to objectives for geographical and thematic programmes and 
pursues objectives set out in other policy documents or external documents (the millennium development 
goals and objectives approved by the United Nations and other international organisations). It is imple -
mented in all non-EU countries except those eligible for pre-accession assistance. In the case of geographical 
programmes, countries eligible for the European Development Fund, the European Neighbourhood Instru -
ment, or the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance are not covered, and neither are the signatories to the 
ACP–EU partnership (excluding South Africa).
3. The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument , which partly included migration, did not 
itself define policy objectives. The applicable regulation referred to the setting of priority objectives in strat -
egy papers — to be adopted by the Commission — for a country or a region. Where the EU had agreed no 
specific objectives with the country concerned, EU policy objectives were to be pursued (but it is not speci -
fied which).
4. European Development Fund : the provisions of the EDF are similar to those of the development cooper -
ation instrument, but it is implemented in other countries, namely 78 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) 
countries. Therefore, the EDF is not as such used in the neighbourhood countries but can be used, for in -
stance, to support migrants returning from neighbourhood countries.
5. The Instrument for Stability  aims to address major risks and threats to political security and development. 
The regulation defines two general objectives. Specific objectives are set in multi-country strategy papers, 
thematic strategy papers and multiannual indicative programmes.Annex III
55 Annexes 
6. The European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights  aims at consolidating democracy in non-
EU countries and enhancing observance of human rights. The regulation sets three general objectives, with 
specific objectives to be defined in strategy papers which the Commission also uses to define the objectives 
of annual action programmes.
7. The Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance  provides eight ‘enlargement countries’ with financial and 
technical help throughout the accession process. The regulation sets general objectives, with specific object -
ives to be defined in multiannual and annual programmes and other objectives relating to specific compo -
nents such as cross-border cooperation. Therefore, the IPA is not as such used in the Southern Mediterranean 
and Eastern Partnership countries.Annex III
56 Annexes 
Summary of projects audited
Funding  
instrumentContract  
yearDuration 
(months)TitleEU financing  
(euro)
Global
TPMA 2007 55 Joint Migration and Development Initiative 15 000 000
Eastern Neighbourhood
ENPI 2008 45 Southern Caucasus Integrated Border Management (SCIBM) 6 000 000
ENPI 2009 71 Readmission-related assistance and EUBAM flanking measures14 864 050
ENPI 2009 42Supporting the implementation of the migration and development 
component of the EU–Moldova Mobility Partnership1 999 734
TPMA 2010 36 Effective government of labour migration and its skills dimensions 1 507 501
TPMA 2010 35Support reintegration of Georgian returning migrants and the 
implementation of the EU–Georgia Readmission Agreement3 000 000
ENPI 2011 22 Readmission-related assistance and EUBAM flanking measures 1 798 941
ENPI 2011 48 Readmission-related assistance and EUBAM flanking measures 9 532 400
TPMA 2011 35Better managing the mobility of health professionals in the Republic 
of Moldova2 000 000
TPMA 2011 23Support to UNHCR activities in eastern Europe in the context of EU 
regional protection programmes — Phase II1 500 000
TPMA 2012 24Supporting the establishment of effective readmission management 
in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia1 193 965
TPMA 2013 36Strengthening the development potential of the EU Mobility Part -
nership in Georgia through targeted circular migration and diaspora 
mobilisation878 000Annex IV
1 This amount includes an amendment to the project of 864 810 euro, which the Court had to examine to obtain an understanding of the full 
project.
57 Annexes 
Funding  
instrumentContract  
yearDuration 
(months)TitleEU financing  
(euro)
Southern Neighbourhood
TPMA 2008 47Faciliter la création d’entreprises au Maroc grâce à la mobilisation de 
la diaspora marocaine installée en Europe (FACE-Maroc)1 497 305
TPMA 2008 26Interactive map on irregular migration routes and flows in Africa, 
the Middle East and the Mediterranean region (I-Map)784 789
TPMA 2009 59SaharaMed: Prevention and management of irregular migration 
flows from Sahara desert to Mediterranean Sea10 000 000
ENPI 2010 44 Medstat III 7 000 000
TPMA 2010 36Algérie: Renforcer la protection des migrants et les capacités de 
gestion des flux migratoires mixtes1 915 916
TPMA 2011 23Support to UNHCR activities in north Africa in the context of the 
regional protection programme3 631 627
ENPI 2011 40 EuroMed Migration III 4 998 800
TPMA 2012 35Promotion du respect des droits des migrants subsahariens au 
Maroc1 594 264
TPMA 2012 36Soutenir la création d’activité et l’emploi au Maghreb — La migra -
tion au service du développement local1 875 000
TPMA 2013 36 Seahorse Mediterranean network with Member States (SP) 4 500 000
TPMA 2013 13Support to UNHCR activities in north Africa in the context of regional 
protection programme1 953 000
TOTAL 89 025 292Annex IV
58 Annexes 
Implementing mechanisms for EU financial assistance (M & A external dimension)Annex V
Source : European Court of Auditors.European Council
 Facilitates and improves 
 application of, and coord-
 inates EU States’ actions in  the implementation of,  EU border management  measures Risk analyses
 Operational assistance to 
 EU MS and non-EU  countries (17) Organised Crime Threat 
 Assessment (OCTA) Strategic agreements with 
 non-EU countriesGeneral Aﬀairs 
CouncilJustice and Home
Aﬀairs CouncilForeign Aﬀairs 
Council
 Facilitates exchange of 
 information between EU MS  on countries of origin Supports EU MS under 
 particular pressures,  through EWS Contribute to implementation
 of the Common European  Asylum SystemFRONTEX EUROPOL ETF EASO TPMA/
GPGC8DG ECHO DG Migration and Home Aﬀairs1DG DEVCO DG NEAR2HLWG M&A
