Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Integrating migration issues in the European Union's relations with Third Countries - I. Migration and development - II. Report on the effectiveness of financial resources available at community level for repatriation of immigrants and rejected asylum seekers, for management of external borders and for asylum and migration projects in third countries
Date: 2002-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU relations, cooperation policy, migration control, migratory movement, political asylum, removal, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 3.12.2002
COM(2002) 703 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

INTEGRATING MIGRATION ISSUES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION’s RELATIONS
WITH THIRD COUNTRIES

I. 

MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT

II. 

REPORT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES
AVAILABLE AT COMMUNITY LEVEL FOR REPATRIATION OF
IMMIGRANTS AND REJECTED ASYLUM SEEKERS, FOR
MANAGEMENT OF EXTERNAL BORDERS AND FOR ASYLUM
AND MIGRATION PROJECTS IN THIRD COUNTRIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD

I. MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7

SECTION A – CONTEXT ...................................................................................................... 9

1.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

3.

4.

4.1.

4.2.

The EU and international migration flows................................................................... 9

The driving forces of international migration ............................................................ 10

Push factors ................................................................................................................ 10

Pull factors ................................................................................................................. 11

Migration hump.......................................................................................................... 11

The refugee burden .................................................................................................... 12

the effects of international migration on developing countries.................................. 14

Migrant remittances ................................................................................................... 14

Brain circulation......................................................................................................... 15

SECTION B - POLICIES IN PLACE.................................................................................. 17

5.

6.

7.

8.

EU migration policy................................................................................................... 17

Assistance to third countries directly related to migration management ................... 18

Relief and Rehabilitation............................................................................................ 20

The longer term; addressing the push factors ............................................................ 21

SECTION C – POLICY DEVELOPMENTS ...................................................................... 23

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Policy dialogue and migration clause ........................................................................ 23

Skilled labour ............................................................................................................. 24

Readmission agreements............................................................................................ 25

Strategies and Programmes; the mid term review...................................................... 26

Further measures as regards institution building ....................................................... 27

II.  REPORT  ON  THE  EFFECTIVENESS  OF  FINANCIAL  RESOURCES
AVAILABLE AT COMMUNITY LEVEL

1.

2.

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 30

Context of the Community's financial support .......................................................... 31

2

2.1.

2.2.

3.

3.1.

Requirement that Community action must comply with the subsidiarity and
proportionality principles ........................................................................................... 31

Management of Community expenditure — compliance with the financial
perspective and multiannual programming................................................................ 31

Internal instruments available for asylum and immigration policy and the
management of external frontiers............................................................................... 32

Development of Community financial resources allocated to asylum and immigration
policy and management of external frontiers............................................................. 32

3.2.

Financial instruments to implement or support the Tampere and Laeken strategies . 32

3.2.1.

Instruments strengthening administrative cooperation .............................................. 32

3.2.2.

European Refugee Fund (2000-04)............................................................................ 33

3.2.2.1 Results of preparatory action (1997-99) and principles governing the European

Refugee Fund. ............................................................................................................ 33

3.2.2.2. Evaluation of the Fund's implementation 2000-02 .................................................... 34

3.3

Developments planned for the short and medium term ............................................. 36

3.3.1. A better insight into migratory phenomena ............................................................... 36

3.3.2.

Introduction of effective information systems ........................................................... 36

3.3.3

Preparatory measures relating to the integration of third-country nationals.............. 37

3.3.4.

The future of the European Refugee Fund................................................................. 38

4.

4.1.

4.2.

5.

5.1.

5.2.

External-policy instruments ....................................................................................... 39

Contributions to preparations for the future enlarged Europe .................................. .39

Partnerships with third countries of origin and transit ............................................... 39

New needs which have been identified...................................................................... 40

A financial instrument to back up return policy ?...................................................... 41

Sharing the burden of managing external borders between the Member States and the
Union.......................................................................................................................... 41

6.

To sum up................................................................................................................... 44

CONCLUSIONS

ANNEXES

3

FOREWORD

Migration is at the heart of the political debate in industrialised countries.  It is now a major
strategic priority for the European Union. If carefully managed, it can be a positive factor for
growth and success of both the Union and the countries concerned. Following the entry into
force of the Amsterdam treaty and the Tampere European Council, the main components of a
comprehensive migration and asylum policy are progressively being put in place.

The integration of concerns related to migration within the external policy and programmes of
the  Community  forms  part  of  this  comprehensive  effort  to  address  migration  issues  in  a
coherent and efficient way at EU level. It is however a relatively new trend, reflected by the
recent requests made by the European Council in Seville.

Heads  of  States  and  Government  asked  for  the  integration  of  immigration  policy  into  the
Union’s  relations  with  third  countries  and  called  for  a  targeted  approach  to  the  problem,
making use of all appropriate EU external relations instruments. The European Council also
asked the Commission to present a report on the effectiveness of financial resources available
at  Community  level  for  repatriation  of  immigrants  and  rejected  asylum  seekers,  for
management of external borders, and for asylum and migration projects in third countries.

The Commission is firmly committed to delivering both objectives.

The Commission believes that these two questions must be looked at together, as they are the
two faces of the same coin. We must assess the problem and agree a clear policy line, but we
must also check  whether our financial means match our  political  ambitions.  Hence  the  dual
nature  and  purpose  of  the  attached  document:  the  first  part  analyses  the  phenomenon  of
international  migration,  assesses  its  effects  on  developing  countries,  and  explores  ways  to
help them in managing  migratory flows; the  second  part  is  the  Commission  report  that  was
requested  by  the  Seville  European  Council  on  the  effectiveness  of  financial  resources
available at Community level for repatriation of immigrants and rejected asylum seekers, for
management of  external borders and for asylum and migration projects in third  countries.  It
provides  a  description  of  existing  resources  and  explains  what  is  being  done  today  in  the
context  of  ongoing  co-operation.  It  also  suggests  means  to  increase  our  effort  in  support  of
these actions.

The  Commission  and  the  Member  States  have  the  collective  responsibility  and  the  difficult
task  of  reconciling  differing  but  complementary  priorities.  In  integrating  migration  into  the
external policy of the Community, action must be based on the following four key principles:

(1) 

(2) 

The  integration  of  migration  aspects  in  the  external  action  of  the  Community  must
respect  the  overall  coherence  of  our  external  policies  and  actions.  The  dialogue  and
actions with third countries in the field of migration must be part of a comprehensive
approach  at  EU  level,  which  must  be  fundamentally  incitative  by  encouraging  those
countries that accept new disciplines, but not penalising those who are not willing or
not capable to do so. Our approach must also be differentiated, taking due account of
the situation of each individual third country.

Regarding  migration,  the  long-term  priority  of  the  Community  should  be  to  address
the root causes of migration flows. One should duly recognise the effect of long-term
development  programmes  on  migratory  flows,  in  particular  in  poverty  eradication,
institution  and  capacity  building,  conflict  prevention.  Development  resources  should

4

concentrate on this objective. Besides, it is worth noting that the Commission already
supports a wide range of actions in the field of migration.

(3)  Migration  aspects  should,  in  the  first  instance,  be  taken  care  of  in  the  strategic
framework proposed by the Commission and agreed by the Member States (“Regional
and Country Strategy Papers” - CSP). CSP mid-term review, scheduled in 2003, offers
a  unique  opportunity  in  this  regard.  This  framework  alone,  by  presenting  a  global
development  package  to  developing  countries,  will  encourage  them  to  enter  into
readmission  agreements.  The  mid-term  review  should  permit  a  case-by-case
reassessment  of  migration  in  third  countries  and  could  lead  to  some  reorientation  in
our  priorities  and  some  reallocation  of  funds  within  the  National  Indicative
Programme of each country concerned.

(4)  Without  prejudging  the  results  of  the  CSP  review,  it  seems  already  clear  that  extra
funding will be needed. New tasks are feasible only if new money is made available.
The  relevant  budget  line  (B7-667:  “  Cooperation  with  third  countries  in  the  field  of
migration”)  should  be  significantly  reinforced  and  should  come  as  a  complement  to
what can be achieved in the CSP review. It should be used to finance specific, targeted
actions  in  the  field  of  migration;  these  actions  should  be  complementary  to  those
financed  under  the  more  generic  development  lines.  This  approach  should  ensure
stronger  impact  and  higher  profile  to  migration  initiatives,  and  help  avoiding
duplication  and  confusion.  The  relevant  budget  line  must  also  be  managed  in
accordance with the principles of the RELEX Reform, so as to allow consistency and
economies of scale.

Fully  aware of the  importance of migration  issues  in  the  context of EU’s  external relations,
the Commission invites all stakeholders to act decisively in line with these orientations. It is
the  only  way  to  face  up  with  our  collective  responsibilities  and  to  meet  our  shared  interest
with third countries to find appropriate answers to existing challenges.

This Communication, which is part of a comprehensive approach towards migration, will be
followed by another Commission Communication scheduled for March 2003, dedicated to the
various  interactions  between  immigration,  employment  and  social  policies  in  the  European
Union.

5

I. 

MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT

6

INTRODUCTION

Over the past few  years, international  migration  has  become a  central  theme in the political
discourse  in  industrialised  countries.  At  EU  level,  the  framework  for  the  discussion  of
migration-related  issues  was  defined  in  1999  by  the  Amsterdam  Treaty  and  the  Tampere
European Council. Several components of a comprehensive migration policy are currently on
the  table  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  During  the  run-up  to  the  Seville
European  Council  of  June  2002  special  attention  was  given  to  the  question  of  illegal
immigration.  In  this  context,  Heads  of  States  and  Government  drew  attention  to  the
contribution which the EU’s various external policies and instruments, including development
policy,  could  make  in  addressing  the  underlying  causes  of  migration  flows.  As  long  ago  as
1994,  in  its  Communication  to  the  Council  and  to  the  European  Parliament  on  the
immigration  and  asylum  policies1,  the  Commission  demonstrated  the  need  for  an  overall
approach in this field, which would include in particular the reduction of migratory pressure
by cooperation with the principal potential third countries of migration towards Europe.

As  a  preliminary  remark,  it  is  useful  to  recall  that  migration  is  not  to  be  seen  only  as  a
problem, but also as an essentially positive phenomenon, which is of all times and all places,
and which produces both opportunities and challenges. It is a fact that industrialised countries,
including the European Union, benefit considerably from migration and will continue to need
inward  migration  in  the  future,  both  in  high-skilled  and  low-skilled  sectors.  However,  the
expected continuation, or even acceleration, of international migration flows will have major
consequences  for  both  the  European  Union  and  the  third  countries,  including  developing
countries, from which these migrants originate. To successfully address these consequences, it
will  be  necessary  to  strengthen  policies  that  focus  on  the  root  causes  of  international
migration while – at the same time – working towards a further strengthening of the migration
management capacity of both the European Union and the countries of origin.

Ongoing European Community external policies and programmes in support of human rights,
the consolidation of democracy, the reduction of poverty, the creation of jobs and the overall
improvement of the economic situation in the migration countries, the maintenance of peace,
etc., all have  a bearing on migration given that they  address  the main  factors on which it is
necessary to act to reduce the migratory pressure.

This being said, the concerns connected with the consequences of the migratory phenomenon,
such  as  they  are  expressed  within  the  European  Union  in  recent  years,  called  for  a  more
substantial  and  targeted  contribution  in  the  context  of  all  Community  external  relations
policies, programmes and instruments. This contribution is today in the process of being given
concrete form. Since Tampere, the migration issue has been successfully introduced onto the
agenda  of  the  dialogue  between  the  Community  and  many  countries.  Moreover,  in
cooperation  with  the  relevant  third  countries,  the  Commission  has  programmed  substantial
Community assistance (see Annexes) to provide support to third countries in their efforts to
address issues directly related to legal and illegal migration. These programmes have now to
be implemented and their effects will be visible only in the medium and long term.

This  Communication  focuses  on  European  Union  relations  with  low  and  middle-income
developing  countries  in  Africa,  Asia,  Latin  America  and  Europe,  with  the  exception  of  the
European  Union  candidate  countries.  Its  purpose  is  threefold.  Firstly,  it  tries  to  put  the

1

COM(94) 23

7

                                                
migration  issue  back  in  its  broader  context,  taking  account  of  the  driving  forces  of
international  migration,  the  specific  case  of  people  in  need  of  protection  and  the  effects  of
international  migration  on  developing  countries.  Secondly,  it  gives  an  overview  of  the
Community  migration  policy  and  how  migration  issues  are  being  integrated  in  Community
external cooperation programmes and policies. Thirdly, it tries to indicate the possible policy
developments  that  could  improve  the  Community  contribution  to  a  better  management  of
migratory flows, including the curbing of illegal migration.

8

SECTION A – CONTEXT

1. 

THE EU AND INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION FLOWS

The  UN  estimates  that  world-wide  some  150  million  people  (or  about  2,5%  of  the  world
population) can be considered international migrants, as they have a nationality that does not
coincide  with  their  country  of  residence.  The  total  number  of  international  migrants  is
gradually growing, but is – in relative terms – not much different from the situation observed
in the early 20th century.

Most analysts take the view that in a long-term perspective migration to the EU will either be
stable or increase. The net annual official inward migration rate of the EU is currently at about
2,2  per  1000  population,  which  is  less  than  current  inward  migration  rates  into  traditional
immigration  countries  such  as  the  USA  and  Canada.  In  the  year  2000,  around  680.000
immigrants from outside the EU arrived in the Union2.

Migration to the EU3

Arriving migrants from
outside EU (2000)

Total number of migrants
from outside EU

Region of origin

680.000

13.000.000

Europe
North Africa
Asia
Sub Saharan Africa
USA
Other

45 %
18 %
17 %
9 %
3 %
8 %

These  legal  migrants,  for  whom  reliable  statistics  exist  can  be  divided  into  asylum  seekers,
family members joining  migrants  already  legally  settled  in  an  EU  Member  State,  registered
labour  migrants  and  business  migrants4.  An  important  (legal)  distinction  is  to  be  made
between economic migrants and persons in need of protection. Under International Law there
is no obligation for states to let economic immigrants enter their territory. Asylum however is
a human right based on international protection standards, which states are obliged to provide
as  a  result  of  their  obligations  under  international  agreements  such  as  the  1951  Geneva
Convention.

In addition to legal migrants, there is a substantial number of irregular or ‘illegal’ migrants,
consisting of people that either illegally enter the territory of an EU Member State, or become
illegal after ‘over-staying’ their valid visa or their residence permit, or after being rejected as

2

3

4

The number of legal immigrants into the EU reached a peak of 1,2 million people in 1992, mainly due to a large
influx of refugees from former Yugoslavia
Source : Eurostat. Figures must be interpreted with great care, as statistical and methodological problems to arrive
at these figures are numerous
Communication on a Community Immigration Policy, COM(2000) 757.

9

                                                
an asylum seeker. By the very nature of the phenomenon there are no precise figures available
and thus the number of irregular migrants in the EU can only be estimated5.

The  majority  of  ‘economic  migrants’  present  in  the  territory  of  EU  Member  States  do  not
originate from low-income countries, but rather from middle income countries and economies
in  transition.  Poor  people  in  developing  countries  lack  the  connections  and  resources  to
engage  easily  in  inter-continental  migration.  If  these  people  migrate  for  economic  reasons
they  will  usually  move  to  regional  centres  of  economic  growth.  It  is  estimated  that  African
countries host more than 20 million migrant workers from their own continent6.

This South–South labour movement is a very important phenomenon, and the facilitation of
orderly  South-South  migration  could  be  a  relevant  aspect  of  Community  development  co-
operation  with  certain  countries.  Apart  from  its  direct  impact  on  development,  better
management  of  these  South-South  flows  may  also  have  an  indirect  impact  on  South-North
migration, especially where international migration is related to rapid urbanisation.

2. 

THE DRIVING FORCES OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

2.1. 

Push factors

Specific causes and patterns of migration vary over time and between countries and regions.
Throughout history, people have migrated when their place of residence lacked the resources
and  opportunities  to  fulfil  their  needs  and  aspirations.  The  ‘classical’  conditions  producing
migration include factors such as 7:

(cid:1)  Negative or low economic growth combined with unequal income distribution;

(cid:1)  Overpopulation, high population growth;

(cid:1)  High underemployment and unemployment rates, including as a result of major economic

restructuring;

(cid:1)  High pressure on land and urban environments;

(cid:1)  Armed conflict, ethnic cleansing;

(cid:1)  Human rights abuses, discrimination, persecution;

(cid:1)  Natural catastrophes, ecological degradation.

(cid:1)  Poor governance

Inadequate  or  deficient  domestic  policies  and  the  absence  of  reforms  in  the  developing
countries themselves are often responsible for the factors described above.

5

6

7

For  further  details  see  the  Commission’s  Communication  on  a  Common  Policy  on  Illegal  Migration,
COM(2001)621 of November 2001.
ILO, Report III, 87th session of International Labour Conference, Geneva, 1999.
Migration-Development  Nexus,  State  of  the  Art  Overview,  Centre  for  Development  Research,  Copenhagen,
February 2002. This listing does not represent any type of ranking, as push factors for migration tend to be case-
specific.

10

                                                
The economic ‘push’ towards migration will not quickly disappear. According to World Bank
figures,  the  labour  force  of  the  low-income  countries  is  set  to  grow  from  1,4  billion  to  2,2
billion in the year 20258. The corresponding figures for middle-income countries (which are
the larger supplier of international migrants) show a similar rate. Current levels of economic
growth,  trade  and  inward  investments  in  developing  countries  are  manifestly  insufficient  to
absorb this labour force.

Unlike ‘economic migration’, forced migration primarily caused by conflict and insecurity is
usually of  a  more cyclical nature. Refugee flows  fluctuate.  Mass  departure is  often  (but  not
always)  followed  by  mass  return  once  the  security  situation  has  improved.  This  being  said,
people  who  migrate  from  conflict-ridden  areas  are  usually  steered  by  a  combination  of
motivations, especially those that travel beyond their own region to developed countries.

