Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the managed entry in the EU of persons in need of international protection and the enhancement of the protection capacity of the regions of origin "improving access to durable solutions"
Date: 2004-06-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European social policy, admission of aliens, approximation of laws, international cooperation, international human rights law, private international law, refugee, right of asylum

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 4.6.2004 
COM(2004) 410 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL  
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

ON THE MANAGED ENTRY IN THE EU OF PERSONS IN NEED OF 
INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION AND THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE 
PROTECTION CAPACITY OF THE REGIONS OF ORIGIN  

“IMPROVING ACCESS TO DURABLE SOLUTIONS” 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
  
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL  
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

ON THE MANAGED ENTRY IN THE EU OF PERSONS IN NEED OF 
INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION AND THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE 
PROTECTION CAPACITY OF THE REGIONS OF ORIGIN  

“IMPROVING ACCESS TO DURABLE SOLUTIONS” 

Introduction 

1. 

2. 

3. 

This  Communication  is  the  Commission’s  response  to  Conclusion  26  of  the  19/20 
June  2003  Thessaloniki  European  Council  in  which  the  Commission  is  invited  “to 
explore all parameters in order to ensure more orderly and managed entry in the EU 
of  persons  in  need  of  international  protection  and  to  examine  ways  and  means  to 
enhance the protection capacity of regions of origin with a view to presenting to the 
Council before June 2004, a comprehensive report suggesting measures to be taken, 
including legal implications”. 

the 

report  on 

(Second  Commission 

The  Commission  Communication  “On  the  common  asylum  policy  and  the  Agenda 
implementation  of 
for  protection” 
Communication  COM(2000)  755  final  of  22  November  2000)  of  March  2003 
(the March 2003 Communication) questioned whether the Member States could not 
better deploy the major human and financial resources which they were devoting to 
receiving  asylum  seekers  in  the  context  of  often  lengthy  procedures  that  regularly 
culminated  in  negative  decisions  requiring  repatriation  after  a  long  wait.  That 
Communication noted that these factors constituted a real threat to the institution of 
asylum  and  more  generally  for  Europe’s  humanitarian  tradition  and  therefore 
demanded  a  clear  structural  response.  The  Communication  concluded  that  three 
complementary objectives should be pursued to improve the management of asylum 
in  the  context  of  an  enlarged  Europe:  improvement  of  the  quality  of  decisions 
(“frontloading”) in the European Union; consolidation of protection capacities in the 
region of origin and the treatment of protection requests as close as possible to needs 
and the regulation of safe access to the European Union for some of those in need of 
international protection. 

315 

asylum 

systems” 

(COM(2003) 

and  managed 

The  Commission’s  Communication  of  3  June  2003  “Towards  more  accessible, 
equitable 
final) 
(the  June  2003  Communication)  examined  in  more  detail  the  serious  and  structural 
deficiencies  of  the  current  international  protection  system.  It  noted  the  emerging 
serious  imbalances  in  the  EU  where  Member  States  were  spending  significant 
amounts on processing asylum claims in the EU where the majority of applicants did 
not qualify for international protection while the  majority of  refugees  including the 
most  vulnerable  groups  remained  in  poorly  resourced  circumstances  in  third 
countries  in  their  region  of  origin.  The  Communication  concluded  that  there  was 
therefore  a  clear  need  to  explore  new  avenues  to  complement  the  stage-by-stage 
approach adopted at Tampere, leading to the establishment of the first phase of the 
Common European Asylum System. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

The  June  2003  Communication  underpinned  this  new  approach  with  three  specific 
but complementary policy objectives: 1) the orderly and managed arrival of persons 
in  need  of  international  protection  in  the  EU  from  the  region  of  origin;  2)  burden- 
and  responsibility  sharing within the EU as well as  with regions of origin enabling 
them to provide effective protection as soon as possible and as closely as possible to 
the needs of persons in need of international protection, and 3) the development of an 
integrated approach to efficient and enforceable asylum decision-making and return 
procedures.  The  June  2003  Communication  envisaged 
those  objectives  as 
complementary  to  the  first  phase  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  called 
for  at  Tampere.  Hand-in-hand  with  this  Communication  the  Commission  is  also 
issuing a Communication on how the EU can further ensure speed and efficiency in 
their asylum systems by moving towards a single asylum procedure.  