 Lead drafter Commission   Communications on development policy Programs development aid to non-EU  Countries on geographical basis as well  as thematically Manages, supervises implementation  of assistance Lead drafter Commission  communications on migration policy Lead Commission representative HLWG Negotiates visa facilitation, readmission  and mobility partnership, CAMMs
3
 Leads bilateral  and regional  migration dialogue Co-evaluator TPMA calls for proposals Responsible for European  Neighbourhood Policy Until late 2014, the Neighbourhood  Directorates East and South were  part of DG DEVCO From late 2014, management of  the ENI has been taken over by the  DG NEAR  from DG DEVCO
 Provides support to partner 
 countries in the /f_ield o legal  migration, esp. employement and skills (DG EAC also sits  on mangement board;  DG Home has an observer  status)
EU AgenciesCouncil of the European Union
 Establishes integrated strategy for 
 EU cooperation with third countries
 in the area of M&A
 Prepares Council conclusions and  recommendations on the causes 
 and consequences of M&A
EEAS
 Attends HLWG
 Assists Commission in preparing GAMM updates for HLWG
 Incorporates migration policy into bilateral general political dialogues/uni00A0
Title 234 AMIF EDF5 DCI ENPI/ENI IPA/IPA II ISF Financial instrumentsLEGEND
 Management of /f_inancial instruments Sits on board of management
 Attends meetings
 Reporting lines
SCIFA
CODEVGeographical 
working partiesOther
(e.g. JAIEX, CATS, COSI)
PI6IcSP7Council preparatory bodies and working parties
SERVICE FOR FOREIGN
POLICY INSTRUMENT
(FPI) Humanitarian aid for  refugees and 
 internally displaced persons Assists Coreper in relation to legal, 
 horizontal and strategic matters in  area of M&A and frontiers
 Prepares biannual report on 
 ‘EU/uni00A0action on migratory pressures’Nominally falls under GAC
 Responsible for operational expenditure 
 in EU external action, including M&AEUROPEAN EXTERNAL ACTION SERVICE
European Commission
1 Formerly DG HOME Aﬀairs. DG HOME was responsible for the implementation of the ‘Solidarity and 
management of migration /f_lows’ (SOLID) programme funds between 2007 and 2013. These were the 
External Border Fund (EBF), European Return Fund (RF), European Refugee Fund (ERF) and European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals (EIF). However, none of these funds had an external component  for expenditure in third countries, in contrast with their successor funds for the period 2014-2020, the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund (ISF). 
2 DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (formerly DG Enlargement)3 Common Agenda for Migration and Mobility4 Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection5 Does not apply to Neighbourhood countries6 Partnership Instruments7 Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (formerly the Instrument for Stability (IFS))8 Migration and Asylum component of Global Public Goods and Challenges programme (2014-2020)2014+
EBF2007-2013Political
discussion
RF ERF EIF
59 Annexes 
European Council
 Facilitates and improves 
 application of, and coord-
 inates EU States’ actions in  the implementation of,  EU border management  measures Risk analyses
 Operational assistance to 
 EU MS and non-EU  countries (17) Organised Crime Threat 
 Assessment (OCTA) Strategic agreements with 
 non-EU countriesGeneral Aﬀairs 
CouncilJustice and Home
Aﬀairs CouncilForeign Aﬀairs 
Council
 Facilitates exchange of 
 information between EU MS 
 on countries of origin Supports EU MS under 
 particular pressures,  through EWS Contribute to implementation
 of the Common European  Asylum SystemFRONTEX EUROPOL ETF EASO TPMA/
GPGC8DG ECHO DG Migration and Home Aﬀairs1DG DEVCO DG NEAR2HLWG M&A
 Lead drafter Commission  
 Communications on development policy Programs development aid to non-EU  Countries on geographical basis as well  as thematically Manages, supervises implementation  of assistance Lead drafter Commission  communications on migration policy Lead Commission representative HLWG Negotiates visa facilitation, readmission  and mobility partnership, CAMMs
3
 Leads bilateral  and regional  migration dialogue Co-evaluator TPMA calls for proposals Responsible for European  Neighbourhood Policy Until late 2014, the Neighbourhood  Directorates East and South were  part of DG DEVCO From late 2014, management of  the ENI has been taken over by the  DG NEAR  from DG DEVCO
 Provides support to partner 
 countries in the /f_ield o legal  migration, esp. employement and skills (DG EAC also sits  on mangement board;  DG Home has an observer  status)
EU AgenciesCouncil of the European Union
 Establishes integrated strategy for 
 EU cooperation with third countries
 in the area of M&A
 Prepares Council conclusions and  recommendations on the causes 
 and consequences of M&A
EEAS
 Attends HLWG
 Assists Commission in preparing GAMM updates for HLWG
 Incorporates migration policy into bilateral general political dialogues/uni00A0
Title 234 AMIF EDF5 DCI ENPI/ENI IPA/IPA II ISF Financial instrumentsLEGEND
 Management of /f_inancial instruments
 Sits on board of management
 Attends meetings
 Reporting lines
SCIFA
CODEVGeographical 
working partiesOther
(e.g. JAIEX, CATS, COSI)
PI6IcSP7Council preparatory bodies and working parties
SERVICE FOR FOREIGN
POLICY INSTRUMENT
(FPI) Humanitarian aid for  refugees and 
 internally displaced persons Assists Coreper in relation to legal, 
 horizontal and strategic matters in  area of M&A and frontiers Prepares biannual report on 
 ‘EU/uni00A0action on migratory pressures’Nominally falls under GAC
 Responsible for operational expenditure 
 in EU external action, including M&AEUROPEAN EXTERNAL ACTION SERVICE
European Commission
1 Formerly DG HOME Aﬀairs. DG HOME was responsible for the implementation of the ‘Solidarity and 
management of migration /f_lows’ (SOLID) programme funds between 2007 and 2013. These were the 
External Border Fund (EBF), European Return Fund (RF), European Refugee Fund (ERF) and European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals (EIF). However, none of these funds had an external component  for expenditure in third countries, in contrast with their successor funds for the period 2014-2020, the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund (ISF). 