2.2. 

Pull factors

Where conflict and poverty are the main push factors of migration, safety and socio-economic
improvement  stemming  from  labour  demand  in  host  countries  are  the  major  pull  factors.
Migrants move to places where protection is offered and/or jobs can be found. As indicated in
the  previous  section,  this  does  not  lead  primarily  to  inter-continental  or  South-North
movements.  About  85%  of  the  world’s  refugees  find  shelter  outside  the  EU,  mostly  in  safe
havens within the  region of  conflict.  More than 90%  of the  world’s  migrants live and work
outside  the  EU,  usually  relatively  close  to  their  country  of  origin.  Close  to  50%  of  the  150
million  migrants  world-wide  are  women,  working  in  areas  such  as  nursing  and  domestic
services. Also,  most  migrant  workers  in  the  sex-industry  are  women,  many  of  them  against
their will.

Most  immigration  countries  –  including  EU  Member  States  –  face  labour  shortages  in  both
the highly skilled and low-skilled sectors. The first category includes IT specialists, medical
staff, researchers and scientists, technicians and teachers. The second category involves farm
labourers, construction workers, workers in the hotel and restaurant sector, etc. Increasingly,
European  governments  and  European  based  companies  turn  to  the  labour  market  of
developing countries to recruit these workers, notably in high-skilled sectors. After arrival in
the country of immigration, migrants would usually obtain a legal status but in fact, many of
them, especially in the low-skilled sectors, will continue to find employment and residence in
the EU without such a legal status.

In order to really make the step into outward migration one needs contacts for practical advice
and support. Usually the practical aspects of migration are facilitated by family contacts or the
wider network of the migrant diaspora. Such a network often serves a very specific part of the
labour  market  in  a  receiving  country  and  recruits  countrymen  and  women  from  a  limited
number of villages or urban regions in the country of origin. Increasingly, this type of support
is  provided  on  a  relatively  low  risk  and  highly  profitable  commercial  basis  by  criminal
organisations involved in human smuggling.

2.3.  Migration hump

A successful development process may – in the short term – lead to an increase rather than a
decrease  of  international  migration.  When  a  developing  country  manages  to  generate
economic growth a first generation of dynamic men and women acquire the means,  and the

8

World Bank, World Development Report 1996

11

                                                
taste,  to  travel.  Satisfying  opportunities  at  home  may  still  be  limited,  as  adjustments  and
reforms are not completed and the domestic labour market has not reached its full potential. In
this  situation  many  people  may  want  to  test  their  luck  in  the  job  market  of  industrialised
countries. This phenomenon - called the  ‘migration hump’ – should normally disappear at a
later  stage,  when  the  level  of  development  in  the  country  of  origin  reaches  a  more  mature
stage.9

In the long term, however, the reduction of poverty and the increase of job opportunities do
reduce the pressure on people to enter into “survival  migration”.  Similarly, when peace  and
development replace conflict and struggle, forced migration comes to a stop, and people have
the opportunity to return to their home areas.

3. 

THE REFUGEE BURDEN

In accordance with the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee
is  a  person  “who  owing  to  a  well-founded  fear  of  being  persecuted  for  reasons  of  race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside
the  country  of  his  nationality,  and  is  unable  to  or,  owing  to  such  fear,  is  unwilling  to  avail
himself  of  the  protection  of  that  country...".  Individuals  fleeing  their  country  have  certain
fundamental rights such as the right to seek asylum in another country and the right not to be
expelled  or  returned  to  their  state  of  origin  as  long  as  there  is  a  threat  to  their  safety  (non
réfoulement).  Furthermore,  they  have  the  right  to  submit  a  request  for  asylum  before  the
appropriate authorities and to have their request examined by them.

Whereas the EU does host a very substantial number of refugees and asylum seekers10 it is a
fact that many developing  countries have to deal with refugee populations exceeding by far
EU averages. In 2002 there are 13 million refugees and asylum-seekers world wide, of which
1,9  million  (15%)  reside  in  EU  territory11.  Furthermore,  the  world  has  about  20  million
internally  displaced  persons;  almost  half  of  them  in  Africa,  and  more  than  a  million  in
Afghanistan.  According  to  UNHCR  statistics,  the  number  of  asylum  seekers  arriving  in  the
EU  has  halved  over  the  last  decade  and  is  currently  less  than  400.000  people  per  year.  By
comparison, countries like Iran and Pakistan saw in the year 2001 alone more than a million
arrivals each.

9

10

11

Migration, return and development; An institutional perspective. Expert Working Paper, Centre for Development
Research, Copenhagen, April 2002
As is the case with economic migrants, most asylum seekers in the EU do not originate from developing countries
either. Over the last decade, four out of the top six countries from which the EU received asylum applicants were
European (FR Yugoslavia, Romania, Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina)
For comparison: the USA hosts about 4% of the world’s refugees. The figures for Canada, Australia and Japan are
1%, 0,4% and 0,02% respectively

12

                                                
Refugees and asylum-seekers12

Total

From non-European
developing countries

From
European countries

Worldwide

In EU

13.000.000

12.000.000

1.000.000

1.900.000

1.600.000

300.000

In developing countries

9.000.000

9.000.000

Internally displaced persons

In EU

0

0

In developing countries

20.000.000

20.000.000

0

0

0

The burden on host developing countries is exacerbated by the intrinsic limited financial and
institutional  capacities  of  these  countries.  Refugees  can  put  considerable  strain  on  the  often
fragile  social  and  political  structures  of  a  host  developing  country.  UNHCR  research13  has
shown  that  when  these  factors  are  taken  into  account,  the  top-5  countries  with  the  highest
refugee burden  are  Iran, followed by  Burundi, Guinea, Tanzania  and  Gambia.  In  Africa  the
ratio between refugee population and GDP per capita14 is more than 25 times higher than in
Europe.

In  order  to  alleviate  the  plight  of  refugee  populations,  the  European  Community  provides
humanitarian  assistance.  Indeed,  one  of  the  specific  objectives  of  Community  humanitarian
aid is to cope with the consequences of population movements of refugees, displaced people
or  returnees.  Community  actions  under  Regulation  1257/9615  concerning  humanitarian  aid,
for  which  the  Community  Humanitarian  Aid  Office,  ECHO,  is  responsible,  focus  on
providing  the  necessary  funds  to  implementing  partners  to  provide  protection,  care  and
maintenance to refugee populations for as long as it is needed.

In  keeping  with  the  core  principles  of  International  Humanitarian  Law,  namely  impartiality
and non-discrimination, Community humanitarian assistance is solely delivered in accordance
with the needs of the affected populations, priority being given to the most vulnerable such as
children, women, disabled and elderly.

Projects are funded to address refugee needs, assisting thereby also the host country in coping
with  an  influx  of  refugees,  their  own  infrastructure  and  institutional  capacity  usually  being
inadequate  to  deal  with  such  problems.  The  Community  is  currently  funding  many  such
projects  around  the  world.  Furthermore,  the  impact  of  aid  can  have  benefits  on  the
infrastructure of the host country, to the incidental advantage of the local community and this
can  help  to  reduce  possible  tensions  between  the  two  communities.  Additionally,  once
refugees have returned to their country of origin, funding can be made available to carry out
rehabilitation,  such  as  re-afforestation,  necessitated  by  the  refugee  presence  in  the  host
country.

12

13

14

15

Estimates, end 2001. Source: UNHCR, Population Statistics 2001, Geneva, May 2002
UNHCR, Selected indicators measuring capacity and contributions of Host Countries, Geneva, April 2002
Refugee population per 1000 inhabitants divided by GDP per capita. The figure gives a quantitative indication of
the  relative  weight  that  incoming  refugees  put  on  the  financial  and  economic  situation  in  a  host  country.  The
ranking of individual countries is led by Pakistan, Tanzania and Congo. The first EU country is Germany, far lower
on the list, at place 37
OJ No L 163, 02/07/1996, p. 1-6

13

                                                
Projects  are  also  funded  to  assist  repatriation  to  the  country  of  origin  provided  that  certain
essential preconditions are met. Repatriation must be voluntary, and there must be an overall
improvement in the situation in the  country of  origin. The country  of origin must also have
provided guarantees or adequate assurance for the safety of the repatriated population. In East
Timor, for example, protection, shelters and resettlement aid have been provided for 300,000
returning refugees.  In addition, the Community  is  providing funding for the  reintegration of
refugees  once  they  have  been  repatriated  in  order  to  take  the  pressure  off  the  countries  of
origin who often come out of a long period of conflict and destruction. In this spirit, the EC is
funding UNHCR’s repatriation of tens of thousands of Sierra Leonean refugees from Guinea
at the same time as the re-integration packages in Sierra Leone itself. Similarly, projects that
assist resettlement of refugees from the country of refuge to a third country, which has agreed
to admit them, are also funded.

Protracted  refugee  situations  increase  pressure  on  scarce  economic  and  environmental
resources  and  sometimes  causes  tensions  with  local  communities.  This  may  give  rise  to
security problems and localised crime. In many African countries refugees have been in host
communities for 20 years or more. Many of these refugees have rural backgrounds and rely
on access to common natural resources like water, arable land and forest for which they enter
into competition with the rural poor in the host community. This problem can be addressed if
host governments try and integrate these refugees by allocating land to them, if possible close
to  their  areas  of  geographic  and  ethnic  origin.  Countries  like  Uganda  and  Belize  have  tried
this  strategy  and  successfully  managed  to  integrate  refugees  in  the  process  of  national
development.  Similar  actions  to  promote  durable  solutions,  including  through  local
integration,  have  been  undertaken  in  collaborative  effort  with  the  UNHCR,  e.g.  on  the
‘Zambia Initiative’16.

4. 

THE EFFECTS OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

International  migration  can  both  contribute  to  the  economic  development  of  industrialised
countries and have positive  effects  on the developing  countries of  origin. At  the  same  time,
some aspects of international migration, such as the outflow of highly qualified people and the
movement  of  refugees  between  neighbouring  countries  can  also  pose  direct  challenges  to
developing countries. The effects of international migration on developing countries have to
be  assessed  on  a  case  by  case  basis,  as  their  specific  impact  varies  considerably  amongst
countries.

4.1.  Migrant remittances

According  to  some  estimates17,  current  annual  remittance  flows  to  developing  countries  are
actually  higher  than  total  Official  Development  Assistance  (ODA).  For  many  countries
remittances provide an important positive contribution to the balance of payments and are a
major  source  of  foreign  exchange.  In  a  country  like  Haiti  remittances  account  for  17%  of
GDP18.  In  most  countries  the  percentage  is  far  lower,  but  still  substantial.  The  influx  of
remittances  is  not  evenly  spread  amongst  developing  countries.  They  go  to  lower-middle
income  countries  such  as  the  Philippines,  Egypt  and  Morocco  and  some  large  low-income

16

The Zambia initiative is aimed to assist refugees to become productive members of their host communities, leading
to social integration, peace, security and stability in the region. The initiative enmtails programmes in areas such as
agriculture, health, education, infrastructure, governance, gender and HIV/Aids
Remittance Flows and Impact, S. Martin, 2001

17
18 International mobility in a globalising world, Jan Niessen / Migration Policy Group, March 2002

14

                                                
countries like India and Pakistan19. Remittances to Sub-Saharan Africa are still low, but may
hold a significant development potential.

Remittances are private money, which will first and foremost benefit the family of the sender,
and will leave out the poorest groups that do not have family members abroad. In a first stage
remittances  are  generally  spent  on  family  maintenance  and  debt  repayment.  In  a  later  stage
they  are  dedicated  to  housing  improvement,  consumer  durables  and  education.  In  a  third
phase  they  appear  to  be  invested  in  productive  activities  and  the  purchase  of  land  or  small
businesses.

The important developmental potential of remittances has inspired some developing countries
to try to introduce leverage mechanisms to encourage migrants to set aside a certain portion of
each transfer for development funds. Also specific financial instruments are being introduced
to capture a share of individual remittances, to supplement it with money from public sources,
and  to  facilitate  joint  ventures  between  migrants  and  community  development  associations.
The conclusions of the Financing for Development conference that took place in Monterrey in
March  2002  also  contain  a  reference  to  remittances.  In  its  paragraph  18  it  says  that  ‘it  is
important  to  reduce  the  transfer  costs  of  migrant  workers’  remittances  and  create
opportunities for development-oriented investments, including housing’.

While the Commission is conscious that migrant remittances are private money, that ought to
be  spent  according  to  the  wishes  of  the  individuals  concerned,  it  considers  that  public
administrations in migrant-hosting countries may have a role to play in trying to ensure that
these  funds  can  be  transmitted  to  developing  countries  by  cheap,  legal  and  secure  means.
Existing  official  financial  transfer  systems  are  often  burdensome  and  costly,  and  drive
migrants into informal networks of money traders. Hence, financial institutions, international
banks  and  money  traders  have  a  responsibility  to  ensure  that  efficient  and  cost-effective
systems will be available for the transfer of remittances to developing countries.

4.2. 

Brain circulation

Globalisation  invites  migration.  Where  globalisation  promotes  specialisation  of  economies
and  countries,  it  is  only  logical  that  specialised  workers  (either  in  high  or  low-skilled
professions) wish to move from one territory to another. In those cases where comprehensive
immigration policies are not yet in place – which is also for the EU – workers will find their
own (illegal) way to enter the globalised labour market. Hence it is necessary to – as agreed
by the European Council in Tampere – to develop a harmonised admission policy with a view
to  regulating  the  legal  access  of  migrant  workers  into  the  EU.  This  policy  takes  account  of
both the interests of the EU and those of the third countries in which migrants originate, and is
intended to be coherent with efforts to address the negative effects of ‘brain drain’ mentioned
below.

Developing countries with high levels of unemployment and low economic growth rates may
see benefits from emigration of low skilled citizens. Not just because of migrant remittances,
but also because a reduction of the labour surplus will  leave fewer  people out of  a job, and
will  have  a  positive  effect  on  the  competitive  position  and,  therefore,  income  of  those  who
remain. However, when skilled labour leaves the country the impact on the domestic economy
may be less positive, especially in the short term. This  ‘brain drain’ phenomenon may  have
direct negative repercussions on the development process.

19

Migration-Development  Nexus,  Evidence  and  Policy  Options,  Centre  for  Development  Research,  Copenhagen,
April 2002.

15

                                                
Win-win  scenarios  do  exist,  where  sending  and  receiving  countries  as  well  as  the  migrant
him-  or  herself  benefit  from  migration20,  when  the  migrant  maintains  financial,  social  and
economic  links  with  his  country  of  origin  and  return  to  it,  either  permanently  or  on  a
temporary  basis.  But  these  scenarios  remain  isolated  cases.  The  6th  Community  RTD
Framework  programme,  which  offers  training  to  scientists  from  third  countries,  including
LDCs,  with  the  aim  of  increasing  the  overall  scientific  and  technological  capacity  of
developing countries, includes elements that promote the actual return of trainees,  including
re-entry grants.

Nevertheless, industrialised countries including EU Member States increasingly recruit skilled
labour  in  developing  countries,  such  as  IT  experts  in  India,  medical  doctors  in  Pakistan,
teachers  in  the  Caribbean  and  nurses  in  South  Africa.  For  some  developing  countries  the
‘export’ of qualified citizens is an established element of government policy. More often this
process  generates  incoherence  between  host  countries’  domestic  policies  and  development
policy objectives.

Voluntary  return  of  migrants,  both  temporary  and  permanent,  brings  back  accumulated
amounts of financial, human and social capital into developing countries. Traditionally, return
has  therefore  been  seen  as  an  essential  aspect  in  ensuring  a  positive  relationship  between
migration  and  development21.  This  positive  correlation  assumes  that  a  migrant  has  spent
sufficient time abroad to acquire skills and resources, and that he or she is capable and willing
to dedicate (part of) this capital to new activities in the country of origin. These countries of
origin can facilitate a successful reintegration, which is also beneficial to the local society at
large,  by  creating  the  right  social,  economic  and  institutional  environment  for  the  returning
migrant.

In practice, returning migrants are often faced with major disincentives, including from their
host country. Return may affect their pension entitlements, or their possibilities of returning to
the EU to visit family and friends. In  general, concrete administrative solutions and support
programmes  are  necessary.  Some  of  these  are  currently  being  prepared,  e.g.  a  Community
funded  IOM project on  the  return  of  qualified  Afghans  who  can  contribute  to  the  recovery,
rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan.

A migrant can also provide positive inputs in the local development of his or her country of
origin,  without  regaining  permanent  residence.  Governments  of  migrant  sending  countries
such  as  Tunisia,  Senegal  and  Nigeria  have  set  up  active  policies  to  intensify  contacts  with
their  diasporas  and  to  involve  them  in  the  national  development  process,  both  in  economic
and  political  terms.  At  the  other  side,  some  migrant  receiving  countries  and  international
organisations  have  experimented  with  ‘co-development’  schemes  aimed  at  involving  the
migrant diasporas in the development process of their country of origin.

20

21

ILO, Migration of Highly Skilled Persons from Developing Countries: Impact and Policy Responses, Geneva, 2002
Migration-Development  Nexus,  Evidence  and  Policy  Options,  Centre  for  Development  Research,  Copenhagen,
April 2002

16

                                                
SECTION B - POLICIES IN PLACE

On the basis of the Amsterdam Treaty and following the policy orientations established by the
European  Councils  of  Tampere  and  Seville,  the  Commission  has  formulated  the  main
components  of  a  common  policy  on  migration  and  asylum.  In  addition  to  this,  through  its
development  and  cooperation  policies,  the  Commission  tries  to  improve  dialogue  and
reinforce partnerships with third countries on the issue of migration. The policies and actions
in  place  fall  into  three  categories.  The  first  category  covers  those  actions  recently
programmed within  the  framework  of  the  Community’s  cooperation  programmes  with  third
countries and which directly address the issue of migration. The second category covers other
actions falling under the general heading of Relief  and  Rehabilitation.  The  third  category  is
covered  by  the  general  thrust  of  the  Community’s  development  cooperation  policy  and
development  programmes,  where  the  aim  is  to  reduce  the  push  factors  behind  migration  by
supporting sustainable growth and development and reducing poverty.