The  three  objectives  identified  by  the  June  2003  Communication  are  equally 
important,  have  cross-links  and  strategically  reinforce  each  other,  and  are  together 
aimed at addressing the noted deficiencies in current asylum systems, and to restore 
and  enhance  the  public  support  for  both  the  asylum  system  and  refugee  protection 
more broadly. The June 2003 Communication suggested a graduated implementation 
of  this  new  approach;  first  taking  preparatory  actions  to  test  the  ground  for  what 
could be done followed by more concrete proposals for programmes and projects to 
be implemented including participation in UNHCR steered Comprehensive Plans of 
Action and within the context of the “Agenda for Protection” and the “Convention 
Plus”  initiatives  of  UNHCR  which  are  both  aimed  at  adapting  and  reinforcing  the 
international protection regime. 

In the Resolution of 1 April 2004 on both the March 2003 Communication and the 
June  2003  Communication,  the  European  Parliament  urged  the  EU  to  consider  and 
commit itself decisively to a new approach to international protection based, on the 
one  hand,  on  better  management  of  access  for  persons  requiring  international 
protection  within  the  territory  of  the  Member  States  and  on  the  other  on  the  firm 
establishment  of  suitable  responses  to  refugees’  protection  requirements  in  their 
regions of origin. The European Parliament also took the view that in the light of the 
shortcomings of the current asylum systems it is essential to examine new ways and 
develop a new approach to supplement them which should be realised in the context 
of a real sharing of burdens and responsibilities to guarantee better management of 
asylum flows and arrive at better managed, more accessible and just asylum systems. 
To that end the European Parliament said that a new complementary approach must 
be based on the managed arrival of persons in need of international protection  into 
the  EU  from  their  region  of  origin  by  means  of  a  Community-wide  resettlement 
scheme involving the transfer of refugees from an initial country of reception to the 
EU  for  which  purpose  there  should  be  devised  a  legislative  instrument  and  the 
inclusion of a specific financial chapter in the new European Refugee Fund. 

The recent fall in the numbers of asylum applications in Europe does not lessen the 
significance of addressing the two objectives set at Thessaloniki. A reduction in the 
numbers of asylum seekers in the EU does not necessarily mean an overall reduction 
of the  numbers of refugees and  persons seeking international protection at a global 
level and it is clear that there remain many regions and countries in the world where 
human  rights  violations  and  consequent  displacement  cause  protracted  refugee 
situations, with still some 85% of these persons being hosted by the under-resourced 
neighbouring  countries  in  regions  of  origin.  Asylum  statistics  also  continue  to 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
8. 

9. 

indicate  that  the  majority  of  applications  in  the  EU  do  not  meet  the  criteria  for 
international  protection.  According  to  the  statistics  presented  by  Member  States  in 
connection with the European Refugee Fund there were 78,633 positive decisions for 
360,541 applications in 2000 (21%); 73,746 for 345,332 in 2001 (21%); 52,128 for 
308,787  in  2002  (17%);  and  from  8  countries  in  2003  (12%)  25,880  for  192,225. 
These figures include both refugee status and subsidiary protection status. The need 
to  reform  the  international  protection  regime  to  make  it  more  accessible,  better 
managed and first and foremost more equitable therefore continues to be pressing. It 
is  from  that  perspective  that  this  Communication  should  to  be  read.  Indeed,  more 
orderly  and  managed  entry  and  enhanced  protection  capacity  are  not  end-goals  in 
themselves  rather  they  are  the  conditions  that  need  to  be  met  if  the  international 
protection regime is to be made to work properly. 