2 DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (formerly DG Enlargement)3 Common Agenda for Migration and Mobility4 Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection5 Does not apply to Neighbourhood countries6 Partnership Instruments7 Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (formerly the Instrument for Stability (IFS))8 Migration and Asylum component of Global Public Goods and Challenges programme (2014-2020)2014+
EBF2007-2013Political
discussion
RF ERF EIF
60 Replies of  
the Commission
Executive summary
I
The Commission and the EEAS have the following remarks with respect to the context and content of this report:
The Commission and the EEAS are obliged to act in a complex and ever-changing environment. In the context of an 
unprecedented refugee and migratory crisis, migration policy is very much readjusting its proprieties and reinfor -
cing its features at EU level, and continuously adapting to changing circumstances.
This report by the Court of Auditors was prepared before these significant developments took place.
Migration and asylum is a multifaceted, complex and constantly evolving policy area at both international and EU 
levels, and the Commission is obliged to operate in this changing and challenging environment. As a result, it is an 
area that requires similarly complex and multidimensional structures for its implementation.
This political, legal, operational and budgetary context is not taken sufficiently into account by the Court in the 
report.
II
The Commission agrees that it is difficult to easily establish the total amount of expenditure charged to the budget 
and whether this was directed in line with the intended geographical and thematic priorities. The Commission 
will further improve the overall monitoring and evaluation framework in this complex policy area, still ensuring 
that the intended geographic and thematic priorities, according to the focal areas, are identified by the relevant 
instruments.
III
At the individual level, all projects funded by EU financing instruments include indicators that are monitored 
throughout the lifetime of each project. See also Commission reply to paragraph 68.
IV
Migration is a complex and politically sensitive policy area cutting across a number of sectors and involving a wide 
range of different stakeholders (e.g. European agencies, IOM, UNHCR), within and outside the EU institutions. The 
management of EU external migration policy and cooperation necessarily mirrors this situation.
In recent years efforts have been made to further improve the coordination between the Commission’s directorates-
general and with the European External Action Service, as well as with EU Member States, and a number of coordin -
ation mechanisms have been put in place for this purpose. The recent European agenda on migration underlines 
the need to further strengthen these efforts.
Replies of the Commission 61
Introduction
01
The Commission underlines that spending on refugees in partner countries, including in the neighbourhood region, 
was included in the EU cooperation with third countries on migration- and asylum-related matters even before 
2015. Indeed, most migration projects follow a comprehensive and inclusive approach, since migration flows are 
characterised by their mixed nature, including economic migrants, vulnerable migrants and persons in need of 
international protection.
02
In 2015, the Commission presented on 13 May the European agenda on migration, on which basis Council conclu -
sions were adopted in June 2015.
11
Since the launch in November 2014 of the so-called Khartoum Process (with countries along the east African migra -
tory route) priority is given to eight regional dialogues.
The common agendas on migration and mobility are also considered as a principal bilateral framework alongside 
the mobility partnerships (MPs).
13
Root causes of irregular and forced migration range from poverty and lack of economic opportunities to conflicts, 
insecurity and climate change and everything in between. The thematic programme for migration and asylum, with 
an annual allocation of approximately 50 million euro, was, indeed, never intended to address such root causes, but 
its focus was to support countries to improve their migration and asylum management.
15
The ENPI regulation set general objectives, while agreements between the EU and partner countries provided the 
policy framework for the programming of assistance (see ENPI regulation, Article 3).
Nevertheless, for the 2014-2020 period, specific objectives have been set when the ENPI has been replaced by 
the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI). According to Regulation (EU) No 232/2014, one of the six specific 
object  ives of the ENI is to create ‘ conditions for the better organisation of legal migration and the fostering of well-
managed mobility of people, for the implementation of existing or future agreements concluded in line with the 
global approach to migration and mobility, and for the promotion of people-to-people contacts, in particular in 
relation to cultural, educational, professional and sporting activities ’.
Replies of the Commission 62
Audit scope and approach
22
As mentioned by the Court, the Commission notes that, although included in Annex III, neither IPA nor EDF provide 
funding to the neighbourhood countries.
Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country needs and monitoring instruments need improving
Reply to the heading before paragraph 27
The Commission recognises the wide variety of policy arrangements which are mainly due to the complexity of the 
migration phenomenon.
Thanks to the Commission proposals, the set of external cooperation instruments has been considerably ration -
alised and streamlined over the successive multiannual financial frameworks. The current mix of geographic and 
thematic instruments reflects overall a comprehensive and well-balanced approach enabling the EU to address the 
various challenges through an overall coherent and complementary set of financial instruments.
29
For the 2014-2020 period, the ENPI has been replaced by the ENI. According to Regulation (EU) No 232/2014, one of 
the six specific objectives of the ENI is to create ‘ conditions for the better organisation of legal migration and the 
fostering of well-managed mobility of people, for the implementation of existing or future agreements concluded 
in line with the global approach to migration and mobility, and for the promotion of people-to-people contacts, in 
particular in relation to cultural, educational, professional and sporting activities ’.