5. 

EU MIGRATION POLICY

The Commission has formulated the main components of a common policy on migration and
asylum  in  two  general  communications  and  in  individual  legislative  proposals.  The  work
programme  agreed  in  Tampere  to  realise  this  objective  comprises  two  phases:  the
establishment  of  a  basic  common  legal  framework  incorporating  minimum  standards  in  the
areas  covered  by  the  Treaty;  and  secondly  a  gradual  convergence  of  legislation,  policy  and
practice through an open method of co-ordination between the Member States. In line with the
comprehensive approach adopted by the Council, action is being taken on a range of different
aspects of the migration phenomenon.

The Commission has now put forward all the legislative proposals necessary to establish the
basic framework for the admission and conditions of stay of legal migrants and their families.
This  will  provide  transparent  channels  for  the  admission  of  labour  migrants.  Some  of  the
proposals  are  also  designed  to  facilitate  mobility  of  third  country  nationals  within  the  EU  ,
e.g. for long-term residents or for third-country nationals who are students. At the same time
action to reinforce the fight against illegal migration, smuggling and trafficking into the EU is
being  taken  based  on  a  comprehensive  plan  adopted  by  the  Council  in  February  2002.
Measures to improve co-operation on the return of illegal migrants are also being developed
based on the Commission’s Green Paper of April 2002 on this issue.

The Commission has also submitted to the European Parliament and the Council a number of
legislative proposals as the basis of a common policy on asylum which fully respects the 1951
Geneva Convention on refugees and other international obligations of the Member States with
respect to refugees, asylum seekers and those seeking international protection.

An  examination  of  the  interactions  between  immigration  and  the  employment  and  social
policies in the European Union was launched by the Commission in 2002 and, on that basis,
the Commission intends to adopt a Communication in March 2003 to prepare the June session
of the European Council.

Promotion  of  the  integration  and  inclusion  of  migrants  is  taking  place  primarily  within  the
framework  of  the  European  Social  Fund,  the  EQUAL  initiative  and  programmes  to  combat
discrimination, including racism and xenophobia.

17

It  goes  without  saying  that  the  rapid  adoption  of  the  Commission  proposals,  an  adoption
which  falls  within  the  responsibility  of  the  Council  and  its  the  Member  States,  would
encourage  the  consolidation  of  the  Community  Migration  Policy  and  would  consequently
contribute to making the position of the Community in this field more clear to third countries.
The  establishment  of  a  clear  Community  framework  in  the  field  of  the  migration  policy
constitutes  a  condition  of  credibility  for  the  Community  in  its  relations  with  the  third
countries on the issue of migration management.

6. 

ASSISTANCE  TO  THIRD  COUNTRIES  DIRECTLY  RELATED  TO  MIGRATION
MANAGEMENT

The integration of the concerns related to migration in the external policy in general and in the
Community  external  policies  and  programmes  in  particular  is  a  recent  trend.  Actually,
migration  is  a  new  field  of  action  for  the  Community  cooperation  and  development
programmes. Since Tampere, the European Commission has begun to integrate several issues
directly  related  to  legal  and  illegal  migration  in  its  long-term  co-operation  policy  and
programmes. Substantial direct and indirect Community assistance  has been  programmed to
provide support to third countries in their efforts to address legal and illegal migration issues.
The annexes of this communication shows an inventory of programmes and activities related
to  migration  at  regional  and  national  levels  (a  detailed  description  of  these  programmes  is
provided  in  the  national  or  regional  indicative  programmes  attached  to  the  Country  or
Regional Strategy papers). Some of these programmes – those specifically dedicated to border
management, fight against illegal migration, migration management – will contribute directly
to  strengthen  third  countries  capacity  to  manage  migration  flows.  Most  of  the  programmes
concerned  should  be  implemented  during  the  period  2002-2004.  Certain  are  already  in  the
launching phase. Without entering in a description of activities on a country by country basis,
the main regional orientations can be summarised as followed:

In the Mediterranean region, in the newly adopted framework for a Justice and Home Affairs
regional  programme  in  MEDA,  the  Commission  addresses  the  general  issues  of  combating
organised  crime,  including  criminal  networks  involved  in  smuggling  of  migrants  and
trafficking  in  human  being.  In  particular,  the  Commission  examines  the  feasibility  of  joint
police inquiry teams among Mediterranean partners and, if possible, between Member States
and Mediterranean countries. Migration is given special attention in this regional programme
and  the  Commission  is  committed  to  creating  the  basis  for  a  comprehensive  approach  to
migration  with  the  Mediterranean  countries.  The  ongoing  consultations  with  Mediterranean
partners on the implementation of this regional programme are very constructive and actions
contributing  to  the  fight  against  illegal  immigration  are  now  envisaged.  They  cover  in
particular  police  and  judicial  training  and  the  establishment  of  a  Euromed  network  of  data
collection  and  pluridiciplinary  research  on  migratory  phenomena.  Moreover,  in  the
framework of the various MEDA regional programmes, the Commission will examine how to
introduce new  actions  relating  to  the  fight  against  illegal  migration.  One  aspect  could  be  to
look  at  the  feasibility  of  a  network  between  the  southern  Mediterranean  ports,  in  order  to,
among  others,  facilitate  the  exchange  of  information  concerning  suspect  boats  and  illegal
migration.  Finally,  transit  migration  from  Sub-Saharan  Africa  also  merits  attention.  The
Commission  will  analyse  the  main  causes  for  this  migration  to  better  understand  the  forces
behind this phenomenon and see how it could be addressed.

In  the  Western  Balkans,  the  CARDS  Regional  program  focuses  on  supporting  the
participation  of  Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Croatia,  the  Federal  Republic  of
Yugoslavia  and  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  in  the  Stabilisation  and

18

Association process (SAP) which is the cornerstone of the EU’s policy in the region. The aim
is to foster regional co-operation inter alia in the field of Justice and Home affairs. Being a
neighbouring  region  of  the  EU  and  one  with  porous  borders  and  weak  infrastructures,  the
support to regional co-operation on migration  issues  is of particular importance. Support  on
border  control  will  emphasise  equipment  and  infrastructure  and  will  be  complemented  by
institution building, technical assistance and twinning-type arrangements. Particular emphasis
will  be  placed  on  control  on  borders  with  Romania,  at  international  airports  and  on  sea
approaches  and  harbors  but  also  on  control  at  major  border  crossing  points,  on  the
development of appropriate state border services, on strengthening police and other agencies’
capacity  nationally  and  regionally  to  tackle  crime  and  illegal  migration,  on  coordination
between  border  control  authorities,  national  police  authorities  and  customs  agencies,  on
sharing  of  information  and  joint  investigations.  International  coordination  will  be  enhanced
both at the preventive level (eg. exchanges of information) and at the reactive level (eg. joint
investigations against smuggling or repatriation of illegal immigrants).

In Eastern Europe and  Central  Asia,  the  current  TACIS  Regional  Justice  and  Home  Affairs
Programme is focusing on three key areas: first, the development of a comprehensive border
management, migration and asylum system in order to combat smuggling in illegal migrants
and  to  reduce  illegal  migration  flows  (concrete  actions  include  provision  of  border  control
equipment  and  training  of  border  guards  as  well  as  strengthening  the  capacity  of  partner
countries  to  administer  legal  migration  and  asylum  matters);  second,  combating  drug
trafficking through the creation of a “filter system” between Afghanistan and the geographical
areas along the “silk route”; third, the establishment of effective anti-corruption measures in
the partner states aiming at adopting efficient legislation and developing suitable practices in
the public service and in civil society for a sustained fight against corruption. This dimension
will  likely  have  an  impact  on  illegal  migration  as  well.  In  addition  to  this,  the  New  Tacis
Regional  Programme  for  Central  Asia  will  include  co-operation  on  migration  and  related
issues,  in  particular  improvement  of  border  management  capacities  ;  construction  of  border
crossings in the three-border region of the Ferghana valley, in order to promote cross-border
trade  and  smooth  movement  of  people  and  goods;  promotion  of  cross-border  co-operation
among  the  relevant  law  enforcement  services  and  border  and  customs  guards  in  the  region;
continuation  of  anti-drug  measures;  introduction  of  anti-money  laundering  regimes  in
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

If the programmed activities directly related to migration are particularly important for these
three regions  bordering  the  future  enlarged Europe,  the  issue  of  migration  is  also  becoming
increasingly important in the discussion and cooperation with other regions even if it remains
at an earlier stage.

In Asia, in the framework of ASEM, a dialogue on migration has already started and is now
well  on  track.  It  has  lead  to  the  ASEM  Ministerial  Conference  on  Co-operation  for  the
Management  of  Migratory  Flows in April  2002, which  resulted in  a political declaration  on
migratory  flows  (the  "Lanzarote  Declaration").  Furthermore,  it  has  been  agreed  that  further
co-operation  will  follow,  with  joint  initiatives  to  be  proposed  by  the  interested  ASEM
partners.  To  that  end,  they  further  agreed  to  establish  a  network  of  contact  points,  when
appropriate,  for  co-ordination  and  preparation  of  meetings  at  expert  level  between  partners
and  future  ASEM  meetings  at  Director-General  level  of  Immigration  services  on  illegal
migration flows as well as on the detection of false, counterfeit and falsified documents. The
first meeting of this kind could take place before the end of the year.

In Latin America,  on the basis of the political declaration  of  the  EU-Latin  America  and  the
Caribbean  Summit  held  in  Madrid  in  May  2002,  in  which  the  States  of  the  two  regions

19

commit  themselves  "To  carry  out  an  integrated  analysis  of  the  different  issues  of  migration
between our regions…", the Commission has started to explore ways to develop a dialogue on
migration between the two regions.

With reference to the ACP countries, the Cotonou Agreement, signed in June 2000 and soon
to  be  entered  into  force,  contains  specific  provisions  on  co-operation  on  migration  and  in
particular to prevent and combat illegal immigration (Article 13). Migration shall be subject
of in-depth dialogue in the context  of the ACP-EU partnership and the  ACP-EC Council of
Ministers shall ‘examine issues arising from illegal immigration with a view to establishing,
where appropriate, the means for a prevention policy’. The Cotonou Agreement also contains
a  standard  readmission  clause,  as  well  as  the  commitment  to  negotiate  readmission
agreements,  if  requested  by  one  of  the  Parties.  Within  the  legally  binding  arrangements  of
Cotonou it is therefore fully legitimate to put the issue of illegal migration or problems in the
area  of  readmission  on  the  Political  Dialogue  agenda  of  either  the  entire  ACP  group  or
concerned individual ACP countries (Article 8).

Complementary with these regional approaches to co-operation in the migration field, various
co-operation  programmes  directly  related  to  migration  have  also  been  developed  at  the
country  level,  notably  with  Morocco,  the  Balkan  countries,  the  New  Independent  States,
China, etc.

7.

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION

Humanitarian  assistance  is  neither  sufficient  nor  adequate  to  address  all  needs  arising  from
protracted crises such as protracted refugee situations and so, cannot of itself, ensure durable
and  sustainable  solutions.  Within  the  context  of  this  Communication  the  important  link
between  relief,  rehabilitation  and  development  (LRRD)  merits  special  attention.  In  April
2001, the Commission published a Communication on this subject to ensure in particular that
emergency assistance is designed in such a way that when that assistance is phased out, other
instruments are phased in to assist with the long term development objectives.

Community  actions  under  Regulation  2130/2001  on  operations  to  aid  uprooted  people  in
Asian and Latin American developing countries are an example of an instrument which aims
at  linking  humanitarian  activities  and  development  co-operation.  It  has  done  so  by
establishing  the  experience  and  pre-institutional  mechanisms  on  which  future  development
can be based. For other geographical regions, these actions in support of uprooted people are
directly funded under other general financial instruments such as the European Development
Fund (EDF) and MEDA22.

Efforts  to  resettle  refugees  or  support  returning  refugees  in  post-conflict  situations  require
close  cooperation  between  neighbouring  states.  In  conflict  areas,  where  deep  divisions,
collective  social  mistrust  and  trauma  may  remain  high,  premature  return  of  refugees  can
generate new tensions, conflict or violence. Timing and coordination are therefore crucial. In
the context of support to uprooted people several programmes are already being implemented
or  prepared  (e.g.  in  CARDS  context).  The  Community  shall  continue  to  support  initiatives
such as programmes to facilitate the settlement within the host country of refugees who do not
want to return to their home country, and to reduce the social and political pressures that such
semi-permanent settlement will produce (example: return of non-Albanian displaced persons

22

Against  this  background  the  Commission  is  in  favour  of  integrating  actions  financed  under  this  Regulation
2130/2001 into the broader ALA programme.

20

                                                
in Former Republic of Yugoslavia) and programmes to facilitate cross-border return in a post
conflict situation. Cooperation must be supported by the international community, especially
as  regards  flow  of  information  and  agreeing  common  approaches  on  citizenship,  pensions,
social insurance, health and education.

8.

THE LONGER TERM; ADDRESSING THE PUSH FACTORS

The Commission considers that the Community’s development cooperation policy contributes
to the effectiveness of the EU migration policy and its objective of managing migration flows.
The  Community's  development  policy  addresses  the  push  factors  that  constitute  part  of  the
root  causes  of  migratory  flows,  and  is  aimed  at  reducing  the  timespan  of  the  ‘migration
hump’. The Community development policy also tries to prevent and reduce forced migration,
both South-North and South-South, and helps developing countries coping with refugee flows
and  internally  displaced  persons.  Against  this  background  it  appears  that  the  poverty  focus
and  the  current  priority  areas  of  the  EC  development  cooperation  policy  should  be
maintained.

The  European  Council  has  endorsed  this  approach  when  it  confirmed,  at  its  meeting  in
Seville, that ‘an integrated, comprehensive and balanced approach to tackle the root causes
of  illegal  immigration  must  remain  the  European  Union's  constant  long-term  objective’.  In
this  context  the  Council  pointed  out  that  ‘closer  economic  cooperation,  trade  expansion,
development  assistance  and  conflict  prevention  are  all  means  of  promoting  economic
prosperity  in  the  countries  concerned  and  thereby  reducing  the  underlying  causes  of
migration flows’23.

In  November  2000  Council  and  Commission  adopted  a  policy  statement  on  Community
Development  Policy.  One  of  its  objectives  was  to  concentrate  Community  development
cooperation on a limited number of priority areas. The overall framework of the development
policy  is  by  now  well  established  and  should  not  be  overturned  by  new  priority  areas.  The
European  Community’s  Development  identifies  six  priority  sectors  of  development  policy,
with  an  overall  focus  on  poverty  reduction24.  Furthermore,  the  Council  and  Commission
Statement  identified  three  ‘horizontal’,  or  ‘cross-cutting’  concerns  (gender,  environment,
human rights).

To  maximise  the  potential  positive  effects  of  migration  on  development,  and  to  reduce  the
negative  ones,  migration  issues  ought  to  be  part  and  parcel  of  Community  development
policy, including poverty reduction strategies. To ensure coherence between the Community
development  and  migration  policy  it  is  necessary  to  assess  systematically  the  relationship
between  migration  issues  and  the  priority  sectors  and  cross-cutting  concerns  of  EU
development policy, and to identify actions where appropriate. In this context some pertinent
development policy areas to be considered for further action are the following:

Trade and Development

Providing and securing jobs in developing countries is the most effective way to address the
number  one  push  factor  of  international  migration:  unemployment  and  lack  of  economic
prospects. To contribute to the objectives of the Community migration policy the Community
should  therefore  continue  to  promote  the  improvement  of  effective  market  access  of

23

24

Conclusions of the European Council, Seville, 21 and 22 June 2002
COM(2000) 212 final, 26 April 2000

21

                                                
developing  countries’ products into  the  EU  and  other  industrialised  countries  as  well  as  the
integration of developing countries in the world trading system, in line with the goals set out
by  the  Doha  Development  Agenda.  Furthermore,  the  Community  shall  continue  to  promote
the  enhancement  of  south-south  trade,  the  promotion  of  foreign  direct  investments  into
developing  countries  and  the  promotion  of  core  labour  standards.  Existing  policies  in  these
fields  contribute  to  reaching  the  objectives  of  the  Community  migration  policy  and  should
therefore – where possible – be strengthened.

Compared  to  the  progress  already  made  on  the  liberalising  of  goods  and  capital  flows,
international discussions on the free movement of people are still in a very early stage. The
European  Community  should  stimulate  further  debate  and  reflection  on  this  subject,  also
within the context of relevant international organisations such as WTO, ILO and World Bank.

Conflict prevention, regional integration and co-operation

As EU history has taught, regional integration and cooperation is the best recipe against war
and violent conflict. Likewise, the promotion of regional integration in developing countries
is  a  structural  contribution  to  avoid  refugee-producing  conflicts.  Ongoing  activities  and
programmes  in  the  area  of  regional  integration  and  conflict  prevention  will  continue  and
where  appropriate  reinforced,  notably  the  support  to  regional  organisations  with  a  clear
conflict prevention mandate.

EC  support  to  conflict  prevention  focused  activities  at  regional  level  shall  be  strengthened
(e.g. reconciliation activities, support to Demobilisation, Disarmament and Reintegration and
Rehabilitation  of  combatants  (DDRR)  programmes,  peace  networks,  shared  management  of
scarce  natural  resources).  The  EC  shall  also  continue  to  assist  Border  Region  Cooperation
programmes  aiming  at  promoting  regional  reconciliation  and  easing  border  region  tensions,
e.g. through infrastructure projects that directly benefit productive sector activity and the local
business environment, civil society and NGO activities.