This  Communication  makes  recommendations  to  deliver  in  more  operational  terms 
on  the  Thessaloniki  mandate  but  such  an  ambitious  undertaking  necessarily  goes 
wider in its remit than purely immigration and asylum policy issues. The role of third 
countries  in  the  region  of  origin  is  obviously  crucial  here  too  and  their  partnership 
and sponsorship is a prerequisite if any policy addressing these movements is to be 
successful. While the return of refugees is clearly the most desirable durable solution 
for  all  concerned  and  the  wider  work  of  the  EU  must  take  action  to  address  root 
causes  and  facilitate  that  outcome,  the  options  of  local  integration  into  the  host 
country in the region and resettlement to an EU country also must be fully utilised. 
This  Communication  therefore  makes  recommendations  on  how  to  enhance 
protection  capacities  to  maximise  the  opportunities  for  all  three  options  and  also 
proposes  an  EU-wide  Resettlement  Scheme  to  more  specifically  address  the  third 
possible  durable  solution.  Such  a  Resettlement  Scheme  would  also  contribute 
towards  enhancing  protection  in  the  regions  as  by  sharing  refugee  numbers  more 
equitably the protection capacity of a third country in the region of origin could be 
enhanced in that more resources would be available to that country to protect those 
within  their  borders  who  were  not  in  need  of  resettlement.  As  such,  resettlement 
would represent a valuable part of any partnership arrangement with a third country. 
As  the  High  Commissioner  said  at  the  Forum  meeting  of  12  March  2004:  “A 
committed effort to resettle a sizeable number of refugees from States hosting large 
numbers  of  refugees  for  protracted  periods  may  lead  to  greater  ability  and 
willingness to continue to protect and find other durable solutions for those refugees 
who remain.” 

The High Commissioner also called for new agreements, as part of the Convention 
Plus initiative, to supplement the Refugee Convention and help protect refugees and 
achieve durable solutions in regions of origin. The aim is to use understandings and 
commitments  by  States  in  multilateral  agreements  that  address  specific  caseloads, 
including through comprehensive plans of action. UNHCR envisages that these new 
arrangements,  in  the  form  of  multi-lateral  “special  arrangements”  could  consist  of 
comprehensive plans of action to ensure more effective and predictable responses to 
large-scale  refugee  situations,  including  additional  development  assistance  targeted 
to achieve more equitable burden sharing and to promote the self reliance of refugees 
and  returnees  in  countries  hosting  large  numbers  of  refugees;  multilateral 
commitments  for  the  resettlement  of  refugees;  and  the  agreement  of  roles  and 
responsibilities  of  countries  of  origin,  transit  and  destination  in  irregular  secondary 
movement situations.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
10. 

11. 

Discussions  in  the  UNHCR-framed  Working  Group  on  Resettlement  have  focused 
on the strategic use of resettlement and UNHCR has drawn up a global resettlement 
strategy based on the links between the Convention Plus initiative and the strategic 
use of resettlement. In the context of the Resettlement strand of Convention Plus, a 
Multilateral  Framework  of  Understandings  on  Resettlement  has  been  drawn  up  for 
integration  in  comprehensive  “special  agreements”  to  address  specific  (often 
protracted) refugee situations. 

This Communication is set out in four chapters. Chapter I looks at the first objective 
of  Conclusion  26  of  the  Thessaloniki  European  Council,  the  need  “to  explore  all 
parameters in order to ensure more orderly and managed entry in the EU of persons 
in  need  of  international  protection”.  Chapter  II  addresses  the  second  objective  of 
Conclusion  26,  the  need  “to  examine  ways  and  means  to  enhance  the  protection 
capacity  of  regions  of  origin”.  Chapter  III  examines  how  to  operationalise  the 
Thessaloniki’s  European  Council’s  clear  call  for  an  integrated,  comprehensive, 
balanced, flexible and situation specific approach to asylum and migration issues in 
which  both  the  mechanisms  ensuring  a  more  orderly  entry  in  the  EU  of  persons  in 
need of international protection as well as the enhancement of the protection capacity 
of regions of origin play a key role. Finally, Chapter IV provides the conclusions of 
this Communication and outlines the best way forward. 

Chapter I 

First objective Conclusion 26: “to explore all parameters in order to ensure more orderly 
and managed entry in the EU of persons in need of international protection” 

EU Policy framework 

12. 