The ENI regulation foresees the inclusion of an annex with priorities for programming and broad financial alloca -
tions expressed per type of programme (bilateral, multi-country and cross-border cooperation), modifiable through 
a delegated act. As one of the main elements emerging from the negotiations, a new annex with broad priorities for 
the European neighbourhood policy region as a whole has been negotiated with the European Parliament and the 
Council as part of the ENI. These priorities will frame the subsequent programming process.
30
The financial instruments for external and development cooperation with third countries have been established to 
address challenges such as poverty, insecurity, democracy and governance, lacking economic opportunities, human 
rights, etc.
In line with each legal act, detailed intervention sectors are defined in multiannual and annual programmes and can 
include focal sectors such as education, health and the environment, as well as security, home affairs and migration. 
In terms of geographical instruments, the choice of sectors for intervention is agreed with the partner countries in 
question during the programming phase.
Replies of the Commission 63
As is the case with all EU sector policies, the implementation of the external migration and asylum policy can be 
supported through funding available under the relevant EU external cooperation instruments, in line with the cri -
teria and procedures defined within the legal bases of each respective financial instrument.
See also reply to paragraph 22.
31
While still respecting the objectives of each financial instrument, interventions under external action can contribute 
to implement EU policy in different thematic areas, such as for example climate change, security, education, agricul -
ture or migration.
32
The Commission considers that in general projects were properly documented. In future, however, the Commission 
endeavours to document its projects’ needs analyses in a more systematic way.
33
The Commission agrees that while MPs have proved to be a sophisticated bilateral framework to address migration 
and asylum issues in a way that makes cooperation mutually beneficial, more work needs to be done to make sure 
that the MPs are being implemented in a balanced manner, i.e. better reflecting all four thematic priorities of the 
GAMM, including more actions with regard to legal migration, human rights and refugee protection.
The Commission regularly reminds Member States on the importance to also ensure a balance between the four 
thematic priorities of the GAMM at the level of implementation of the MP .
34
Most if not all delegations already appointed focal points for migration issues since a number of years. Further -
more, DG Migration and Home Affairs staff could only be deployed in a very limited number of priority delegations 
(United States, Russia, Geneva, Vienna, Turkey, China, India). In most cases these posts are shared with other direct -
orates-general and cover also other issues falling under DG Migration and Home Affairs’ competence (and do thus 
not necessarily focus on migration).
As acknowledged by the recent European agenda on migration, there is a need to reinforce the expertise on migra -
tion in EU delegations. As a consequence, the Council has decided to strengthen the capacity of EU delegations in 
relation to addressing migration, and specifically to deploy European migration liaison officers in priority delega -
tions, with a particular focus on the Neighbourhood region.
Replies of the Commission 64
35
The creation of thematic units in DG International Cooperation and Development several years ago, including one 
on migration, reflects the importance attached to enhancing thematic expertise throughout the organisation, 
including in delegations.
An important part of the mandate of these thematic units involves thematic quality support for headquarters and 
delegation staff. The DG International Cooperation and Development unit in charge of migration and asylum has 
developed a number of tools to ensure that this support is provided in a coherent and efficient way. Orientation 
notes and guidelines, as well as thematic training modules, have been elaborated for this purpose.
With increased attention to migration in EU external action, the Commission is considering the elaboration of an 
e-learning training module, to complement the face-to-face learning tools.
36
The Commission agrees that until the recent past, migration was not among the main priorities for many of the 
Neighbourhood countries, but the situation has considerably changed in recent times, as these countries are 
increasingly recognising the importance of migration and the need to engage with the EU.
In the case of Seahorse Mediterranean project, the Commission acknowledges the challenges to attract north 
African countries to become partners. While efforts are continuing, it should be noted that the unstable situation 
occurring in the region since project conception has hampered the dialogue in this very sensitive area with these 
countries.
37
While acknowledging that there are more EU Member States than partner country users of the final product of the 
I-Map, the Commission considers that a number of aspects need to be taken into account.
Based on an expressed need within the Mediterranean transit migration dialogue, the objective of the project was 
to provide up-to-date information on migration flows for improved policymaking.
The I-Map was one single and very targeted project, that together with other projects supported the effective 
functioning of the migration dialogue between Middle East/north Africa (MENA) countries and EU Member States. 
Not consolidated previously into one single system, the Commission considers that the migration information made 
available in a very practical manner improved the dialogue.
38
The Commission agrees on the critical importance of better defining our cooperation framework on migration and 
international protection via the setting-up of operational objectives and clear and measurable outcomes and out -
puts with direct links between activities and results.
Replies of the Commission 65
39
While acknowledging the lack so far of precise targets, reference values and indicators for monitoring the imple -
mentation of the GAMM at strategic level, the Commission considers that the objectives need to be defined broadly 
in order to flexibly accommodate different contexts, very diverse aspects and rapidly evolving challenges and 
needs in the migration area.
The Commission has launched again in 2015 a discussion with EU Member States at high-level working group level 
on the definition of appropriate indicators for the monitoring of the GAMM.
Common reply to paragraphs 43 to 50
The Commission acknowledges that relevant criteria and smart indicators for migration remains a challenge, includ -
ing at international donor and UN levels, as demonstrated by the challenge to identify and agree on migration 
indicators in the post-2015 development framework.
This is linked to the complex and multifaceted dimensions of migration and asylum policy in general. The Commis -
sion acknowledges that there is a collective need to undertake a serious effort on this issue.
From DG International Cooperation and Development, the revision of the results framework which is planned to 
take place after the adoption in spring 2016 of the sustainable development goal (SDG) indicators presents an 
opportunity to make progress also with respect to better measure results in the area of migration.
Reply to the heading before paragraph 52
The Commission considers that the geographic and thematic priorities under the GAMM were clearly established, 
but accepts that the exact quantification of the EU spending related to these priorities was difficult to assess in the 
course of the audit.