Institutional capacity building and good governance

Ill-functioning democratic structures, weak institutions, the absence of the rule of law and bad
governance  are  all  major  push  factors  for  forced  migration.  The  Community  development
policy  addresses  these  challenges  and  will  continue  to  do  so,  also  in  the  context  of  the
prevention of refugee flows. Relevant actions include institutional and constitutional reforms;
supporting dialogue between state and opposition groups; reform of the electoral system and
elections;  strengthening  party  system,  media,  civil  society;  mediation  between  conflicting
groups;  measures  to  strengthen  and  guarantee  human  and  minority  rights;  anti-corruption
measures, and reform of police, judiciary, civil service

Food security and sustainable rural development

Hunger is a major push factor for migration. In recent history many  notorious mass refugee
flows  were  caused  by  droughts  and  failed  harvests.  Hence,  development  policies  that
contribute  to  food  security  and  access  to  food  and  drinking  water  will  limit  ‘survival’
migration by poor people.

In  a  wider  context,  development  policy  aimed  at  sustainable  rural  development,  providing
sufficient  jobs  and  satisfactory  income  to  rural  people  will  reduce  the  number  of  people
moving  from  the  rural  areas  to  the  cities.  It  is  in  that  urban  context  where  international
migration usually starts.

22

The  link  between  migration  and  rural  development  becomes  particularly  relevant  in  the
context of South-South migration, when refugees with rural backgrounds take up agricultural
activities  in  their  host  country.  In  this  context  EC  development  policy  should  assist  host
developing  countries  with  the  voluntary  resettlement  and  integration  of  refugees  in  the
process of rural development.

SECTION C – POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

9.

POLICY DIALOGUE AND MIGRATION CLAUSE

Within  the  context  of  its  current  and  future  Association  or  Co-operation  Agreements  the
European Union will systematically put the migration-development nexus on the agenda of its
political dialogue  as  well as introduce migration issues in its economic and  social  dialogue.
Such a dialogue should not limit itself to the question of how to address illegal migration and
readmission but could also cover issues such as:

(cid:1)  The  root  causes  of  migration  and  the  possibilities  to  address  these  in  a  comprehensive

manner;

(cid:1)  Community legal migration policy and the management of migration by the third country
concerned,  as  well  as –  where  appropriate  -  the  policies  for  preventing  illegal  migration,
notably as regards smuggling and trafficking in human beings, and the facilitation of return
and readmission of illegal migrants.

(cid:1)  The  better  integration  of  legal  migrants  living  and  working  in  the  EU,  with  a  special
emphasis  on  the  equal  treatment  of  legally  employed  foreign  workers  and  the  policies
which  aim  at  non-discrimination  of  third  country  nationals;  special  attention  should  be
given to the fight against racism and xenophobia and to education and training including
the  vocational  integration  of  students  in  their  countries  of  origin;  ways  of  regulating
demand and supply of low skilled labour, e.g. through temporary working permits, in view
of a radical reduction of the pull factor for illegal migration into the EU;

(cid:1)  The  question  of  how  to  facilitate  ‘brain  circulation’  and  how  to  assist  migrants  legally
residing in the EU who wish to contribute to the development process of their country of
origin.

The European Council of Tampere underlined that partnership with the countries of origin and
transit will be a key element in the external policies of the EU in the area of migration. The
European Council of Seville of June 2002 urged that ‘any future cooperation, association or
equivalent agreement which the European Union or the European Community concludes with
any  country  should  include  a  clause  on  joint  management  of  migration  flows  and  on
compulsory readmission in the event of illegal immigration.’25

Like other recent Partnership and Cooperation Agreements, the Cotonou Agreement between
EU  and  ACP  states  contains  specific  provisions  on  co-operation  on  migration,  including  in
respect  of  preventing  and  combating  illegal  immigration.  Taking  account  of  the  Council
conclusions  on  intensified  cooperation  on  the  management  of  migration  flows  with  third

25

Conclusions of the European Council, Seville, 21 and 22 June 2002

23

                                                
countries  adopted  in  November  2002,  the  Commission  considers  that  Article  13  of  the
Cotonou Agreement provides a comprehensive and balanced agenda for action, which could
serve as a model for migration clauses to be negotiated in future agreements with other third
countries. However, the Commission considers that this model should remain flexible enough
to be adapted according to the negotiating circumstances and the particularities of each case.

10.

SKILLED LABOUR

The Community development cooperation policy is often handicapped by the negative effects
of  the  ‘brain  drain’.  A  fundamental  approach  to  this  phenomenon  is  to  try  to  increase  the
number of financially attractive local job opportunities. In this context the following strategies
could be considered:

(cid:1)  Promotion  of  outsourcing  arrangements  between  developed  to  developing  countries,
notably  in  the  IT  and  RTD  sectors  Such  schemes  would  generate  global  ‘teleworking’
where  high-skilled  (and  relatively  well-paid)  people  in  developing  countries  would  sell
their  services  to  companies  in  developed  countries.  Outsourcing  arrangements  may  also
involve short term postings in the EU, and Member States may wish to consider reviewing
visa-restrictions in order to facilitate this.

(cid:1)  Promotion – within the context of the political dialogue – of labour policies by developing
countries which aim  to  attract  and  reintegrate  skilled  migrants  currently  working  abroad.
Such  policies  shall  include  the  provision  of  favourable  working  conditions,  but  also
practical  arrangements  such  as  the  recognition  of  education  and  experience  obtained
abroad.

(cid:1)  Facilitation  of  ‘virtual  return’  of  migrants  that  intend  to  contribute  to  the  economic  and
social development of his or her country of origin, without permanently returning to it. In
this  context  one  area  of  attention  could  be  the  strengthening  of  communication  facilities
between  trans-national  communities  and  their  country  or  region  of  origin  (e.g.  by
facilitating  ‘tele-lectures’  by  academics  in  diaspora  for  local  universities,  in  local
languages).

The African health sector – struggling hard to overcome the AIDS pandemic - seems to be the
major  victim  of  the  brain  drain  process.  In  Zambia  three  quarters  of  doctors  with  Zambian
nationality  left  the  country,  in  just  a  few  years.  Nigeria  saw  21.000  medical  doctors
emigrating  to  industrialised  countries.  Nigerian  and  South  African  nurses  are  recruited  in
considerable numbers for jobs in the EU, where salaries are up to ten times higher.

(cid:1)  In  view  of  the  particularly  dramatic  health  situation  in  these  countries,  the  EU  could
explore the feasibility of introducing  a  code  of  conduct for  public medical institutions  to
refrain from active recruitment of medical staff in sub-Saharan Africa and other developing
countries facing domestic staff shortages.

Today some 100.000 Africans work in the EU and North America.26 At the same time about
100.000 non-African experts live and work in sub-Saharan Africa, most of them in relation to
development  assistance  and  humanitarian  aid.  These  non-African  economic  migrants,
including many medical staff, occupy positions that are usually not open to qualified Africans
under the same favourable conditions.

26

IOM, World Migration Report, 2000

24

                                                
(cid:1)  In this context the Community could offer jobs currently taken by expatriate staff – notably
in the development cooperation sector – to local people under financial conditions that are
sufficiently attractive to provide an alternative for emigration. To facilitate this mechanism
modalities  of  technical  assistance  to  developing  countries  shall  be  reformed,  in
coordination with UNDP.

11.

READMISSION AGREEMENTS

The  Community  signed  a  readmission  agreement  with  Hong  Kong  on  27  November  2002.
Agreements with Sri Lanka and Macao have been initialled in May 2002 and October 2002
respectively. In addition to this, and following the Commission recommendations, the Council
has  adopted  Decisions  authorising  the  Commission  to  negotiate  readmission  agreements
between the European Community and Russia (2000), Pakistan (2000), Morocco (2000) and
Ukraine (2002). Preliminary contacts with these countries have been made to prepare for the
formal negotiations.

Following  the  Council  conclusions  of  29  April  2002  and  the  Sevilla  conclusions,  the
Commission  presented  to  the  Council,  in  October  2002,  recommendations  for  four  Council
Decisions  authorising  the  Commission  to  negotiate  readmission  agreements  between  the
European Community and Albania, Algeria, China, and Turkey.

Moreover, on behalf of the Community and if and when requested by it the Commission will
start  negotiations  for  new  readmission  agreements  with  ACP  countries,  on  the  basis  of  and
after  ratification  of  the  Cotonou  Agreement.  Article  13  of  the  Cotonou  Agreement  already
includes  the  explicit  commitment  for  each  of  the  ACP  States  to  “accept  the  return  and
readmission of any of its nationals who are illegally present in the territory of a Member State
of  the  European  Union,  at  that  Member  State’s  request  and  without  further  formalities”.
However,  as  one  of  the  main  problems  with  illegal  residents  is  the  lack  of  identification
documents and the corresponding difficulty in establishing his/her nationality, it would often
be appropriate to extend that obligation to cover also third country nationals. Possible future
Readmission Agreements with ACP countries could address this point and would furthermore
focus on practical  and  administrative  arrangements  and other modalities of  readmission  and
return.  These  agreements  shall  be  negotiated  in  the  broader  context  of  implementation  of
Article 13, including its development elements and other aspects of particular importance for
ACP countries – on which the Commission will present further proposals at a later stage, in
conjunction with the upcoming Communication on the integration of legal migrants into the
EU.

Experience so far has taught that the time needed to negotiate a readmission agreement, which
is seen as being in the sole interest of the Community, should not be underestimated and no
quick  results  should  be  expected.  They  can  only  succeed  if  they  are  part  of  a  broader  co-
operation  agenda,  which  takes  duly  into  account  the  problems  encountered  by  partner
countries  to  effectively  address  migration  issues.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  Commission
considers that the issue of “leverage” – i.e. providing incentives to obtain the co-operation of
third  countries  in  the  negotiation  and  conclusion  of  readmission  agreements  with  the
European Community – should be envisaged on a country by country basis, in the context of
the global policy, cooperation and programming dialogues with the third countries concerned.

In  that  context,  the  Commission  could  envisage,  where  appropriate,  to  provide  a  specific
support  for  the  preparation  and  implementation  of  the  readmission  agreements  by  third
countries, aiming at increasing technical and financial assistance with a view to encouraging

25

better  management  of  migration  flows.  This  specific  support  would  be  financed  from  the
budget  line  B7-667,  endowed  with  appropriate  additional  resources,  taking  into  account  the
complementarity of this budget line with other funding and overall EU budgetary constraints.
The  programming  of  this  line  must  also  be  coherent  with  the  overall  development  strategy
towards  the  country  concerned  and  be  implemented  in  conformity  with  the  standing
principles,  procedures  and  modalities  of  the  Community’s  external  assistance  programmes.
Moreover, it must be underlined that  such  support measures  shall be developed jointly with
the Member States based on a division of labour and a sensible burden sharing.

In certain cases, this specific accompanying support may not be sufficiently attractive. Indeed,
the  readmission  agreements  can  have  important  consequences  for  the  third  countries
concerned. As transit countries, they can be confronted with considerable  charges, of both a
technical and financial nature, since they will have to deal with the repatriation of the persons
concerned. Even the reintegration of its own  nationals can  generate  for  a  country  additional
constraints for its labour market or for its programmes of government aid.

In those cases, and in the context of the global policy, cooperation and programming with the
third countries concerned, the European Community and the Member States, should be ready
to consider supplementary types of incentives. At Community level, the margin of manoeuvre
for these incentives is however limited.

Indeed, incentives based on granting better market access or tariff preferences to co-operating
third countries should only be considered to the extent that they are fully WTO compatible..
Similarly, if the available funds remain constant, additional development aid for the countries
with  which  the  Community  wishes  to  negotiate  readmission  agreements  would  result  in  a
reduction  of  the  aid  granted  to  other  third  countries,  penalising  those  which  do  not  pose  a
significant  problem  as  regards  migration.  Compensatory  measures  in  the  field  of  migration
policy  such  as  a  more  generous  visa  policy  with  respect  to  the  co-operating  countries  or
increased  quotas  for  migrant  workers  seem  equally  difficult  to  negotiate  at  the  level  of  the
Community, not least since it would suppose substantial co-operation and co-ordination from
and between the Member States.

Since Article 13 of the Cotonou Agreement already provides for clear legal obligations for the
Parties to that Agreement as regards the readmission of own nationals illegally present on the
territory of another Party and  as regards the  conclusion of bilateral readmission agreements,
the Commission considers that such supplementary financial incentives are not necessary and
therefore shall not apply to those countries.

Again, the Commission considers that a balanced approach requires the possible solutions to
be examined on a case by case basis, taking into account not only the importance of the third
country  concerned  in  terms  of  emigration  flows  towards  the  European  Union  but  also  the
specific situation of this third country and the state of its relations  and cooperation with the
Community and the Member States.

12.

STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMMES; THE MID TERM REVIEW.

In the multi-annual  planning,  programming  and  implementation  of  the  actions mentioned in
chapters 6, 7 and 8, the question of whether and in what form migration should receive special
attention  has  been  addressed  on  a  case  by  case  basis  in  the  framework  of  the  Country  and
Regional  Strategy  Papers  process,  to  which  the  Member  States  have  been  fully  associated.
Incorporating  migration  in  the  Country  and  Regional  Strategy  Papers  through  the  normal

26

programming dialogue process has ensured full involvement and commitment by the country
or region concerned as well as differentiation and prioritisation according to needs and policy
situation. The  Commission has also  sought  full  co-ordination  and  complementarity  between
actions undertaken by the Community and EU Member States.

Along the same procedures, the Commission has already pointed out its willingness to use the
opportunity of the Country Strategy Papers mid-term review (which should begin in 2003) to
examine the extent to which greater priority should be given to specific programmes relating
to  migration,  on  a  country  by  country  basis  and  in  the  framework  of  the  programming
dialogue. This could lead to a readjustment of the external actions of the Community to give
greater weight to migration policy and related issues.

However, the Commission has to stress that the review of the Country and Regional Strategy
Papers must always be guided by the overall objectives of the Community cooperation, which
will not have changed. Moreover, in determining the scope of the review, one has to keep in
mind  that  multi-annual  programmes  are  designed  to  give  the  partner  country  –  and  the
Community – a long-term commitment to development, with a limited leeway of flexibility.

In addition, migration is not the only concern which should be considered on the occasion of
this review of our co-operation with third countries. The way to respond to other significant
changes or new departures in Community policies – for instance in the trade area after Doha,
in  sustainable  development  after  Johannesburg,  or  on  crime  and  terrorism  –  must  also  be
examined. And it goes without saying that in the context of the limited Community resources
available, the Commission will  have to make a decision as to  which issues  should  be  given
greater priority and which lesser as regards the allocation of these resources. The Country and
Regional  Strategy  Papers  process  is  precisely  the  place  where  this  allocation  has  to  be
decided, because it is there that, with the participation of all the actors concerned, a balanced
and coherent Community strategy towards third countries can be built up.

13.

FURTHER MEASURES AS REGARDS INSTITUTION BUILDING

The Community support foreseen in the section above for the preparation and implementation
of the readmission agreements by third countries, based on the resources available to budget
line B7-667, would build on existing experience  regarding institution building and technical
assistance, and would give more emphasis notably to:

(cid:1)  Improving  national  legislation  and  management  of  legal  migration  and  asylum,  with  full

respect to the international conventions in this area.

(cid:1)  Making national legislation more effective to prevent and combat illegal emigration, and to

strengthen the fight against criminal activities, organised crime and corruption.

(cid:1)  Institution building and technical assistance to strengthen developing countries’ capacities

to combat the trafficking and smuggling of human beings.

(cid:1)  Capacity  building  in  the  field  of  customs  and  law  enforcement,  including  providing
equipment  when  necessary,  but  with  all  the  necessary  safeguards  in  particular  regarding
potential dual-use.

The conception and the implementation of the measures foreseen will be based on principles
that  will  guarantee  an  harmonious  articulation  of  the  actions  financed  from  that  instrument

27

with the action financed from other Community development and cooperation instruments, so
that the overall coherence of the Community external action is preserved.

28

II.

REPORT  ON  THE  EFFECTIVENESS  OF  FINANCIAL  RESOURCES
AVAILABLE  AT  COMMUNITY  LEVEL  FOR  REPATRIATION  OF
IMMIGRANTS AND REJECTED ASYLUM SEEKERS, FOR MANAGEMENT
OF  EXTERNAL  BORDERS  AND  FOR  ASYLUM  AND  MIGRATION
PROJECTS IN THIRD COUNTRIES

29

1.

INTRODUCTION

At its  meeting  in Seville on 21 and  22  June  2002,  the  European  Council  requested
the  Commission  to  submit  "a  report  ...  on  the  effectiveness  of  financial  resources
available  at  Community  level  for  repatriation  of  immigrants  and  rejected  asylum
seekers, for management of  external borders and for asylum and migration projects
in third countries" (Presidency Conclusions, paragraph 38).

This  communication  is  the  response  to  that  request,  providing  a  survey  of  existing
instruments  that  directly  or  indirectly  correspond  to  the  areas  identified  by  the
Council.  But,  the  Commission  considers  that  the  scope  of  this  examination  can
usefully  be  extended  to  cover  not  only  financial  instruments  at  present  applied  but
instruments  currently  contemplated  under  the  common  policies  on  asylum  and
immigration.  Incidentally  the  reference  in  the  Conclusions  of  the  Seville  European
Council  to  "financial  resources  available  at  Community  level"  does  not  provide  a
basis  for  departing  from  the  rules  applicable  to  all  expenditure  based  on  the
Community budget (the need for a legal basis, compliance with the subsidiarity and
proportionality  principles,  compliance  with  the  financial  perspective,  multiannual
programming and ex post and ex ante appraisals).