The repeatedly asked question of how to more effectively manage who enters the EU 
and  under  which  circumstances  is  a  primary  characteristic  of  our  immigration  and 
asylum  policy.  The  Thessaloniki  Council  set  the  challenge  of  how  to  ensure  more 
orderly  and  managed  entry  in  the  context  of  moving  towards  a  more  accessible, 
equitable and managed asylum system. The possibilities of processing asylum claims 
external  to  the  EU  has  long  been  a  concern  of  Member  States  as  a  means  both  of 
more quickly delivering international protection to those who most require it and as a 
method  of  ensuring  more  orderly  and  managed  entry  in  the  EU.  In  the 
Communication  of  November  2000  “Towards  a  common  asylum  procedure  and  a 
uniform  status  valid  throughout  the  Union  for  persons  granted  asylum”  the 
Commission suggested that processing requests for protection in the region of origin 
and facilitating the arrival of refugees on the territory of the Member States through a 
resettlement scheme may be methods of offering rapid access to protection without 
refugees being at the mercy of illegal immigration or smuggling gangs or having to 
wait years for recognition of their status. That Communication also stressed that this 
option  should  be  complementary  and  without  prejudice  to  the  proper  treatment  of 
individual requests for asylum expressed by spontaneous arrivals in the EU. 

13. 

To  further  explore  these  assertions  two  studies  on  options  for  processing  asylum 
claims external to the EU were commissioned by the Commission: the Study on the 
feasibility of processing asylum claims outside the EU against the background of the 
common  European  asylum  system  and  the  goal  of  a  common  asylum  procedure 
(published in March 2003), and the Study on the feasibility of setting up resettlement 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
14. 

15. 

16. 

schemes in EU Member States or at EU level against the background of the Common 
European  Asylum  System  and  the  goal  of  a  Common  Asylum  Procedure 
(published in May 2004). 

The first of these two studies focused on the possibilities afforded to Member States 
by  Protected  Entry  Procedures  (PEPs).  This  notion  is  understood  to  allow  a  non-
national  to  approach  the  potential  host  state  outside  its  territory  with  a  claim  for 
asylum or other form of international protection, and to be granted an entry permit in 
case of a positive response to that claim, be it preliminary or final. The second study 
focused on the practice of refugee resettlement where refugees are transferred from a 
first  host  country  to  a  second  country  where  they  enjoy  guarantees  of  protection, 
including residence, and prospects for integration and autonomy. The importance of 
Resettlement  practices  in  the  sharing  of  responsibility  for  managing  refugees  with 
third  countries  including  countries  of  first  asylum  was  also  highlighted  by  the 
Commission  in  both  the  March  2003  Communication  and  the  June  2003 
Communication. 

In  October  2003  the  Italian  EU  Presidency  organised  a  seminar  in  Rome  on 
delivering  on  the  first  objective  of  Thessaloniki  Conclusion  26  –  how  to  arrive  at 
more orderly and managed entry in the EU. The seminar examined both Resettlement 
and PEPs as a method of ensuring more orderly and managed entry to the EU. At the 
Seminar the Commission outlined its views on the merits of managed entry in the EU 
of persons in need of international protection. The Commission stressed that if access 
to  protection  can  be  offered,  as  quickly  as  possible  and  as  close  to  the  needs  as 
possible  of  those  concerned  and  which  facilitated  a  safe  and  legal  avenue  to 
protection in the EU, then there would be no need for those in need of protection to 
pay  traffickers  thousands  of  Euros  for  a  dangerous  and  illegal  journey  to  the  EU. 
They would then also not have to face a long period of uncertainty while their claim 
was being considered. This would also deliver a strong message to those countries in 
the  regions  of  origin  that  EU  countries  were  ready  to  take  a  share  of  the 
responsibility for those displaced within those regions. 

The  Commission  said  that  the  managed  arrival  of  persons  in  need  of  international 
protection would also constitute an efficient tool in combating sentiments of racism 
and xenophobia, as the public support for those positively screened outside the EU 
and then resettled in the EU is likely to be increased. This is significantly different to 
the  current  situation  where  a  majority  of  the  persons  applying  for  asylum  are  not 
found to require any form of international protection. The lack of clarity in terms of 
public perception of this group threatens the credibility of the institution of asylum. 
The example of the humanitarian evacuation from Kosovo can be used to illustrate 
the impact. Although protection needs were different, and the situation was different, 
the reception of those displaced persons by the different countries of the EU and their 
public contrasts sharply with the uncertain and often hostile reception faced by many 
who  arrive  in  the  EU  today  as  applicants  for  asylum  in  irregular  and  difficult 
circumstances. The reasons for this difference are clear – the public had confidence 
then that those who were evacuated were clearly in need of protection, whilst no such 
certainty exists at the moment. 

17. 