53
The Common Relex Information System (CRIS) is a financial management tool which feeds into the Commission’s 
accounting system ABAC and provides real-time information on financial transactions for all EU external spending. 
CRIS was not specifically designed for reporting purposes. The CRIS system is in the process of being phased out 
and replaced in large part by ABAC, and complemented by a new system, OPSYS.
The system uses OECD codes to characterise contracts by sector of activities. There is no current code for migration; 
however, the Commission is aware of the limitations stemming from the lack of a dedicated DAC code for  migration- 
and asylum-funded development interventions. This is linked to the multifaceted and cross-cutting nature of migra -
tion, which touches upon a number of different policies and sectors. The Commission will initiate a discussion with 
the OECD (and other relevant stakeholders) rapidly to identify the best possible ways to capture migration expend -
iture by various development agencies.
Replies of the Commission 66
54
The Commission acknowledges that the Excel table managed by DG International Cooperation and Development is 
a simple tool serving as a complement to the Commission’s CRIS database. Given the non-existence of a migration 
DAC code, it was considered a useful tool for reporting purposes.
55
The financial IT system is in the process of being phased out and replaced in large part by the Commission’s 
accounting system. In the very short term is very unlikely that this type of aggregated data can be provided.
56
The financial IT system is in the process of being phased out and replaced in large part by ABAC. All financial infor -
mation will migrate into ABAC. In the light of recent developments the Commission will initiate discussions with the 
OECD.
The Commission is, however, aware of the limitations stemming from the lack of a dedicated DAC code for 
 migration- and asylum-funded development interventions. This is linked to the multifaceted and cross-cutting 
nature of migration, which touches upon a number of different policies and sectors.
Box 4 — Examples of inappropriate coding of external migration spending
The Commission admits that the two projects referred to, the Seahorse and the SaharaMed projects, had been 
wrongly attributed with a DAC code, despite the fact that not 100 % of the activities were considered as fulfilling the 
OECD DAC criteria. This has since been corrected.
The Commission notes that the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) regulation stipulates the following 
regarding OECD DAC criteria:
‘At least 90 % of the expenditure foreseen under thematic programmes shall be designed so as to fulfil the criteria 
for ODA established by the OECD/DAC … ’
57
The DCI thematic programme was established with a global scope, intending to complement and not substitute the 
geographical instruments and programmes. During the 2007-2013 period, two strategy papers were adopted for 
the TPMA, the first covering 2007-2010 and the second covering 2011-2013. While the TPMA covers all geographical 
regions, these strategies defined a clear priority for spending under TPMA to the Southern Mediterranean, African 
and eastern European regions, in line with the GAMM and with the Stockholm programme. This prioritisation fol -
lows the notion of the migratory routes concept, including migration routes originating outside of the Neighbour -
hood region (sub-Saharan Africa) and transiting through the region.
Replies of the Commission 67
60
The Commission agrees only partially with this statement since it should also take into account that this often also 
corresponds to the request of the partner countries, particularly in the Eastern Neighbourhood countries, and 
that spending on border management may in general be far more expensive than on other areas such as socio-  
economic projects tackling migrants’ integration.
The Commission considers that the focus on irregular migration spending referred to by the Court also reflects the 
priorities expressed by some partner countries.
It is a fact that expenditures related to these areas, in particular border management, are high, relating to the need 
for investment in border crossing points and communication and IT equipment.
It should be added that that the EU is only one of the donors working in partnership with the countries, Member 
States and international organisations.
62
The Commission notes that the legal act establishing the TPMA stipulates that the programme shall complement 
the geographic programmes. The allocation of resources to priority areas under the geographic programmes 
depends primarily on the partner countries and not only on the Commission.
64
The EU–UN Joint Migration and Development Initiative (JMDI) was launched as a first comprehensive migration 
programme which focused on the impact migration has on the development of partner countries.
It was considered as an important EU contribution to the migration and development agenda, following the inclu -
sion of this dimension in the GAMM.
It was indeed designed to be a pilot programme, to test the migration and development nexus, which is why it 
 covered many different countries in different regions.
The findings and lessons learned from this programme have been taken into account in its follow-up programme, 
which by contrast is more targeted at specific priority countries.
68
The Commission underlines that nine projects had well-defined objectives. In 12 cases, objectives only partially met 
the definition of well-defined objectives — often set in general terms — and in one case, objectives were not well 
defined (see Box 5).
Box 5 — Example of results that were difficult to measure
The Commission partially agrees with the observation that results are not immediately tangible and measurable. 
However, the Commission considers that the project was generally successful, in particular in its ability to create 
a space for dialogue with counterparts used to years of stalled democratic reforms.
Replies of the Commission 68
69
The Commission notes that the TPMA, like most other thematic and geographic external funding instruments, 
focuses on the capacity-building of authorities and civil society in partner countries. Projects typically provide 
capacity-building at legal, institutional and operational levels, through technical assistance and training. The Com -
mission, however, agrees that improving capacities and reforming legal and institutional frameworks is — and 
should be — a medium- to long-term objective, and results are not immediately noticeable.
70
The Commission partially acknowledges that not all objectives have been achieved in the sampled projects.
At the same time, it would like to reiterate that in a complex and constantly changing policy area like migration, the 
impact of external factors is considerable, and cannot be addressed solely through exemplary project preparation 
and planning.
However well planned and well anchored with partner countries, unpredictability in migration and refugee flows 
and political challenges will affect the outcome of the intervention during all stages of implementation. This situ -
ation is clearly demonstrated by the situation experienced in Libya.
Box 7 — Example of a partially effective project
The Seahorse Mediterranean Network project aims at contributing to the development of one of the regional net -
works meant to flank the Eurosur system.