This  report  is  based  on  the  results  of  implementing  the  instruments  currently
available. But, the evaluation of the outcomes and impact of legislative and financial
programmes and actions is a long-term process, whereas most of the initiatives in the
fields  in  question  are  relatively  recent  and  many  of  the  programmes  and  projects
assisted have not yet been implemented or are still under way.

In accordance with the strategy defined by the Commission regarding the evaluation
and assessment of the impact of its policies,27 such programmes and actions are to be
evaluated  at  regular  intervals,  preferably  by  external  consultants.  Accordingly,  this
document is not to be treated as a final appraisal.

Even so, prior experience can provide certain indications. In addition, in the case of
many actions, 2003 and 2004 will be decisive  years for the approach to be adopted
both  to  programmes  in  motion  or  in  preparation  and  to  the  application  of  new
instruments  and  the  response  to  new  policy  priorities.  Hence  the  need  also  for  a
forward study of the optimum, consistent and coordinated use of financial resources
in  the  Community's  internal  and  external  policies,  in  conjunction  with  the
instruments and policies applied by Member States.

This report is also an opportunity for reflection on the longer-term challenges facing
the Community and the Member States. The Commission therefore feels it must look
ahead  and  define  approaches  to  future  Community  requirements,  particularly
regarding  financial  resources  to  cover  the  response  to  the  requests  made  by  the
Tampere, Laeken and Seville European Councils.

27

In  particular,  the  Commission  Communication  of  26  July  2000,  "Focus  on  results:  strengthening
evaluation of Commission activities" (SEC(2000)1051).

30

                                                
Those  processes  must  naturally  comply  strictly  with  the  applicable  financial  rules,
the  financial  perspective  agreed  between  the  Community  institutions  and  the
principles of reasonableness and effectiveness in the use of the Community budget.

2.

CONTEXT OF THE COMMUNITY'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT

The use of resources from the Community budget to implement or support policies
within the scope of the powers of the Community or the European Union is governed
by the Treaties. The principles that must be complied with in such use of resources
include the subsidiarity and complementarity principles.

2.1.

Requirement  that  Community  action  must  comply  with  the  subsidiarity  and
proportionality principles

Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community provides that "in areas
which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action,
in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and insofar as the objectives
of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can
therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved
by  the  Community".  This  principle  is  no  less  applicable  where  an  action  is  to  be
funded  in  whole  or  in  part  from  the  Community  budget,  in  accordance  with  the
Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

Under those principles, all proposals for Community legislation, including proposals
concerning the financing of actions from the Community budget, must:

-  relate  to  a  matter  that  has  transnational  aspects  which  cannot  be  satisfactorily
regulated by action by Member States;

-  concern  an  area  or  actions  where  action  by  Member States  alone  or  lack  of
Community action would be contrary to the Treaty or would otherwise significantly
damage Member States' interests;

- establish that action at Community level would produce clear benefits by reason of
its scale or effects compared with action at the level of the Member States.

2.2.

Management  of  Community  expenditure  —  compliance  with  the  financial
perspective and multiannual programming

The development of financial instruments and proposals for new initiatives must take
place within the framework of financial perspectives defined by the Interinstitutional
Agreement of 6 May 1999.28 There is relatively little room for manoeuvre regarding
internal  policies  (Heading  3),  including  measures  linked  to  the  establishment  of  a
European area of freedom, security and justice, and external action (Heading 4).

All  major  developments  in  the  use  of  those  resources  must  comply  with  the
prescribed  limits  and,  if  appropriate,  be  dealt  with  through  arbitrations  and

28

Interinstitutional  Agreement  of  6 May 1999  between  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the
Commission  on  budgetary  discipline  and  improvement  of  the  budgetary  procedure  (OJ C 172,
18.6.1999, p. 1).

31

                                                
reallocations  between  the  Union's  policy  priorities.  The  Commission,  as  part  of  its
planned  annual  policy,  may  of  course  decide  to  stress  one  or  other  policy  priority,
which  will  be  reflected  in  the  preliminary  draft  budget,  but  responsibility  for  the
allocation of resources ultimately lies with the budgetary authority.

3.

INTERNAL INSTRUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION POLICY AND
THE MANAGEMENT OF EXTERNAL FRONTIERS

All financial instruments in those areas are covered by the legal bases established by
agreement  between  the  institutions  and  the  budgetary  authority,  including  the
Council.  They  were  initially  developed  as  pilot  projects  or  preparatory  actions  but
have now been established by Council decision as multiannual programmes.

3.1.

Development  of  Community  financial  resources  allocated  to  asylum  and
immigration policy and management of external frontiers

The resources appropriated to Title B5-8 (Area of  freedom,  security  and  justice) of
the Community budget for asylum, migration and management of  external frontiers
have  been  significantly  increased  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Treaty  of
Amsterdam, rising from €29 559 694 in 1998 to €51 310 000 in 2002. The European
Refugee  Fund  (ERF)  alone  receives  43%  of  the  Title B5-8  appropriations.  But  the
appropriations  for  Community  policy  on  asylum,  immigration  and  management  of
external frontiers account for scarcely 0.83% of expenditure for Community internal
policies in 2002.

3.2.

Financial  instruments  to  implement  or  support  the  Tampere  and  Laeken
strategies

As the common policy on immigration and asylum has developed, several financial
instruments  have  been  developed  to  cover  two  main  types  of  assistance:  the
reinforcement of administrative cooperation and "measures ... promoting a balance of
effort  between  Member States  in  receiving  and  bearing  the  consequences  of
receiving refugees and displaced persons".29

3.2.1.

Instruments strengthening administrative cooperation

The  objective  of  the  cooperation  programmes  is  to  complement  the  legislative
provisions for the area of freedom, security and justice and thereby improve mutual
understanding  between  the  competent  national  services  and  their  procedures  for
applying  the  Community  legislation  in  order  to  develop  a  common  administrative
culture and uniform practice for applying Community law in the Member States.

The  initial  bases  for  those  actions  were  not  specifically  founded  on  the  areas
identified by the Seville European Council but laid by the Sherlock pilot programme
(1996-2000)  for  training,  exchange  and  cooperation  in  the  field  of  identity
documents,  particularly  the  detection  of  false  documents.  In  1998  the  activities  of
that  programme  were  integrated  into  the  Odysseus  programme.  Odysseus,  with  a
budget of €12 million for 1998-2002, was in fact terminated at the end of 2001 with
all  appropriations  exhausted  by  then.  The  programme  made  it  possible  for

29

Article 63(2)(b) of the EC Treaty.

32

                                                
to  a 

155 cooperation projects to  be financed, involving  mainly  national  civil  services  or
lesser  degree,  non-governmental
international  organisations  but  also, 
organisations and educational or research institutions. Those projects, which focused
on  training  and  placements  for  administrators,  exchanges  of  officials  or  other  staff
with duties in the relevant fields, and research and study activities, gave a breakdown
almost equal to the three areas covered by the programme: asylum (28% of projects),
immigration  (28%),  crossing  of  external  borders  (23%)  and  multi-issue  projects
(21%).  In  the  last  two  financial  years  (2000-01),  an  attempt  was  made  to  identify
synergies  between  projects  supported  from  Odysseus  and  new  Community
initiatives,  such  as  cooperation  with  third  countries  concerning  migration,  the
participation of candidate countries enjoying priority.

A new stage was reached with the adoption of the Argo programme, which was to be
for five years with a financial reference amount of  €25 million. 30 Odysseus laid the
bases  for  administrative  cooperation,  and  Argo  now  forms  a  decisive  step  in  the
establishment  of  operational  cooperation  by  supporting  the  implementation  of
specific joint projects involving the pooling of resources and the possibility of setting
up  joint  operational  centres  and  teams  composed  of  staff  drawn  from  two  or  more
Member States.  It  also  establishes  procedures  for  linking  the  internal  and  external
dimensions  of  Member States'  policies,  making  it  possible  to  assist  Member States'
activities in third countries, in particular in countries of origin and transit. Lastly, the
Argo rules allow flexibility and immediate reaction in emergencies.

Immediately after the adoption of the decision establishing the Argo programme, the
Commission  initiated  studies  (feasibility  study  on  controls  of  maritime  borders,
feasibility study on technical and financial aspects of a visa information system) and
issued a call for tenders under the programme. The first projects presented under the
programme  were  received  by  the  Commission  in  October 2002  and  are  being
evaluated. It will be possible to initiate them from the end of 2002.

3.2.2.

European Refugee Fund (2000-04)

In  terms  of  financial  volume,  the  European  Refugee  Fund  is  currently  the  biggest
programme under the common asylum and immigration policies.

3.2.2.1 Results  of  preparatory  action  (1997-99)  and  principles  governing  the  European

Refugee Fund.

The Fund is based on the experience gained in preparatory action between 1997 and
1999 under budget lines B3-4113 (aid for the integration of refugees), B7-6008 (aid
for  the  voluntary  repatriation  of  refugees)  and  B5-803  (aid  for  the  reception  and
residence  of  refugees  and  displaced  persons,  access  to  asylum  procedures).  Over
these three years, 370 projects received support totalling over €80 million, including
€14.3  million  released  to  help  Member  Stat es  cope  with  the  massive  influx  of
displaced  persons  from  Kosovo.  Over  the  period  1997-99,  24%  of  the  funds  were
allocated  for  reception  conditions  (36.7%  counting  the  additional  appropriations
granted  for  Kosovo  in  1999),  37.8%  (31.1%)  for  integration  measures  and  38%
(31.3%) for aid for voluntary repatriation.

30

Council  Decision 2002/463/EC  of  13 June 2002  adopting  an  action  programme  for  administrative
cooperation  in  the  fields  of  external  borders,  visas,  asylum  and  immigration  (ARGO  programme)
(OJ L 161, 19.6.2002, p. 11).

33

                                                
The  measures  funded  relating  to  reception  served  mostly  to  boost  and  improve  the
capacity and quality of structures for receiving asylum applicants and refugees in the
Member  States,  in  particular  those  most  vulnerable  (women  and  unaccompanied
minors) and to develop assistance for access to asylum procedures.

The  integration  measures  funded  covered  advice  work  and  capacity-building,
particularly in the fields of vocational training and access to employment, education
and  integration  into  the  local  community  in  the  host  country,  health,  and  access  to
housing.

60%  of  projects  supported  under  the  preparatory  action  on  aid  for  voluntary
repatriation  were  earmarked  for  the  return  of  refugees  or  persons  from  Bosnia
enjoying subsidiary or temporary protection.

On the basis of Article 63(2)(b) of EC Treaty, the European Refugee  Fund (budget
line  B5-810)  was  set  up  by  Council  Decision  of  28  September  2000  to  cover  the
period  2000-04  and  given  an  indicative  budget  of  €216 million  over  five  years  (of
which €50 million was held in reserve for possible emergency measures). 31 The Fund
translates  into  operational  and  financial  terms  the  principle  of  solidarity  between
Member States in implementing a common policy on asylum. It operates on the basis
of  shared  management  with  the  Member  States,  with  the  latter  directly  responsible
for administering 95% of its resources.

The Fund covers measures relating to the reception, integration and return (including
reintegration 
their  home  country)  of  refugees,  asylum  applicants  and
beneficiaries  of  subsidiary  or  temporary  protection  arrangements  in  a  Member
State.32

into 

The  Fund's  activities  are  supplemented  by  some  of  the  measures  contained  in  the
Community Initiative Programme EQUAL (thematic field 9), which are designed to
facilitate access to the employment market for asylum applicants, with due regard for
national  rules  governing  the  working  environment  and  laying  down  the  rights  of
access of asylum applicants to employment. A total of 46 projects have already been
approved for 2001 and 2002.

3.2.2.2. Evaluation of the Fund's implementation 2000-02

The Commission is planning an independent evaluation of measures taken under the
Fund  during  2000,  2001  and  2002,  which  will  be  available  in  the  course  of  2003.
Given  that  the  Council  Decision  was  adopted  in  September  2000,  the  financing
programmes for 2000 and 2001 were adopted simultaneously at the end of 2000 and
run on to the end of 2002. To obtain relevant information on the results of these two
years,  the  Commission  has  therefore  decided  to  have  an  independent  evaluation
carried out on a complete cycle of activities, which cannot be done until early 2003.
However, the  present  report may provide an initial  review  of  the  first  two  years  of

31

32

Council Decision of 28 September 2000 establishing a European Refugee Fund (OJ L 252, 6.10.2000,
p.12).
The  Fund  is  connected  in  particular  with  the  implementation  of  Council  Directive  2001/55/EC  of
20 July 2001 on  minimum standards for giving temporary protection  in  the  event  of  a  mass  influx  of
displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving
such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p.12).

34

                                                
the  programme's  implementation,  according  to  the  terms  defined  in  the  Council
Decision setting up the programme (mid-term implementation review).

Accordingly, a number of points can be identified at this stage,  although  they  must
not be allowed to prejudice the results of the independent evaluation to be carried out
in 2003:

to 

regard 

the  detailed  arrangements 

-  With 
for  burden-sharing  between
Member States, the calculation mechanisms provided for in Article 10 of the Council
Decision have allowed the resources available under the Refugee Fund to be shared
out  according  to  the  burden  faced  by  the  Member  States.  Moreover,  among  the
parameters laid down in the Council Decision for calculating the annual allocations
to  Member  States,  the  fixed  amounts  provided  for  in  Article  10(1)  have  served  to
restore the balance in the relative burdens borne by each Member State. Finally, the
budgetary authority has increased the financial allocation for this line compared with
the detailed estimates in the Commission's initial proposal, so that more resources are
available for each of the Member States participating in the Fund.

-  However,  certain  limits  are  placed  on  the  principle  of  solidarity  and  the  detailed
arrangements  for  sharing  resources  among  Member  States  in  that  the  annual
calculations are based on changes in the number of persons enjoying or applying for
the status of refugee or a subsidiary or temporary form of protection. This means that
no  account  is  taken  of  structural  differences  between  the  Member  States,  and  in
particular  the  need  for  investment  relating  to  reception,  integration  or  voluntary
repatriation.  So,  in  practice  a  number  of  Member  States  have  failed  to  use  up  in
projects  the  full  allocations  assigned  to  them  in  accordance  with  the  criteria  laid
down in Article 10 of the Council Decision.

- When the calculations provided for in Article 10 are carried out, on the basis of data
supplied by Eurostat and updated by the Member States, considerable discrepancies
in  statistical  methods  sometimes  emerge.  To  solve  this  practical  problem  and  to
implement the common policies on asylum and migration and assess the  needs and
impact  of  those  policies,  there  is  a  case  for  greater  harmonisation  of  methodology.
The Commission therefore plans to step up cooperation in this field.

- There has been relatively little variation in the respective share of funds allocated
by  Member  States  to  the  various  measures  between  2000  and  2002:  most  national
allocations  under  the  Refugee  Fund  go  towards  investment  in  the  conditions  for
receiving  asylum  applicants  (49.4%),  with  integration  projects  receiving  28.3%  of
funds  and  voluntary  repatriation  22.23%.  However,  between  2000  and  2002  there
was a substantial increase in the resources allocated to repatriation (from 15% of the
Fund's resources in 2000 to 24% in 2002).

- Although the  "shared management" method is essentially a way of expressing the
principle of solidarity, it nevertheless has the drawback of "isolating" to some extent
the various programmes and measures implemented at national  level. Transnational
measures  to  pool  experience  and  build  networks  may  be  encouraged  under  the
umbrella  of  Community  action,  but  the  first  three  years  of  the  programme  suggest
that this facility is rarely used by the Member States.

- Compared with the preparatory action in the period 1997-99, the first years of the
Fund's  implementation  have  been  marked  by  a  certain  rigidity  in  the  management

35

system, due among other things to the annual timeframe for allocating funds, which
restricts  the  scope  for  financing  structural  initiatives  or  those  requiring  a  relatively
long implementation period to be fully effective. In addition, the transfer to Member
States  of  administrative  responsibility  for  project  selection  and  management  has
caused  problems  for  some  national  government  departments  in  introducing  the
systems and human resources required for this new task.

3.3

Developments planned for the short and medium term

The  development  of  policy  guidelines  has  opened  up  fresh  possibilities  for  action
within the existing financial framework, in agreement with the budgetary authority.
This includes improving our information on and knowledge of migratory phenomena
and the launch of preparatory measures to  facilitate the integration of third-country
nationals legally resident in the territory of a Member State.

3.3.1.

A better insight into migratory phenomena

To implement a common policy on asylum and immigration and evaluate the results
of  that  policy,  we  need  to  have  better  information  on  migratory  phenomena  and  to
develop reliable tools and indicators on asylum and immigration.

With  this  in  mind,  one  of  our  top  priorities  is  to  improve  both  the  quality  of
information  on  asylum  and  migration,  in  particular  statistics,  and  the  methods  for
exchanging  it.  In  May  2001  the  Council  (JHA)  adopted  conclusions  on  common
analysis  and  better  exchange  of  statistics  on  asylum  and  immigration.  The
Commission  is  pressing  ahead  with  implementation  of  the  preparatory  action  on  a
"European Migration Observatory", which began in 2002 and provides for inter alia
the networking of national focal points for exchanging and following up information
relating to the political, economic, demographic and social dimensions of migratory
phenomena.  The  network  will  cooperate  with  the  European  Monitoring  Centre  on
Racism and Xenophobia.

The  Commission  will  shortly  be  presenting  the  Council  with  an  action  plan
comprising  various  types  of  measures,  including  a  proposal  for  new  statistical
methods and a widening of the field in which data is collected. These measures were
allocated a budget of €1.4 million in 2002, while  the relevant appropriations in 2003
should come to €2.6 million.

3.3.2.