The  Commission  stressed  at  the  Seminar  that,  in  general,  the  legal,  orderly  and 
managed entry to the EU would allow the Member States to anticipate the arrival of 
the persons determined to be in need of international protection. This advance notice 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
could  bring  a  number  of  advantages  in  terms  of  planning:  for  housing  and  the 
inevitable financial impact. The setting up of tailor made integration programmes for 
specific categories of refugees would also be much more easily devised, if a country 
knew  in  advance  who  was  arriving  on  its  territory  to  stay.  Resettling  and  allowing 
physical access to the territory of the EU of persons whose identity and history has 
been screened in advance would also be preferable from a security perspective. 

Participating  Member  States  at  the  Seminar  viewed  the  idea  of  an  EU  wide 
Resettlement Scheme, if strategically used as part of a comprehensive approach, as a 
potentially  very  useful  policy  tool  enabling  i)  comprehensive  solutions  to  refugee 
situations,  in  particular  to  those  of  a  protracted  nature,  ii)  the  creation  and 
enhancement of protection capacities of the regions of origin, and iii) an alternative 
to  irregular  secondary  movements  of  those  persons  who  cannot  find  effective 
protection in the country of first asylum, as well as the criminal activities linked to 
such movements. 

Furthermore,  the  Seminar  concluded  that  Resettlement  is  an  indispensable  and 
essential part of the international protection system, the use of which has saved many 
lives;  that  it  provides  immediate  access  to  protection,  including  in  emergency 
situations, for those persons in need of international protection outside their regions 
of  origin,  and  offers  an  immediate  access  to  durable  solutions.  Resettlement  also 
allows  for  the  identification  of  the  most  vulnerable  and  needy  cases,  contributes  to 
more orderly and managed arrivals and enable States to carry out pre-arrival security 
and  health  checks.  Furthermore  Resettlement  enables  better  planning  and 
management  of  resources  and  facilitates  the  early  integration  of  refugees. 
Importantly,  the  Seminar  concluded,  Resettlement  has  a  positive  impact  on  the 
integrity and credibility of the institution of asylum. 

With  regard  to  PEPs,  the  seminar  identified  a  number  of  advantages  such  as  the 
delivery  of  quick  and  effective  protection,  in  particular  for  those  who  may  have 
immediate and urgent protection needs, and the potential cost and time saving impact 
of  such  procedures  when  compared 
territorial  asylum  procedures.  The 
disadvantages identified related in particular to the required level of resources for a 
rapid  application  processing  as  well  as  the  difficulty  of  establishing  direct  contact 
with the asylum decision makers and the (non-) access to legal assistance. It was also 
stressed  that  any  possible  implementing  tool  should  be  characterised  by  discretion 
and flexibility. 

to 

The  Presidency  invited  the  Commission  “to  take  note  of  the  seminar  conclusions 
when drawing up its comprehensive report on ensuring a more orderly and managed 
entry  into  the  European  Union  of  persons  in  need  of  international  protection,  as 
called for in point 26 of the Thessaloniki European Council Conclusions”. This was 
noted by the November 2003 Justice and Home Affairs Council. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

Policy Measures proposed 

22. 

In  terms  of  the  three  durable  solutions  for  refugees  laid  down  by  UNHCR  in  the 
Agenda  for  Protection,  and  as  reiterated  by  the  UNHCR  Executive  Committee  in 
Conclusion 20 (i) of 2003, Resettlement assumes a lower profile than both voluntary 
repatriation, which is by far the favoured solution for most host countries, and local 
integration  (the  other  two  durable  solutions)  in  part  because  of  the  impact  on  total 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
23. 

24. 

25. 

numbers which resettlement schemes in their small scale can have. Nevertheless it is 
by definition a managed and orderly entry in the EU and could play an important if 
limited  part  in  the  EU’s  common  asylum  policy.  For  the  reasons  set  out  above  the 
Commission believes that there are good reasons for taking an EU-wide approach in 
this  area  and  for  the  setting  up  of  an  EU  Resettlement  Scheme.  The  paragraphs 
below briefly outline the various key elements of an EU Resettlement Scheme. 