At the time of the signature of the contract, the situation in Tripoli was relatively stable and the extent of the subse -
quent deterioration of the security situation in Libya could not have been foreseen.
Algerian, Tunisian and Egyptian representatives were regularly invited and they often actively participated in 
steering committee meetings of the project. No formal commitment has been made so far by any of these three 
countries.
Guardia Civil, supported by five Member States which are part of the consortium, is regularly in contact with poten -
tial third-country partners in order to convince them to take part in the initiative.
The Court states that ‘acceptance of Libya went against the views of the Commission’. However, due to its strate -
gic position, it was acknowledged at a later stage that Libya was the most important partner for this initiative and 
therefore it was decided to include them.
72
Despite the exceptional current circumstances in Libya, the project is still ongoing, and is slowly achieving some 
results. The difficulties encountered during the implementation of the project are due to the insecure and unstable 
situation in Libya, and the project was resumed in August 2015 and adapted to the new situation following the 2014 
crisis.
The project now ends in April 2016 and it aims at responding to the most urgent needs of stranded and detained 
migrants in Libya in the detention/reception centres offering them assistance and voluntary return in full respect of 
human rights.
Replies of the Commission 69
77
The Commission notes the Court’s observation and observes that the evaluation report included separate positive 
aspects.  
The conclusions of the evaluation were discussed extensively with UNDP on several occasions during the regular 
project interactions, and more specifically in a meeting organised on 10 October 2011. The report was also coordin -
ated with all the partner agencies for their comments.
80
The EU-UN JMDI was launched as a first comprehensive migration programme which focused on improving the 
development impact of migration in partner countries.
As a first pilot project in this area, it is considered as an important EU contribution to the migration and develop -
ment agenda, following the inclusion of this dimension in the GAMM.
The findings and lessons learned from this programme have been taken into account in its follow-up programme, 
which by contrast is more targeted at specific priority countries.
81
The EU support in the migration area in Georgia has a broad range of beneficiaries and types of support at different 
governance levels. The added value of the JMDI scheme was to involve actors at a local level. This type of support 
can only reach a relatively small number of final beneficiaries. However, lessons learnt from such interventions can 
still be replicable elsewhere.
In the case of Algeria, although the impact was very limited, the programme allowed to put migration issues on the 
agenda and to set up a permanent interministerial structure led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In the case of Morocco, it was useful to have among the migration portfolio an intervention which was very much 
grass-roots oriented. However, dissemination had to be achieved on the basis of varied results and impacts. Lessons 
have been duly learnt for phase II of JMDI where dissemination is currently addressed in a more structured manner.
Box 9 — Readmissions project in Georgia
As concerns the uncertainty over the continued operation of the career guidance and recruitment centres at the 
moment of the audit, the Commission underlines that the Georgian authorities have ensured the sustainability of 
the centres through allocations from the state budget (GEL 400 000 in the 2015 budget, GEL 600 000 planned in the 
draft 2016 budget).
The planned number of people to benefit from the job placement service turned out to be lower than expected due 
to an underestimation of the self-sustainability of returning migrants.
As regards the provision of temporary accommodation, the Commission was prepared to address the needs of 180 
persons, but the demand was lower due to the local context of strong social and family ties. Financial allocations 
were reduced accordingly.
As regards voluntary repatriation, the figure has increased to 167 foreign nationals resident in Georgia, as compared 
to 110 persons at the time of the audit.
Replies of the Commission 70
86 (a)
The Commission agrees with the Court’s observation and adds that readmission of its own nationals is an obligation 
under customary international law, whereas readmission of third-country nationals is not an obligation. It is part of 
migration, not security policy, as perceived by some partner countries.
Instead of a security concern, effective return and readmission policies are a fundamental element and a prerequis -
ite for well-managed migration. Effective return of irregular migrants, who do not or no longer have the right to 
be in the EU, is also essential as a prevention measure against further irregular migration, as emphasised by the EU 
action plan on return (9 September 2015). Both return and readmission are an integral part of the GAMM and all 
following policy lines (e.g. European agenda on migration). It is correct that visa facilitation agreements are possible 
and considered in parallel with EU readmission agreements, and viewed within the context of the more-for-more 
principle.
Reply to the heading before paragraph 87
The Commission underlines that successful implementation of human rights protection is often conditional on 
a number of external factors beyond its control.
87
Apart from being a formal cross-cutting issue and addressed seriously in all EU external action interventions, the 
human rights of migrants are given priority also in external action on migration.
Apart from ensuring that all interventions include human rights measures, many actions have had the rights of 
migrations as their overall objective. Examples include projects to assist and protect victims of human trafficking, 
rights of domestic migrant workers, assistance and protection of refugees, etc.
88
With regard to Ukraine, the possibility of providing training on human rights standards was initially envisaged in 
Readmit and discussed with the government. However, it was agreed at that stage to drop it from this programme 
since it would have overlapped with several other projects implemented by international organisations and CSOs 
such as (i) IOM (Cris Ref.:2011/282-850) strengthening migration management and cooperation on readmission in 
eastern Europe (Migreco), (ii) UNCHR (Cris Ref.: 2010/272-415, project title: Support to UNHCR activities in eastern 
Europe in the context of EU regional protection programmes (RPP II) — Phase II) or  (iii) the Right to Protection NGO 
(Cris Ref.: 2012/334-088, project title: Advocacy and government capacity building in migration). In general, out of 
a total of 34 projects dealing with migration and asylum supported through EU funding since 2003, 18 were dealing 
at different levels with human rights issues.
89
The Commission was very active in convincing the Libyan authorities to sign a memorandum of understanding with 
the UNHCR.
The Libyan authorities, in particular those who represented the Ghaddafi’s regime were extremely reluctant for 
political reasons to accept the UNHCR as a main partner of the action.