Introduction of effective information systems

The  Eurodac  system  for  the  comparison  of  fingerprints,  created  to  support  the
efficient  implementation  of  the  Dublin  Convention,  was  the  first  important
information system developed at Community level in the field of Justice and Home
Affairs. An amount of €9.6 million was allocated  to the development of this system,
which will be operational on 1 January 2003.

Important resources of the Community budget will be also need to be allocated to the
development of the 2nd generation of the Schengen Information System (SIS II) and
the Visa Information System (VIS).

For  SIS  II  the  Council  already  decided  in  2001  (cf.  Council  Regulation  (EC)
2424/2001  and  Council  Decision  2001/886/JHA)  to  charge  the  necessary  financial
resources  to  the  Community  budget.  These  resources  have  been  estimated  by  the

36

Commission at €23 million. 33 In its guidelines for the VIS the Council also asked the
Commission  to  quantify  the  necessary  financial  resources  in  order  to  allocate  the
funds within the EU budgetary framework.

In  any  case  the  resources for  the implementation  of  these  two  projects  will  depend
largely  on  the  options  retained  by  the  Council  and  that  will  be  set  out  in  the  legal
basis.  This  also  includes  the  definition  of  respective  responsibilities  of  the
Community and the Member States, as well as choices regarding the management of
such systems once operational.

3.3.3

Preparatory measures relating to the integration of third-country nationals.

Although  not  specifically  singled  out  in  the  relevant  paragraph  of  the  Seville
conclusions, mention should also be made of the fact that the satisfactory integration
of  migrants,  however  defined,  into  our  societies must remain a central  plank in the
EU’s overall  strategy  regarding  immigration.  This  was  explicitly  recognised  by  the
inclusion  by  the  European  Council  in  Tampere  of  the  heading  “Fair  Treatment  of
Third  Country  nationals”  as  one  of  the  main  headings  in  its  conclusions.
Furthermore, 
the
non-governmental sector is essential to spread best practice in a field which requires
both expertise and sensitivity in dealing with other cultures.

interaction  between  Member  States, 

local  authorities  and 

There have been strenuous efforts in the past to pursue such aims. Programmes such
as  EQUAL  in  the  field  of  employment  combined  with  other  Structural  Fund
instruments,  the  Community  Action  Programme  to  Combat  Discrimination,  the
activities  of  the  European  Monitoring  Centre  against  Racism  and  Xenophobia,  the
Leonardo da Vinci vocational training programme have all contributed to this field.

The new budget line’s pilot projects as proposed in the APB 2003 (B5-815) for the
integration of third country nationals, that is economic migrants, aims at enhancing
dialogue between all the actors involved, creating European networks and promoting
awareness  of  these  issues,  with  a  budget  of  €3 million  for  its  first  year  of
implementation.

Preparatory actions under this new initiative will include:

- Exchange of information  and  best practice  with  a  view  to  identifying  transferable
models;

-  Transnational  cooperation  at  national,  regional  and  local  levels  involving
government, representatives of civil society, including migrant groups;

- Supporting reception programmes for third country migrants with special reference
to vulnerable groups;

- Information and awareness raising.

33

Communication  from the Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  -  Development  of
the Schengen Information System II (COM(2001)720 Final).

37

                                                
Strong support for this new initiative has been expressed by the Budgetary Authority,
who proposes an increase of the budget allocation to a total of €4 million in 2003.

3.3.4.

The future of the European Refugee Fund.

The current phase of the ERF will come to an end on 31 December 2004. The results
of the mid-term review and the priorities identified in the course of managing other
instruments or preparatory measures will determine the Commission's approach in its
proposal on the activities to be pursued after 2004 at Community level for refugees
and  asylum  seekers.  Two  basic  aspects  should  already  be  taken  into  account  in
deliberations on the Fund's future after 2004:

-  The  ERF  is  an  instrument  of  the  common  asylum  policy.  Its  second  phase  will
therefore have to reflect the progress and achievements of this policy since 1999 and
meet more precise objectives and priorities for action resulting, inter  alia, from  the
entry  into  force  of  Community  directives  and  regulations;  the  second  phase  might
also be  the  lever for developing  new initiatives  whereby, for  example, its  activities
might  include  resettlement  programmes,  as  referred  to  by  the  Commission  in  its
communication  of  22 November 2000  entitled  "Towards  a  common  asylum
procedure  and  a  uniform  status,  valid  throughout  the  Union,  for  persons  granted
asylum";34

- The possible development of new initiatives for the integration of immigrants and
return policies will also give rise to the question of how these instruments will fit in
with ERF measures in these areas.

Moreover,  the  emphasis  placed  on  repatriation,  in  particular  of  illegal  residents,
might be taken into account in this context. The Fund already allows Member States
to  cofinance  measures  to  repatriate  asylum  seekers  and  refugees.  These  measures
currently account for 22% of the amounts spent. As we will see below, the creation
of  a  financial  instruments  designed  to  provide  back-up  to  a  return  policy  would
necessarily have to involve a reallocation of some of the ERF's appropriations given
the reduced margin of manoeuvre in the financial perspective for internal policies.

This  matter  therefore  has  to  be  considered  taking  account  of  the  specific
characteristics  of  the  people  targeted,  the  need  for  measures  to  be  effective,  and  a
rational management of Community financial instruments. In this respect, one radical
option might be to limit the Fund's portion to the reception of refugees and displaced
persons  on  the  assumption  that  separate  integration  programmes  will  be  created
(covering all immigrant profiles, whether for the purposes of international protection
or not) and return aid. While this would probably be more logical than a redefinition
of political priorities, this option would, given the reallocation of resources it would
require,  nevertheless  result  in  a  corresponding  reduction  of  the  amount  of  finance
available  for  the  genuine  solidarity  effort  which  shaped  the  establishment  of  the
Fund.

34

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  (COM/2000/0755
final, 22.11.2000).

38

                                                
4.

EXTERNAL-POLICY INSTRUMENTS

4.1.

Contributions to preparations for the future enlarged Europe

There  have  been  strenuous  efforts  in  the  past  years  to  strengthen  migration  policy
and  border  management  in  candidate  countries.  In  the  context  of  enlargement,
migration,  asylum,  border  control  and  customs  issues  have  always  enjoyed  a
particular  attention.  Between  1997  and  2001  a  total  amount  of  €356 million  was
spent  on  various  tailor  made  projects  under  the  National  Phare  Programmes  for
10 candidate  countries.  Many  of  these  projects  consisted  of  a  twinning  component
whereby  migration  experts  from  member  states  were  seconded  for  a  period  of
minimum one year to the administration of a candidate country.

In addition to that and  in a complementary  way a  Phare Multi-Country programme
on "Migration, Visa, External Border Control Management" started in January 2001
covering  the  10  CEECs.  Denmark  was  in  charge  of  the  migration  module.  The
programme includes inter-active training of trainers; seminars in the context of each
of the modules were being implemented as from Autumn 2001. The project produced
jointly  agreed  Member  States  -  candidate  countries  recommendations  with  a
time-table in each module for candidate countries to implement.

4.2.

Partnerships with third countries of origin and transit

At  its  meeting  in  Tampere  in  October  1999,  the  European  Council  established  the
foundations  for  incorporating  asylum  and  immigration  concerns  into  the  external
dimension of Community action by stressing that an integrated,  comprehensive and
balanced  approach  targeting  the  deep-rooted  causes  of  illegal  immigration  must
remain the Union's constant objective in the long term, and that partnership with the
third countries concerned would be a key element for the success of such a policy.

To this end, the Commission, on the basis of the financial instruments at its disposal
for external activities, has planned a number of measures intended to respond directly
or indirectly to the strategy defined at Tampere.

In  view  of  the  new  powers  transferred  to  the  Community  by  the  Treaty  of
Amsterdam,  the  issue  of  immigration,  and  in  particular  the  fight  against  illegal
immigration,  has  also  been  incorporated  into  all  of  the  association  and  cooperation
agreements  signed  since  1999,  including  with  third  countries  in  the  Mediterranean
basin, and into the partnership and cooperation agreements with the new independent
states of central Europe, central Asia, the Balkans and the ACP countries. Initiatives
have been taken with some countries and regions in the context of the programming
of external aid which have contributed directly to ensuring that these new priorities
in  the  management  of  migratory  flows  are  put  into  practice.  These  are  concerned
with  the  development  of  regions  which  have  traditionally  seen  large-scale
emigration,  the  establishment  of  policies  and  infrastructures  for  welcoming  asylum
seekers, institution building (in particular with regard to police and judicial systems
and  the  improvement  of  external-border  checks),  measures  to  combat  illegal
immigration  and  trafficking  in  human  beings,  and  the  return  and  reintegration  of
refugees  and  displaced  persons.  One  example  has  been  the  programme  to  combat
illegal immigration by supporting improvements to the management of border checks
adopted  in  cooperation  with  Morocco  for  the  period  2002-04,  with  a  budget  of
€40 million.  Likewise,  more  than  €37 m illion  is  earmarked  under  the  CARDS

39

programme  to  support  measures  to  combat  illegal  immigration  and  trafficking  in
human beings and to promote institution building in the management of asylum and
migration policies in the western Balkan countries. In all, disregarding assistance for
rehabilitation or development measures designed to tackle the fundamental causes of
migration,  a  total  of  some  €440 million  has  been  earmarked,  essentially  over  the
period  2002-04,  for  measures  to  improve  the  management  of  borders  and
immigration and to promote the fight against illegal immigration.

Still  under  the  heading  of  the  Community's  external  action,  the  strategies  and
measures designed to link up emergency aid, rehabilitation and development, such as
the Community  programme  of  aid for the  return, reintegration and  rehabilitation of
uprooted people in Asia and Latin America, might also play a positive role in areas
in  which  there  has  been  a  massive  displacement  of  people.  Alongside  a  policy  of
encouraging  peace,  reconciliation  and  conflict  prevention,  these  programmes  also
promote  lasting  solutions  for  refugees  following  natural  disasters  or  armed  conflict
while limiting secondary-displacement phenomena.  For example. €48.7 million was
granted  in  2002  to  assist  in  the  reintegration  of  refugees  and  displaced  persons  in
Afghanistan.

All of these initiatives were conceived in accordance with the principles underlying
the reform of the management of external aid which has been in progress since 2000
on  the basis of  a  process of multi-annual programming  of external-aid instruments.
This process is essentially based on national or regional strategy papers defining the
priorities  for  Community  action  over  five  to  seven  years  in  agreement  with  the
countries and regions concerned. These strategy papers are used to draw up national
indicative  programmes,  which  cover  a  period  of  two  to  three  years  and  determine
how  funds  are  to  be  allocated  in  order  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  strategy  so
defined.

Another  specific  initiative  has  been  in  place  since  2001  as  a  means  of  responding
directly  to  the  approach  defined  by  the  European  Council.  This  involves  financing
from  budget  heading  B7-667  innovative  projects  relating  to  cooperation  with  third
countries in the area of migration. The aim is to promote a comprehensive approach
to  the  phenomenon  of  migration  and  to  create  the  conditions  for  an  efficient
management of migratory flows in the context of partnerships with third countries of
origin and transit. With a budget of €10 million in 2001 and €12.5 million in 2002,
which  the  budgetary  authority  intends  to  increase  to  €20 million  in  2003,  this
initiative enabled fifteen projects to be assisted in 2001, of which seven related to the
establishment  of  migration-management  policies,  five  involved  aid  for  voluntary
return  and  reintegration  policies,  and  three  set  out  to  prevent  and  combat  illegal
immigration.  It  should  be  stressed,  however,  that  the  management  of  this  budget
heading  and  the  implementation  of  these  projects  are  currently  not  covered  by  the
programming of external aid.

5.

NEW NEEDS WHICH HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED

The  Seville  European  Council  asked  the  Commission  to  evaluate  the  financial
resources  available  in  three  specific  areas:  repatriation  of  illegal  residents
(immigrants  and  rejected  asylum seekers), the management of  external  borders  and
cooperation projects with third countries in the area of immigration.

40

5.1.

A financial instrument to back up return policy ?

The Commission's Green Paper and Communication on a Community return policy
on illegal residents35 raises the possibility of creating a specific financial instrument
alongside the development of common minimum standards and provision for greater
cooperation between Member States.

The Commission draws conclusions from the voluntary return projects implemented
in  the  context  of  ERF  preparatory  measures,  in  particular  concerning  the  need  for
such  operations  to  have  an  integrated  approach  covering  not  only  advice  and
preparation  but  also  back-up  measures  involving  mechanisms  for  receiving  and
reintegrating  the  people  concerned  in  their  country  of  origin,  which  is  vital  if  their
return is to be permanent. Since it would also apply in the case of forced return, such
an  approach  could  not  be  achieved  without  a  reallocation  of  resources  currently
available under the heading of Community internal and external policies.

The  creation  of  an  instrument  of  this  nature  would  require  an  identification  and
quantification  of  the  EU's  needs  and  the  value  added  which  Community  finance
might  contribute  in  responding  to  those  needs.  The  results  of  the  EU  return
programme for Afghanistan, currently being drawn up at the initiative of the Danish
Presidency,  might  help  in  determining  what  is  actually  required  to  implement  such
measures  and  what  complementarity  should  be  sought  between  the  Member States'
action  and  any  contribution  which  the  Community  budget  might  make.  Over  and
above the question of complementarity in terms of financial resources, it is also vital
to  ensure,  using  the  existing  appropriate  mechanisms,  that  there  is  a  more
harmonious  link  between  these  specific  measures  concentrating  on  migration  and
return  and  the  specific  short,  medium  and  long-term  mechanisms,  objectives  and
programmes developed as part of the Community's external action.

The  question  of  the  means  which  might  be  available  for  a  European  return
programme must take account of the budgetary perspective up to 2006. As indicated
above,  a  reallocation  might  be  possible  after  2004  of  some  of  the  ERF's
appropriations,  bearing  in  mind  that  22%  of  the  funds  available  between  2000  and
2002 (€14 million) have been used by the Me mber States for the voluntary return of
refugees and asylum seekers.

5.2.

Sharing the burden  of managing external  borders between the Member States
and the Union

Point 32 of the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Seville calls on the
Commission to carry out, before June 2003, "a study …  concerning burden-sharing
between Member States and the Union for the management of external borders".

This request follows on from the adoption on 13 June 2002 by the Council (Justice,
home affairs and civil protection) of a plan for the management of the EU's external
borders. The plan provides for a common policy to be developed for the integrated
management of external borders and aims to establish a coherent framework for joint
action over the short and medium term.

35

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament (COM (2002) 564
final, 14.10.2002).

41

                                                
Five  components  of  such  a  common  policy,  one  of  which  is  burden-sharing,  are
identified in the plan. The different options for sharing the financial burden are to be
evaluated on the basis of many of the points made on the subject in the Commission
communication entitled "Towards integrated management of the external borders of
the Member States of the European Union".36

The plan sets out the necessary conditions for drawing on the Community budget, in
particular  that  national  budgets  must  remain  the  main  source  of  investments  and
planned spending, which will be mainly on equipment and human resources, but also
that the bases for sharing should be established at Union level and within the limits
of the Community's financial perspective.

According to the plan, a contribution from the Community budget can be envisaged
in two basic areas:

- financing purchases of joint equipment, in particular with a view to supporting joint
operations;

- setting in place a mechanism for redistributing funds between Member States.

In line with the roadmap drawn up by the Council Presidency, the Commission is to
draft the  final  evaluation report identifying the  financial options  for  burden-sharing
by June 2003. An interim report was also to be presented in mid-November 2002 and
is replaced by this communication. The aim of the interim report was to evaluate the
financial resources allocated at national level to the management of external borders
on the basis of the Member States' answers to a questionnaire approved by them and
distributed in early August 2002. By the deadline of 30 September, set in agreement
with the Member States, very few replies had been received.

The questionnaire aims to ascertain the state of play as regards national spending on
investments  and  operations  for  the  management  of  external  borders  (controls  and
surveillance of persons). It  also requests  the  Member States to provide data  on  real
migratory pressures at their national frontiers which constitute external borders. The
full  range  of  replies  should  enable  the  Commission  to  make  a  viable  comparative
assessment of national spending in order to work out an approximate figure for  the
financial  burden  incurred  by  each  Member State  in  ensuring  that  the  quality  and
effectiveness of  controls and the surveillance of persons are in  accordance  with  the
European rules. It is proving difficult to compare contributions, among other things
because  of  differences  between  the  methods  used  for  evaluating  investments  and
needs,  as  well  as  the  difficulties  encountered  by  national  administrations  in
identifying  precisely  enough  the  financial  resources  allocated  to  the  activities  of
border guards and equipment used solely for controls and the surveillance of persons.

36

Communication from the la Commission to the Council and the European Parliament (COM(2002)233
final, 7.5.2002).

42

                                                
Apart  from  national  data  on  spending  for  the  management  of  external  borders,
evaluation of the burden incurred by each Member State through managing external
borders clearly has to take into account the following objective factors:

- The geographical situation of each Member State and the nature of the borders;

- The migratory pressure at the different types of border (land, sea and airport);

-  The  number  of  checks  carried  out  on  persons  entering  and  leaving  the  Schengen
area;

- The quality standard of controls and surveillance at external borders, as measured
by the common risk analysis method applied to each type of border.

In the light of these factors, it has to be recognised that the mechanism for financial
solidarity  between  Member States  will  have  to  be  on  a  substantial  scale  if  it  is  to
tackle  structural  problems.  Its  dimension  again  raises  the  question  of  the
compatibility  of this exercise  with the current  financial  perspective, also bearing  in
mind the additional implications associated with the consequences of enlargement.37

The  Commission  is  aware  that  this  constitutes  a  fundamental  challenge  for  the
solidarity which should underpin the common policy for managing migratory flows,
and indeed any common policy. It will therefore continue looking into the budgetary
issues with a view to proposing options that are viable in the medium and long term.
It  will  be  for  the  Council  and  Parliament  to  examine  the  question  of  compatibility
with the financial perspective in order to arrive at the most appropriate solution.