Context 

A  targeted  and  comprehensive  approach  aimed  at  a  specific  caseload,  limited  but 
consistent  in  number  as  appropriate  to  the  specific  situations  in  which 
resettlement  is  deemed  necessary,  could  have  a  significant  effect  and  it  is  within 
that context that the Commission is proposing the eventual setting up of an EU-wide 
resettlement  scheme.  UNHCR  involvement  in  the  selection  and  referral  of  target 
caseloads would of course be crucial. Such a scheme would also be an indispensable 
constituent  in  a  comprehensive  approach  towards  third  countries  in  relation  to 
asylum  and  migration.  Such  a  scheme  would  deliver  in  the  short  term  on  the 
Thessaloniki mandate as by definition it would result in orderly and managed entry 
in  the  EU  and  in  combination  with  other  elements  of  a  more  comprehensive 
approach, sharpen the EU’s competitive edge in the fight against human trafficking. 

Legal framework 

There  are  several  options  as  to  what  form  a  legal  instrument  on  resettlement  may 
take.  A  general  procedural  framework  on  resettlement  could  form  the  basis  of 
individually  tailored,  situation-specific  schemes  targeted  at  particular  caseloads 
within  the  context  of  the  broader  approach  taken  by  the  Community  towards  a 
particular region or third country. This would provide a greater degree of flexibility 
than an annual programme with a set number of places to be allocated.  

Application 

The  basic  premises  of  an  EU  Resettlement  Scheme  would  strongly  emphasise  that 
resettlement  was  complementary  and  without  prejudice 
to  Member  States’ 
obligations to determine asylum claims in fair procedures and to provide protection 
in  their  territories  in  accordance  with  international  law.  The  watchwords  of  such  a 
scheme  would  be  “flexibility”  and  “situation-specific”.  This  means  that  an  EU 
resettlement  scheme  would  be  adaptable  to  the  differing  characteristics  of  global 
refugee needs, including protracted refugee protection situations in various regions, 
as  well  as  being  adaptable  to  the  ability  of  Member  States  to  resettle  certain 
caseloads  in  given  years.  Such  a  scheme  would  only  be  offered  by  the  EU  where 
appropriate  and  in  partnership  with  the  third  country,  given  the  particular 
circumstances of the targeted protracted refugee situation and/or potentially refugee-
producing  situation,  where  it  has  become  clear  that  durable  solutions  need  to  be 
found, and whether these include resettlement for part or all of a specific population 
group.  Of  course,  the  added  value  of  such  a  scheme,  both  in  terms  of  economy  of 
scale and the political weight it held within a comprehensive partnership arrangement 
with countries in the region would increase in line with the number of resettlement 
places offered. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
26. 

27. 

28. 

Scope 

Although all Member States would participate in an EU-wide Resettlement Scheme 
that participation would by its very nature be flexible. Those Member States which 
currently operate Resettlement schemes would be encouraged either to be prepared to 
reserve  a  set  number  of  places  for  use,  strategically,  within  the  scope  of  the  EU 
Resettlement  Scheme,  or  to  continue  to  operate  those  programmes  at  the  same 
time as they fully participate in the EU Scheme, contributing the wealth of their 
experience to the collective action of Member States. The scheme would only be 
applied  if  appropriate  as  part  of  a  multi-faceted  response  to  a  particular  refugee 
situation.  Those  countries  which  do  not  currently  operate  Resettlement  schemes 
would  be  encouraged  to  participate  on  an  ad  hoc  or  even  a  ‘funds  only’  basis 
(thereby  possibly  encouraging  other  Member  States 
their  hand  at 
Resettlement).  As  Resettlement  would  be  one  element  of  a  wider  Community 
response to a particular, targeted, protracted refugee situation, the part played and the 
added-value  of  Resettlement  within  that  response  would  be  a  clear  incentive  to  all 
Member States to participate. 

try 

to 

Objectives 

The  overall  motive  for  the  resettlement  into  the  EU  of  persons  in  need  of 
international  protection  flows  from  the  humanitarian  tradition  of  the  EU  and  its 
Member States to provide safety and shelter to those who flee persecution. Its main 
goals are to provide international protection and offer a durable solution in the EU to 
those who genuinely need it and to faciltate their managed arrival in the EU, and to 
express  solidarity  with  and  share  the  burden  of  countries  in  the  regions  of  origin 
faced  with  protracted  refugee  situations.  The  overall  impact  of  an  EU  resettlement 
scheme on the global international protection scheme would of course be limited by 
the  numbers  involved  but  used  strategically  it  could  deliver  durable  solutions 
otherwise unavailable in a protracted refugee situation and add value and weight to 
action taken on that situation in parallel. 