Nevertheless, the Commission has always highlighted that the respect of human rights is an essential element of the 
project.
Replies of the Commission 71
91
The need for stronger coordination between EU institutions, including between Commission departments, has 
indeed received renewed attention under the Juncker Commission. A number of improved coordination mechan -
isms have been established and, as tested during the recent migration and refugee crisis facing Europe, seem to be 
functioning well.
92
The Commission considers that internal coordination has already been considerably improved.
93
While the Commission acknowledges that there is still room for improvement it would like to stress that effective 
coordination mechanisms are fully in place as regards migration-related policies and programming.
As an example, coordination is ensured by DG Migration and Home Affairs when preparing and adopting national 
programmes of Member States under the AMIF or ISF, as well as for the annual work programmes under centralised 
management. DG International Cooperation and Development and DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotia -
tions apply the same procedure. In addition, formal consultation of EEAS and relevant Commission directorates-
general takes place during the interservice consultations for the adoption of all funding programmes.
The EEAS leads, or co-leads with the Commission, the multiannual programming of most of the external financial 
instruments, and thereby ensures a high degree of coordination across the various policy fields and across the 
geographical areas. The divergences among the requests of the beneficiary third countries could be also a reason 
explaining discrepancies (there is no one-size-fits-all).
94
The Commission indeed recognises the usefulness of compiling mappings/overviews on migration-related funding 
for a given country or region, so as to facilitate coordination and ensure better complementarity between EU and 
other donors’ funding. Funding overviews on migration-related spending by the EU and Member States notably 
exist for all MPs and CAMMs (so-called scoreboards), as well as for a number of regional processes. These overviews 
are established by Commission services in consultation with relevant coordination structures (MP local coordination 
platforms, GAMM experts’ meetings, etc.). They can obviously only be indicative and not set any obligations for the 
various donors or funding sources, as this would not be feasible under the current EU legal framework and not be 
compatible with regard to the procedures set up under the respective EU financial instruments.
97
The EEAS considers that the EEAS has played its role in embedding migration in the political dialogues with third 
countries, in particular neighbourhood countries, via the specific JLS/migration and social affairs subcommittees 
with the relevant countries. Moreover, in view of the increased salient importance of migration in the EU’s relations 
with third countries, the EEAS has been gradually building up thematic competence in this field and placing addi -
tional human resources on sectoral issues relevant for the external relations field, including migration. With the new 
Commission there is now a clearer impetus in linking further the internal with the external dimension of migration 
and enhancing policy coherence in the work of the EEAS and relevant Commission directorates-general.
Replies of the Commission 72
98
While acknowledging that coordination with EU delegations can and should be improved and that measures to that 
effect are undertaken, there are a number of reasons this is a challenge to achieve. Apart from insufficient human 
resources in delegations (and in the headquarters), limited expertise on migration in EU delegations results in simi -
larly limited capacities to assess migration-related needs and priorities in partner countries.
99
The Commission agrees that coordination with EU delegations is crucial and is making efforts to ensure this works in 
practice in the day-to-day management of projects.
The consolidation and validation of good practices from successfully implemented projects are available in individ -
ual project monitoring and evaluation reports, and efforts to establish a system for consolidating and dissem  inate 
this information is being undertaken. In particular, the information on good practices is to be included in the guid -
ance tools prepared by DG International Cooperation and Development B3, and when finalised is to be accessible 
through a dedicated thematic migration website.
In addition, the thematic training carried out by DG International Cooperation and Development B3 includes ses -
sions on lessons learned and best practices.
Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusion 1
The Commission underlines that the reviewed European neighbourhood policy aims at setting out proposals in 
close partnership with our neighbours for a more coherent and impact-oriented cooperation framework on issues 
of common concern, including migration.
Similarly, the successor programme to the TPMA includes detailed objectives, results and indicators.
(a) The Commission believes there is room to better define strategic orientations on migration-related matters in the 
Neighbourhood through the identification of clear and measurable objectives and coherent, concrete deliverables, 
which will be at the core of new cooperation frameworks with Neighbourhood and enlargement countries.
(b) The Commission partially agrees with this conclusion with regard to the coherence between different levels of 
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. With regard to both the ENPI and the TPMA, most migration projects 
include detailed monitoring and evaluation arrangements, as well as fully fledged logical frameworks. However, 
the Commission believes there is room to better defining our cooperation framework on migration in the Neigh -
bourhood via the setting up of strategic objectives and clear and measurable outcomes and outputs with direct 
links between activities and results.
(e) The Commission partially agrees to this statement, in particular for what concerns the geographical diversity.
Cooperation with our neighbours, in particular with regard to migration and international protection issues, needs 
to adjust to the diverse level of engagement and policies’ development of partners and take into account the 
diverse sensitivities, expectations and constraints of partners in these issues. Also in light of the protracted crisis 
occurring in the Neighbourhood, differentiation and flexibility mechanisms need to be ensured.
Replies of the Commission 73
However, with regard to the ENI, the Commission, to make the most of ENI resources, intended to differentiate 
between partners according to the programming criteria defined in the ENI and strictly implement the incentive-
based approach.
As mentioned, the needs of the partners differ from country to country and from region to region. Following the 
recommendations of the agenda for change and the differentiated approach stated in the new ENI, EU cooperation 
with the Neighbourhood focuses on three priority sectors in each case. They were identified through a comprehen -
sive consultation process with governments, local authorities, civil society organisations, EU Member States, inter -
national financial institutions and international organisations.
Recommendation 1
The Commission partially accepts the recommendation, in particular as concerns the need to improve performance-
measurement frameworks. The Commission agrees on the critical importance of better defining its strategic 
cooper  ation framework on migration and international protection via the setting-up of operational objectives, clear 
and measurable outcomes and outputs with direct links between activities and results.