It  is  therefore  in  terms  of  feasible,  practical  steps  that  targeted  financial  measures
will have to be  sought  that  can  be taken  in the short  and medium  term to  meet  the
most pressing needs resulting from implementation of the action plan adopted by the
Council  in  June,  while  giving  an  initial  demonstration  of  solidarity  between
Member States in pursuing the aim of better policing the external borders.

Within  the  limits  of  the  funds  available,  the  Commission  could,  together  with  the
Member States, systematically use the external borders part of the Argo programme
in  order  to  support  projects  on  the  basis  of  priorities  set  jointly  within  the  Council
and having due regard to the risk analysis methods currently developed, evaluation of
the  coordination  centres  set  up  by  way  of  pilot  projects  and  the  training  needs
identified through the establishment of common curricula.

Managing the Argo programme, or at least the external borders part thereof, in this
way  would  enable  support  for  closer  administrative  cooperation,  for  which  it  was
originally  devised,  to  be  reconciled  with  an  initial  expression  of  solidarity  by
redirecting the available funds towards strengthening the weakest links in the system
of  controls  at  the  Union's  external  borders.  Albeit  modest,  this  approach  should
nevertheless  be  able  to  count  on  additional  funding,  towards  which  the  budget
authority appears to be moving by earmarking an extra €3 million for the purpose in
2003.

37

The  candidate  countries  have  in  fact  already  received  large  financial  contributions  as  part  of  their
preparations for accession, and in particular for applying the Schengen acquis with regard to external
borders.

43

                                                
6.

TO SUM UP

The  first  appropriations  allocated  to  cooperation  in  the  fields  of  justice  and  home
affairs,  and  asylum  and  immigration  in  particular,  were  entered  in  the  Community
budget before the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force. Since then, they have been
steadily  and  significantly  increased:  in  2002  a  total  of  €51 310 000  has  been
earmarked for the policies on asylum, immigration and external borders. This effort
has  been  supported  both  by  the  Commission,  which  has  where  necessary
endeavoured to make the indispensable trade-offs enabling increased appropriations
to be entered in its preliminary draft budget, and by the budget authority, which has
even on occasion seen fit to go further. But this increase has always remained strictly
within the limits of the financial perspective.

The structure of the different instruments set in place has usually  reflected  the new
priorities that have been emerging under these evolving policies.

The creation of the European Refugee Fund was, for example, prompted by the need
for  stronger  solidarity  highlighted  in  the  Amsterdam  Treaty  itself  and  in  the
conclusions  of  the  European Council  meeting  in  Tampere.  The  transition  from
Odysseus  to  Argo  has  reflected  the  coming  of  age  of  a  common  administrative
culture,  enabling  a  fully-fledged  programme  of  administrative  cooperation  to  be
launched.  Lastly,  the  setting  in  place  of  a  specific  instrument  designed  to  support
cooperation  on  migration  with  third  countries  has  illustrated  the  determination  to
integrate migration-related concerns more appropriately into the external dimension
of the Community's action. Clearly, new needs are emerging. The conclusions of the
European Council  meeting  in  Seville  stressed  the  importance  the  European Union
now attaches to strengthening cooperation with third countries in the management of
migration flows. They have also put the spotlight on a new area in which Community
solidarity  should  be  brought  to  bear,  namely  controls  at  external  borders.  Other
priorities  are  coming  to  the  fore,  to  do  with  the  gradual  introduction  of  a  common
policy on return  and promoting  integration.  The Community budget,  which  already
finances  the  investment  and  operating  expenditure  on  Eurodac,  has  furthermore  to
prepare to shoulder the burden of developing large systems that will underpin these
common policies: the VIS system for visas and the second-generation SIS.

As with earlier ones, these developments will have to comply with the principles of
sound financial  management and, above all,  remain within the  limits  of  the  current
financial  perspective.  But  this  clearly  leaves  very  little  room  for  manoeuvre.
Excessively  ambitious  expectations  could  be  accommodated  only  at  the  cost  of
significant  reallocations,  to  the  detriment  of  other  policies  or  other  priorities  in  the
JHA field: these are difficult choices which ultimately have to be made by the budget
authority, on a proposal from the Commission.

The  forthcoming  revision  of  the  financial  perspective,  which  is  to  take  place  after
enlargement,  could provide an opportunity for carrying out structural  readjustments
that  would  make  it  possible  to  respond  in  a  more  practical  manner  to  the  needs
generated by the fully-fledged policies on immigration and asylum which should by
then  be  in  place.  In  the  meantime,  this  communication  indicates  a  number  of
practical  approaches  that  can  be  taken  for  giving  greater  consideration  to
migration-related  issues.  The  Commission  will  ensure  that  the  topic  ranks  high
among  the  priorities  set  by  its  annual  policy  strategy  for  2004  and  is  reflected  in

44

concrete terms in the preliminary draft budget. It will then be for the budget authority
to confirm the proposed approach.

It  will  also  be  for  the  Member States,  and  particularly  those  least  called  upon  to
protect the external borders of an enlarged Union, to indicate the way in which they
would  be  prepared  to  draw  on  their  own  national  budgets  in  order  to  support  their
partners bearing the brunt of the common burden.

45

CONCLUSIONS

Taking  greater  account  of  asylum  and  migration  policies  in  the  Community's
external relations

The  Commission  considers  migration  to  be  an  important  political  priority.  It  fully
shares the views of the Council that the European Union’s various external policies
and  instruments,  including  development  policy,  have  a  significant  contribution  to
make in addressing underlying causes of migration flows.

At its meeting in Seville in June 2002 the European Council called for the migration
issue – and in particular the problem of illegal immigration – to be assigned higher
priority  in  the  European Community's  external  policy.  Stressing  the  "importance  of
ensuring the cooperation of countries of origin and transit in joint management and in
border  control  as  well  as  on  readmission",  the  European Council  reiterated  that  the
Union  is  prepared  to  provide  technical  and  financial  assistance  to  ensure  that  such
cooperation  brings  results  in  the  short  and  medium  term,  "in  which  case  the
European Community will have to be allocated the appropriate resources, within the
limits of the financial perspective". The Community and the Commission are urged
to  use  the  political  and  economic  instruments  at  their  disposal  to  reduce  the
underlying  causes  of  migration  flows  and  support  cooperation  with  third  countries
that have a key role to play in the management of migration.

Furthermore, in its conclusions of 19 November 2002 on intensified cooperation on
the management of migration flows with third countries, the Council again stressed
the  political  importance  of  the  efforts  fully  to  integrate  the  external  dimension  of
JHA  issues  into  the  EU's  existing  and  future  relations  with  third  countries.  The
Commission intends to respond in practical terms to that commitment, along the lines
of its previous action.

The objective of stepping up cooperation with third countries in the area of migration
calls for a three-pronged strategy:

-  first,  a  balanced  overall  approach  which  addresses  the  root  causes  of  migratory
movements.  The  Community's  action  in  this  area  is  substantial.  Its  external
cooperation  and  development  programmes  and  policies  aimed  at  promoting  human
rights, bolstering democracy, combating poverty, preventing conflicts and improving
the economic and social  situation  in  general  tackle  the  main  factors  contributing  to
migratory pressures in third countries and therefore exert an indirect effect on those
pressures.  Although 
it  should  not  be
is  difficult 
underestimated;

to  quantify, 

that  effect 

- second, a partnership on migration stemming from a definition of common interests
with  third  countries.  The  objective  of  more  effectively  managing  migration  flows
requires  the  Community  to  continue  integrating  migration  issues  into  its  political
dialogue  with  third  countries  and  regions;  that  dialogue  should  focus  not  only  on
illegal immigration but also on the channels for legal immigration;

-  third,  specific  and  concrete  initiatives  to  assist  third  countries  in  increasing  their
capacity in the area of migration management. Since the European Council meeting
in  Tampere,  the  Commission  has  endeavoured  to  integrate  specifically  the  topic  of
migration  into  its  cooperation  programmes  with  third  countries.  A  large  amount  of

46

aid (some  934 meuro; see  annex 2 and 2bis) has  been programmed, mainly  for  the
period 2002-04, for directly supporting third countries in their efforts to deal with the
problems  associated  with  both  legal  and  illegal  migration.  This  programming  must
now be put into effect.

The  Commission  will  also  take  advantage  of  the  mid-term  review  of  most  of  the
country  strategy  papers  due  to  take  place  in  2003-04  in  order  to  make  the
amendments  necessary  in  each  individual  case  to  take  account  of  the  priorities
deriving from this new approach to migration issues, while bearing in mind that there
is  limited  room  for  manoeuvre  with  regard  to  the  resources  available  and  that
trade-offs will have to be made between competing priorities. The Commission will
thereby contribute to the establishment of a financial framework capable of meeting,
in  the  medium  and  long  term,  the  needs  deriving  from  the  first  two  objectives
identified above.

Lastly, progress  in  the  third  area  could  be  enhanced  by  significantly  increasing  the
appropriations  allocated  to  budget  heading  B7-667.  Drawing  the  necessary
conclusions  from  preparatory  work  financed  in  2001,  2002  and  2003,  the
Commission intends  to  propose  setting  up  and  implementing  from  2004  onwards  a
multiannual  programme  designed  both  to  provide  a  specific,  additional  response  to
the  needs  encountered  by  third  countries  of  origin  and  transit  in  their  efforts  more
effectively  to  manage  all  aspects  of  migration  flows,  and  in  particular  to  stimulate
third  countries'  preparations  for,  or  assist  them  in,  implementing  readmission
agreements. This specific programme will be a tangible sign of the Union's solidarity
with  those  countries  which  have  resolutely  committed  to  these  efforts.  It  will  be
implemented in line with the key principles of the reform of external aid, respecting
the  overall  consistency  of  the  Community's  external  action  and  alongside  the  other
Community instruments for cooperation and development.

Moreover, the Commission will ensure that issues in the field of migration are taken
into account in the preparation of its Annual Policy Strategy for 2004.

These elements put together constitute, in the opinion of the Commission, a credible
response of the Community's external and development policies and programmes to
the concerns now expressed regarding the issue of migration.

Finally,  it  shall  be  recalled  that  Community  resources  and  hence  its  margins  of
manoeuvre  are  not  unlimited.  Also,  implementing  the  “integrated,  comprehensive
and balanced approach” referred to in the Seville Conclusions requires coherence in
action  and  shared  responsibility  between  all  actors  concerned,  Community  and
Member States alike.

47

ANNEXES

Annex 1: 

Annex 2:

Financial  resources  available  for  policies  on  asylum,  immigration
and management of external frontiers 1998-2003 (Heading 3 of the
financial perspective)

Financial  resources  programmed  for  external  aid  2000-2006  and
linked  to  the  migration 
issue  (Heading  4  of  the  financial
perspective)

Annex 2bis: 

Actions  programmed  and  directly  linked  to  migration  question
(Heading 4 of the financial perspective)

48

FINANCIAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR POLICIES ON ASYLUM, IMMIGRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF EXTERNAL FRONTIERS 1998-2003

HEADING 3 OF THE FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE (INTERNAL POLICIES)

Annex 1

Title

Description

Budget heading

Outturn 1998

Outturn 1999

Outturn 2000

Outturn 2001

Budget 2002

PDB 2003

European Refugee Fund

Measures  to  improve  the  reception  of
refugees and displaced persons in the EU
Member  States  and 
the
voluntary  repatriation  of  persons  who
have provisionally found refuge there

facilitate 

to 

B5-810 
(1998-99:
headings  B3-4113,
B7-6008  and  B5-
803)

26 559 894

34 918 413

25 500 270

34 404 166

45 810 000

40 000 000

Eurodac

European  Migration  Monitoring
Centre

Funding  of  the  Eurodac  system  for  the
comparison of fingerprints for the effective
application of the Dublin Convention

B5-812

Preparatory  measures  for  an  action  plan
for  joint  analysis  and  improved  pooling  of
asylum and immigration statistics  and  the
establishment  of  a  "virtual"  migration
monitoring centre

B5-814

7 428 048

1 158

1 100 000

1 000 000

1 400 000

2 600 000

49

Integration  of  nationals  of
non-member countries

B5-815

for  promoting 

Preparatory  action 
the
integration  of  nationals  of  non-member
countries,  developing  dialogue  with  civil
society,  seeking  out  and  evaluating  best
practice in the integration field, developing
integration  models,  and  setting  up
networks at European level

3 000 000

exchange 

Training, 
and
cooperation programmes in the
justice  and  home
fields  of 
affairs (Odysseus, Argo)

Odysseus (1999-2001), Argo (2002-07)

B5-820

3 000 000

3 000 000

3 000 000

3 000 000

3 000 000

3 000 000

Emergency  measures  in  the
event  of  mass 
influxes  of
refugees - reserve

Reserve  in  the  event  of  mass  influxes  of
refugees (Art. 6 ERF Decision)

B5-811

29 559 894

37 918 413

35 928 318

37 405 324

51 310 000

49 600 000

0

0

0

0

10 000 000

10 000 000

29 559 894

37 918 413

35 928 318

37 405 324

61 310 000

59 600 000

50

FINANCIAL RESOURCES PROGRAMMED FOR EXTERNAL AID 2000-2006 AND LINKED TO THE MIGRATION ISSUE

ANNEX 2

HEADING 4 OF THE FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE

Community budget

EDF

Total

%

Management of migration flows

Management of borders

321 971 760

0

321 971 760

34.5%

Combating illegal immigration

65 042 256

2 720 000

67 762 256

7.25%

Management of migration flows

51 367 336

1 250 000

52 617 336

5.63%

Total management of migration flows

438 381 352

3 970 000

442 351 352

47.34%

General JHA programmes

96 500 000

0

96 500 000

10.33%

Refugees and displaced persons

42 750 000

37 688 000

80 438 000

8.61%

Link  between  relief,  rehabilitation  and
development (LRRD)

Voluntary  return  of  refugees  from
other third countries

157 018 459

36 591 000

193 609 459

20.72%

Total LRRD

199 768 459

74 279 000

274 047 459

29.33%

Development (sources of emigration)

71 569 477

50 000 000

121 569 477

13.01%

GRAND TOTAL

806 219 288

128 249 000

934 468 288

100.00%

86.3%

13.7%

100.0%

51

Annex 2 bis

Region

Country / Region

Amount

Budget line

Year(s)

Theme

Action

Description

LATIN AMERICA

Colombia

1.569.477

B7-703

2001-2002

Roots

LATIN AMERICA

Colombia

4.300.000

B7-312

2002

LRRD

LATIN AMERICA

Colombia

10.000.000

B7-312

2003

LRRD

LATIN AMERICA

Colombia

11.000.000

B7-312

2004

LRRD

LATIN AMERICA

Ecuador

1.000.000

B7-701

2001-2002

Migration Management

Refugees and
displaced population

Promoting  peace  and  reconciliation 
in
communities  at  risk  of  displacement  in
Urabá region

Refugees and
displaced population

Aid to uprooted people in Colombia.

Refugees and
displaced population

Aid 
to  displaced  people 
following up ECHO activities.

in  Colombia,

Refugees and
displaced population

Aid 
to  displaced  people 
following up ECHO activities.

in  Colombia,

Migration management Strategies  and  actions  to  protect  human
rights  of  immigrants  and  their  families  and
victims of trafficking.

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

Afghanistan

9.700.000

B7-302

2002-2005

LRRD

Voluntary return

Afghanistan

48.700.000

B7-302

2002-2005

LRRD

Voluntary return

Afghanistan

1.494.569

B7-667

2002

Migration Management

Voluntary return

Afghanistan

1.137.984

B7-667

2002

Migration Management

Voluntary return

Afghanistan

997.099

B7-667

2002

Migration Management

Voluntary return

Direct assistance to returnees and IDP's in
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.

Support 
refugees.

to  reintegration  of 

IDP's  and

IOM/HLWG-  return  of  qualified  Afghans  to
the Public sector

UNHCR  -capacity  building  and  returnees
monitoring database

IOM/HLWG-  return  of  qualified  Afghans  to
the Private sector

Bhutan

1.000.000

B7-302

2002

LRRD

Refugees and
displaced population

Protection and assistance to refugees.

52

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

China

10.000.000

B7-300

2002-2006

Migration Management

Indonesia

1.720.000

B7-302

2004

LRRD

Fighting illegal
immigration

“Combating  illegal  migration":  information
campaigns,  training  for  the  civil  service,
administrative cooperation.

Refugees and
displaced population

Primary  education  or  displaced  people  in
North Maluku.

Refugees and
displaced population

Médecins 
sans 
assistance to Afghan refugees.

Frontières: 

health

750.000

B7-302

2003

LRRD

Iran

Iran

1.250.000

B7-302

2002

LRRD

Refugees and
displaced population

UNHCR: assistance to refugees.

Pakistan

2.000.000

B7-302

2002

LRRD

Pakistan

1.000.000

B7-302

2003

LRRD

Refugees and
displaced population

UNHCR:  assistance  to  Afghan  refugees  in
camps.

Refugees and
displaced population

MRCA: medical assistance to refugees.

Pakistan

885.581

B7-667

2001

Migration Management

Voluntary return

UNHCR Protection of assistance to Afghan
that  all
in  Pakistan  ensure 
refugees 
refugees  and  asylum-seekers  are  able  to
avail  themselves  of  their  rights  and  are
treated  in  accordance  with  internationally
accepted standards - ensure that  needs  of
refugees wi

Philippines

800.000

B7-302

2002

LRRD

Philippines

1.300.000

B7-302

2003

LRRD

Sri Lanka

1.400.000

B7-302

2005

LRRD

Refugees and
displaced population

Assistance 
in
to  war  affected 
Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao provinces

families 

Refugees and
displaced population

Movimondo: integration of IDP's

Refugees and
displaced population

CARE:  assistance  to  IDP's  and  conflict
affected households.