However, since the needs and hence the assistance for each country are different, the Commission underlines the 
difficulty of defining a common set of comparable indicators that would remain constant over time and the need 
for more flexibility while defining target priorities. Tailor-made monitoring and evaluation tools are being devel -
oped to allow the measurement of achievements and progress, representing a key element towards the delivery of 
more concrete and efficient cooperation frameworks on migration.
The reviewed European neighbourhood policy aims specifically at setting out proposals in close partnership with 
the neighbours for more coherent and impact-oriented cooperation frameworks on issues of common concern, 
including migration.
The present situation is unstable and it is necessary to distinguish between urgent actions and more systemic pro -
grammes. It will not always be possible to work on the basis of quantified target priorities.
In the reviewed European neighbourhood policy the Commission will seek to build reinforced partnerships with 
a clearer focus and more tailored cooperation. Experience suggests that the European neighbourhood policy will 
be most effective when the agenda of the EU and its partners is truly shared. Therefore, the review will clarify what 
the interests of the EU and each partner are and those areas of strongest common interest (including migration and 
mobility). The review is an opportunity to establish a firm understanding between the EU and its partners of those 
areas of strong common interest, which will constitute the basis for a stronger partnership and targeted financial 
support. However, flexibility will remain a key principle in the implementation of funding from the ENI to ensure 
that the EU is better able to respond more flexibly through its financial cooperation to rapidly changing develop -
ments and needs in the region.
Recommendation 2
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
As correctly pointed out, the DAC codes are defined by the OECD. In the light of recent developments the Commis -
sion will initiate discussions with the OECD.
In addition, the Commission will analyse the feasibility of complementing the OECD DAC coding system.
Replies of the Commission 74
Conclusion 2
(a) See Commission replies to paragraphs 68 and box 5.
(b) Migration and development is about maximising the positive relationship which exists between migration and 
development, with the objective of harnessing the development potential of migration, for the benefit of both 
societies and migrants, and of contributing to sustainable development and poverty reduction. While the exact 
nature of the link between migration and development in different contexts might need to be further evidence 
based, migration is increasingly recognised as a powerful vehicle for boosting development in both countries of 
origin and countries of destination. The fact that migration is now included as a development enabler in the 2030 
sustainable development agenda proves the progress made in this field in recent years.
(c) The Commission agrees that the support for return and readmission did not so far always have the expected re -
sults. However, effective return and readmission policies are a prerequisite for well-managed migration, and are 
an integral part of the GAMM.
 The Commission agrees with the Court’s observation and adds that readmission of its own nationals is an obliga -
tion under customary international law. It is part of migration, not security policy, as perceived by some partner 
countries.
(d) The Commission partially agrees with this conclusion.
 With regard to human rights, the Commission acknowledges that there is room to improve its performance in 
identifying more concrete mitigation measures, for instance by reinforcing humanitarian diplomacy and national 
referral systems.
 However, in 2014 the Commission engaged in an action to design and develop a toolbox to ensure that most new 
projects embed a right-based approach (RBA) during all phases of the intervention.
 The implementation of an RBA is founded on the universality and indivisibility of human rights and on the principles 
of inclusion and participation in the decision-making process, non-discrimination, equality and equity, transpar -
ency and accountability. These principles are central to EU development cooperation, ensuring the empowerment 
of the poorest and most vulnerable, in particular of women and minors.
Recommendation 3
The Commission accepts this recommendation and its implementation is already ongoing, as follows.
The Commission already makes use of the whole range of instruments foreseen in the project management cycle. 
While acknowledging there is room to further improve our performance in defining the intervention logic of each 
action, most projects already include fully fledged logical frameworks, including result indicators.
Replies of the Commission 75
Recommendation 4
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
There is an increasing body of evidence underlining the positive impact of migration on development (both of 
countries of origin and destination, and of the migrants themselves). However, giving the changing and increasing 
migration trends, it is necessary to continue acquiring reliable migration data in order to inform the programmes. 
The Commission is investing in the further consolidation of this evidence, as a basis for designing future response 
strategies and projects.
Conclusion 3
The Commission considers that following considerable efforts, effective coordination mechanisms have already 
been put in place in the migration area. Given the complexity of the issue, the division of competences and the 
number of stakeholders involved, the scope for further rationalisation of the governance arrangements in the 
migration area is very limited.
Recommendation 5
The Commission partially accepts the recommendation. The Commission considers that, taking also into account 
the budgetary constraints, significant efforts to improve the capacities of EU delegations have already been under -
taken (see also Commission replies to paragraphs 34, 98 and 99).
The Commission has already developed funding overviews on donor spending in the migration area to support 
various bilateral and regional frameworks (such as the MP scoreboards).
The Commission considers that the development of a single and comprehensive funding overview on all migration-
related spending would be impractical to achieve.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
 one copy:  
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
  more than one copy or posters/maps:  
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
This report deals with the two main financing instruments 
(TPMA and ENPI) of the external dimension of the EU’s 
common migration policy, which aims to provide effective 
management of migration flows in partnership with 
countries of origin and transit. This report examines 
whether the spending of both instruments had clear 
objectives and whether it had been effective and well 
coordinated. We found that, overall, the instruments 
provided no clear strategy by which to identify their 
contribution to objectives and thus it is unclear what they 
intend to achieve at EU level. It was often difficult to 
measure the results achieved by EU spending and the 
contribution of migration to development was difficult to 
assess. The policy is characterised by complex governance, 
insufficient coordination and the absence of a funding 
overview that specified who finances what between the 
Commission and the Member States.
EUROPEAN
COURTOF AUDITORS