Sri Lanka

1.950.000

B7-302

2003

LRRD

Voluntary return

Sri Lanka

829.396

B7-667

2001

Migration Management

Migration management

UNHCR: 
returnees.

assistance 

to 

IDP's 

and

ICMPD:  establishment  of  IES  field-based
country of origin information systems.

53

ASIA

ASIA

ASIA

Sri Lanka

1.219.363

B7-667

2001

Migration Management

Migration management

in  migration
IOM:  capacity  building 
management  and  preparatory  action  for
return and reintegration.

Sri Lanka

508.011

B7-667

2002

Migration Management

Migration management

IOM-Capacity 
management and sustainable return

building 

in  migration

Thailand

2.000.000

B7-302

2003

LRRD

Refugees and
displaced population

Burmese  Border  Consortium:  food  aid  to
refugee  camps 
in  Kanchanaburi  and
Ratchaburi provinces

Balkans

Albania,  Kosovo  &
FYROM

766.490

B7-667

2002

Migration Management

Migration management

BALKANS

Albania

1.500.000

B7-54

2001

Migration Management

Border management

IOM-Fostering  sustainable  reintegration  by
reinforcing local NGO capacities

Integrated  project 
for  management  of
external  borders,  emphasising  de  control
systems  to  trafficking  in  Albanian  territorial
waters.

BALKANS

Albania

1.000.000

B7-54

2001

Migration Management

Migration management Asylum  and  migration:  information  on  best
police  practice,  reinforcing  the  capacity  of
police  forces  and  the  courts  to  deal  with
migratory  flows,  improving  the  capacity  for
receiving 
illegal  migrants  and  asylum-
seekers

BALKANS

Albania

2.000.000

B7-54

2002-2004

Migration Management

Migration management Asylum  and  migration: 
to 

capacity 

the
country’s 
and
implement a common policy on asylum and
migration  complying  with 
international
standards.

reinforcing 
develop 

BALKANS

Albania

20.000.000

B7-54

2002-2004

Migration Management

Border management Establishing 

greater 

international  borders 
immigration.

to 

security 
reduce 

at
illegal

BALKANS

Albania

471.760

B7-667

2001

Migration Management

Border management

ICMPD  -  Upgrading  border  control  system
of Albania along European standards.

BALKANS

Albania

741.830

B7-667

2001

Migration Management

Migration management UNHCR  -  Development  of  the  asylum
system in Albania.

54

BALKANS

Albania

600.000

B7-667

2001

Migration Management

Migration management

IOM - Sustainable return, reintegration and
through
development 
consolidated 
for
migration management.

preparatory 

Albania 

actions 

in 

BALKANS

Balkans

752.050

B7-667

2002

Migration Management

Migration management CGI-Immigration liaison Network

BALKANS

Bosnia Herzegovina

2.000.000

B7-54

2001

Migration Management

Border management Support for construction of a border control

BALKANS

Bosnia Herzegovina

1.000.000

B7-54

2002

Migration Management

BALKANS

Bosnia Herzegovina

23.000.000

B7-54

2002-2004

Migration Management

service.

Fighting illegal
immigration

Reception center for illegal migrants.

Border management Construction  of  five  border  crossing  points
to
provide 

appropriate 

facilities 

to 
implement border control.

BALKANS

Bosnia Herzegovina

45.500.000

B7-54

2002-2004

Migration Management

Voluntary return

Return of refugees and internally displaced
persons.  Housing,  demining,  employment,
social  infrastructure  and  flexible  reaction
and
for 
mechanism 
unassisted returns.

spontaneous 

BALKANS

Bosnia Herzegovina

11.500.000

B7-54

2002-2004

Migration Management

Migration management Asylum  and  migration: 
to 

capacity 

the
country’s 
and
implement a common policy on asylum and
migration  complying  with 
international
standards.

reinforcing 
develop 

BALKANS

Bosnia Herzegovina

22.500.000

B7-55

2002-2004

JHA

JHA

JHA  programme:  Administration  of  justice,
policing

BALKANS

Croatia

2.100.000

B7-54

2001

Migration Management

Migration management

Improvement  of  legislative  and  regulatory
framework, 
enhance
institutional/administrative capacity, training
to asylum and migration staff.

BALKANS

Croatia

14.500.000

B7-54

2001-2002

Migration Management

Border management Enhance  border  management  and  secure
borders,  capacity  building  for  individual
agencies, 
co-
operation.

inter-agency 

enhance 

BALKANS

Croatia

23.000.000

B7-54

2002-2004

Migration Management

Border management

Integrated 

border 

management

55

BALKANS

Croatia

42.000.000

B7-54

2002-2004

Migration Management

Voluntary return

programme.

Return  of  refugees  and  IDP's;  demining,
to  basic  public  and  business
support 
infrastructure, 
local
government.

strengthening 

of 

BALKANS

Croatia

20.000.000

B7-54

2002-2004

JHA

JHA

JHA programme : Administration of justice,
policing and fight against organised crime

BALKANS

FYROM

5.000.000

B7-54

2001

Migration Management

Border management

Integrated  programme  for  management  of
external borders.

BALKANS

FYROM

2.000.000

B7-54

2002

Migration Management

Migration management Asylum  and  migration: 
to 

capacity 

the
country’s 
and
implement a common policy on asylum and
international
migration  complying  with 
standards.

reinforcing 
develop 

BALKANS

FYROM

20.000.000

B7-54

2002-2004

Migration Management

Border management

Integrated 
programme.

border 

management

BALKANS

FYROM

13.700.000

B7-54

2001

Migration Management

BALKANS

Regional

1.500.000

B7-54

2001

Migration Management

Migration management Part  of  the  "CARDS  Additional  Assistance
Package" 2001 programme was devoted to
supporting 
receiving  displaced
persons  and  reforming  the  police,  and
other  JHA  initiatives,  and  reconstruction  of
housing and local infrastructure.

families 

Border management Regional  JHA  programme  to  evaluate  the
institutional  and  administrative  base  the
capacity of countries in the region to  apply
border controls, including migration, asylum
and  visa  policy  questions;  combating
organised  crime 
in  human
beings,  drugs,  economic  crime);  fighting
fraud and corruption.

(trafficking 

BALKANS

Regional

13.000.000

B7-54

2002-2004

JHA

JHA

Regional  JHA  programme  to  evaluate  the
institutional  and  administrative  base  the
capacity of countries in the region to  apply
border controls, including migration, asylum
and  visa  policy  questions;  combating
organised  crime 
in  human
beings,  drugs,  economic  crime);  fighting

(trafficking 

56

fraud and corruption.

BALKANS

Regional

1.000.000

B7-54

2002

Migration Management

Voluntary return

BALKANS

Federal Republic of

35.000.000

B7-54

2002-2004

JHA

JHA

Yugoslavia

BALKANS

Federal Republic of

31.000.000

B7-54

2002-2004

Migration Management

Border management

return 

assessing
Regional 
different  property  laws  and  implementation
realities and harmonisation of legislation.

initiatives 

Part of the JHA programme will be devoted
to  reforming  and  reconstructing  the  police
and  judicial  system,  including  the  fight  a
against  trafficking  in  human  beings  and
illegal 
the
asylum system

immigration  and  developing 

Integrated 
programme.

border 

management

Yugoslavia

BALKANS/
ACP/MEDITERRAN
EAN

Albania,  Morocco  and
Nigeria

CENTRAL ASIA

New Tacis Regional
Programme for Central
Asia

1.096.061

B7-667

2002

Migration Management

Voluntary return

ALNIMA-Return of vulnerable groups

17.000.000

B7-520

2002-2004

Migration Management

Border management Support  for  improving  the  management  of
(Kazakhstan,
border 
Kyrghyszstan, 
Tajikistan,  Uzbekistan,
Turkmenistan)  and  the  fight  against  drug
trafficking.

controls 

MEDITERRANEAN

Iraq

130.384

B7-667

2001

Migration Management

Voluntary return

IOM:  elaboration  of  an  action  plan  to
increase  sustainability  of 
to
northern  Irak  through  training  and  income
generation activities.

returns 

MEDITERRANEAN

Iraq

596.800

B7-667

2002

Migration Management

Migration management UNHCR-building  up  of  migration  and

MEDITERRANEAN

Morocco

70.000.000

B7-410

2002-2004

Roots

Development

asylum system

Support 
for  economic  development  of
regions  with  high  emigration  such  as
Province du Nord, support for reintegration.

MEDITERRANEAN

Morocco

5.000.000

B7-410

2002-2004

Migration Management

Migration management Organisation  of 

legal  emigration  via

57

MEDITERRANEAN

Morocco

40.000.000

B7-410

2002-2004

Migration Management

MEDITERRANEAN

Morocco

376.276

B7-667

2001

Migration Management

MEDITERRANEAN

Morocco

1.500.000

B7-667

2001

Migration Management

creation of a migration centre.

Fighting illegal
immigration

Fight  against 
immigration  by
illegal 
supporting improvement of management of
border controls.

Fighting illegal
immigration

CGED-DPG  (Spain):  technical  equipment
and  training  for  border  control,  fighting
illegal immigration and detection of falsified
documents.

Migration management AFD(France):  development  of  the  country
of  origin  by  Moroccans  residing  in  France
and  through  rural  tourism  and  the  creation
of SME.

MEDITERRANEAN

Morocco

450.241

B7-667

2001

Migration Management

Migration management

(Netherlands): 

Int  Ent 
to
entrepreneurs  of  Moroccan  origin  residing
in  Europe  in  setting  up  economic  activities
in Morocco.

support 

MEDITERRANEAN

Morocco

665.980

B7-667

2001

Migration Management

Fighting illegal
immigration

French  MoI/National  police:  financial  and
technical  assistance  for  combating  illegal
migration.

MEDITERRANEAN

Morocco

1.055.315

B7-667

2002

Migration Management

Migration management

IOM-socio  economic  development  of
migration prone areas

MEDITERRANEAN

Morocco

889.316

B7-667

2002

Migration Management

Migration management COOPI-  il  migrante  Moroccochino  in  Italia

come agente di sviluppo Cooperazione

MEDITERRANEAN

Régional

6.000.000

B7-410

2002-

JHA

JHA

MEDITERRANEAN

Regional

347.870

B7-667

2001

Migration Management

Migration management

58

Regional  JHA  programme 
to  combat
organised  crime,  including  trafficking  in
human  beings,  administrative  cooperation,
training  for  judges  and  police  (creation  of
Euromed  network 
training,
training  in  international  police  cooperation,
etc.),  creation  of  permanent  system  for
data, observation and analysis of migratory
phenomena between Euromed countries.

judicial 

for 

establishment 

inter-
ICMPD: 
governmental  dialogue  on  migration  in  the
Mediterranean region.

of 

ACP COUNTRIES

Africa

1.300.000

EDF

2000-2003

Migration Management

Voluntary return

Awareness  and  training  of  staff  and  social
workers 
return  and
integration  of  children  who  are  victims  of
trafficking.

to  promote 

the 

ACP COUNTRIES

Angola

2.000.000

EDF

2002-2003

LRRD

ACP COUNTRIES

Angola

30.000.000

EDF

2002-2003

LRRD

ACP COUNTRIES

Benin

2.720.000

EDF

2001-2005

Migration Management

ACP COUNTRIES

Djibouti

2.000.000

EDF

2002

LRRD

Refugees and
displaced population

Decision  continuing  support  to  IDP's  in
newly-accessible areas.

Refugees and
displaced population

Emergency  support  to  the  peace  process,
all targeting IDP's and returnees.

Fighting illegal
immigration

Actions  to  combat  transnational  trafficking
in children.

Refugees and
displaced population

Aid to IDP's. Support to the implementation
of the peace agreement.

ACP COUNTRIES

Eritrea

15.000.000

EDF

2003

LRRD

Voluntary return

ACP COUNTRIES

Eritrea

2.175.000

EDF

2002

Migration Management

Voluntary return

ACP COUNTRIES

Eritrea

6.250.000

EDF

2002

Migration Management

Voluntary return

Rehabilitation  of  social  an  economic
infrastructure in war-affected regions.

Programme  aimed  at  facilitating  the  return
and  re-integration  of  refugees  from  Sudan
and at resettling IDP's in Gash Barka.

Assistance  for  the  social  and  economic
reintegration  of  Eritrean  returnees  to  the
Gash Barka region.

ACP COUNTRIES

Eritrea

750.000

ACP COUNTRIES

Ethiopia

6.500.000

EDF

EDF

2002

Migration Management

Voluntary return

Assistance to war displaced and returnees.

2002

Migration Management

Voluntary return

Reintegration  of  Ethiopian  displaced  from
Eritrea following the Ethio-Eritrean conflict.

ACP COUNTRIES

Liberia

488.000

EDF

2002

LRRD

Refugees and
displaced population

Humanitarian 
for 
displaced populations in Liberia.

services 

recently

ACP COUNTRIES

Regional (Gabon, Togo,
Benin,

Nigeria)

1.300.000

B7-6120

2000-2003

Migration Management

Voluntary return

59

children, 

Information  and  awareness  of  public
opinion and families regarding the situation
of 
of
associations  working  for  the  integration  of
trafficking.
children  who  are  victims  of 
Training  for  social  workers  supporting  the
return of children

reinforcement 

and 

ACP COUNTRIES

Dominican Republic

1.250.000

EDF

2003-2005

Migration Management

Migration management Development 

of
migration  policy  (management  of  Haitian
immigration).

and  management 

ACP COUNTRIES

Rwanda

616.000

EDF

1997-2001

Migration Management

Voluntary return

Return of students.

ACP COUNTRIES

Somalia

592.960

B7-667

2002

Migration Management

Voluntary return

ACP COUNTRIES

Somalia

533.821

B7-667

2001

Migration Management

Voluntary return

ACP COUNTRIES

Somalia

50.000.000

EDF

2002-2007

Roots

Development

ACP COUNTRIES

Sudan

4.230.000

B7-20

2001

LRRD

Refugees and
displaced population

Danish  Refugee  Council-community  based
repatriation assistance programme

RADA  BARNET  -  SAVE  THE  CHILDREN
integration  and
DENMARK  :  Model  of 
voluntary return

General  rehabilitation  and  reconstruction
programme.

Help  the IDP's to  recover  self-reliance  and
social  coherence  through  the  financing  of
actions in food security, income generation
and  education.  The  target  groups  are  part
of the 53000 Dinka displaced from Bahr El
Ghazal and settled in camps in South Darf

ACP COUNTRIES

Tanzania

4.000.000

EDF

2002

Migration Management

Voluntary return

ACP COUNTRIES

Uganda

1.200.000

EDF

2002-2003

LRRD

ACP COUNTRIES

Zambia

2.000.000

EDF

2002

LRRD

Refugees and
displaced population

Refugees and
displaced population

ACP
COUNTRIES/MEDIT
ERRANEAN

Maghreb 
Africa

and  West

1.500.000

B7-667

2002

Migration Management

Migration management

Support 
refugees 
Preparation of repatriation in Burundi.

in  Tanzania 

to 

-

Assistance to IDP's in Northern Uganda.

Assistance 
communities in refugee-affected areas.

refugees 

and 

to 

local

ILO-Proposal  on  management  of  Labour
Migration 
for
an 
Development

instrument 

as 

SOUTHERN
CAUCASUS

Georgia

1.000.000

CFSP

2000

Migration Management

Border management CFSP  Assistance  to  Border  Guards  aimed
at  protecting  the  OSCE  monitors  at  the
border  between  Georgia  and  the  Chechen
Republic  of 
the  Russian  Federation
(equipment).

SOUTHERN

Georgia

1.000.000

B7-520

2002-2003

Migration Management

Border management Development  of  a  strategy  for  reform  of

60

CAUCASUS

SOUTHERN
CAUCASUS 
WESTERN  NIS 
ASIA

/
/

Caucasus/ 
Afghanistan

Russia/

1.310.654

B7-667

2002

Migration Management

Migration management

border guards, training and exchanges.

IOM-Dialogue  and 
building 
management

programme 

technical 

capacity
in  migration

WESTERN NIS

Belarus, Moldova and
Ukraine

2.000.000

B7-520

2002-2003

Migration Management

WESTERN NIS

Cross-Border Co-
operation (CBC)

117.200.000

B7-521

1996-2003

Migration Management

Fighting illegal
immigration

Combating 
human
smuggling 
beings/illegal migration through provision of
training; asylum management.

in 

Border management Support  for  improvement  of  border  control
the  Western  NIS  border
capacity  at 
crossings 
equipment,
(infrastructure, 
training  for  customs  officials  and  border
guards)  -  Russian  Federation,  Ukraine,
Belarus and Moldova.

WESTERN NIS

Moldova

1.900.000

B7-520

2001

Migration Management

Border management Development 

of 

a  modern 

border

management system.

WESTERN NIS

Russia, Belarus

4.500.000

B7-520

2001

Migration Management

Border management Training  and  equipment 

(Russia  and

WESTERN NIS

Russia, Belarus

11.000.000

B7-520

2002-2003

Migration Management

Belarus).

Fighting illegal
immigration

Combating 
human
smuggling 
beings/illegal migration through provision of
training  and  border  related  equipment
(Russia and Belarus).

in 

WESTERN NIS

Ukraine

33.500.000

B7-520

2001-2003

Migration Management

Border management

Improvement  of 
the  overall  border
management system in Ukraine with a view
facilitate  movement  of  goods  and
to 
people,  while 
local
enhancing 
the 
capacities 
illegal  activities.
Construction  and  refurbishment  of  key
border crossing points, equipment.

to  combat 

WESTERN NIS

Ukraine and Moldova

3.900.000

B7-520

2000

Migration Management

Border management Training  and  equipment 

(Ukraine  and

Moldova).

TOTAL
PROGRAMME

934.468.288

61