Targets 

It is likely that in a future proposal for an EU Resettlement Scheme, the Commission 
will propose the setting of targets rather than of quota or ceilings. Targets have most 
potential for success, being more flexible. In a future framework for a possible EU 
Resettlement  Scheme  a  total  annual  target for resettlement numbers could be set at 
EU level. Such a target would be initially non-binding however, and it would be up 
to Member States to establish their own resettlement targets. In the Council Directive 
on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx 
of  displaced  persons  and  on  measures  promoting  a  balance  of  effort  between 
Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof the 
concept of “double voluntariness” was introduced. Similarly, financial assistance or 
the actual physical resettlement of persons by Member States could be considered. If 
the  persons  concerned  are  willing  to  go  to  one  Member  State  rather  than  another 
Member State and the first is willing to receive them, possibly in return for financial 
assistance then this could of course contribute to the meeting of an EU level target. 
Targets  would  also  be  drawn  up  with  the  strategic  considerations  of  a  wider 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
29. 

30. 

31. 

comprehensive approach in mind. They would be caseload focused and constructed 
to address a particular problem within a protracted refugee situation. 

Criteria 

Resettlement  must  be  primarily  targeted  at  those  who  qualify  for  international 
protection according to the criteria defined and codified in the Council Directive on 
minimum  standards  for  the  qualification  and  status  of  third  country  nationals  and 
stateless  persons  as  refugees  or  as  persons  who  otherwise  need  international 
protection (the Qualification Directive). The selection of candidates for resettlement 
could be predicated on several criteria and could include the resettlement of groups 
determined to be in need of international protection and who Member States regard 
as  eligible  for  resettlement  under  the  EU  resettlement  scheme.  It  could  also  be 
envisaged that the EU takes some special responsibility for vulnerable groups of 
refugees  or  those  for  whom  there  are  integration  difficulties  in  the  third  country 
concerned  (e.g.  victims  of  torture  or  sexual  violence,  human  rights  defenders, 
members  of  specific  ethnic,  religious  or  other  groups  discriminated  against  in  the 
host  country)  but  for  whom,  by  comparison,  there  may  be  more  integration  and 
protection potential in an EU Member State. Interviews by the Immigration Services 
of EU Member States during visits to the region of origin would be an essential part 
of  the  decision  making  process  –  though  possibly  not  feasible  in  some  emergency 
cases.  These  visits  would  also  be  useful  to  enable  decision-makers  to  understand 
conditions in the region; useful for both resettlement and asylum decision-making. 

Legal implications 

There are two issues to be considered in deciding whether or not a person is suitable 
for  resettlement  under  a  possible  EU  scheme.  Do  they  qualify  for  international 
protection?  Are  they  part  of  the  target  group  deemed  suitable  for  selection?  How 
selection  criteria  are  formulated  will  be  a  matter  for  negotiation  in  any  future 
proposal but there may be legal implications to the application of such criteria. The 
question  of  how  to  deal  fairly  with  the  dissatisfaction  of  those  not  selected  for 
resettlement  and  the  rationale  for  proposing  one  durable  solution  to  one  particular 
group  of  people  but  not  to  another  when  both  groups  are  in  similar  situations  will 
also have to be carefully managed. It should also be borne in mind that selection will 
be focused on a particular target group or caseload. Selection criteria could be set as 
EU collective selection criteria or as Member State specific criteria within a broad, 
flexible,  EU-level  programme.  There  are  also  legal  consequences  attached  to 
carrying  out  determination  procedures  in  a  third  country  particularly  if  those 
determination procedures are carried out within the framework of an EU instrument.  

Operational implications 

Orientation programmes taking place pre-departure in the host country should feature 
in  an  EU  scheme  and  would  assist  in  instilling  realistic  expectations  and  preparing 
refugees  for  the  future  awaiting  them.  There  would  also  be  a  provision  for  pre-
departure  security  checks  which  could  also  facilitate  the  exclusion  from  the 
resettlement  programmes  of  those  persons  who  are  not  entitled  to  international 
protection  because  they  fall  under  the  exclusion  clauses  of  the  Qualification 
Directive.  The  transport  of  those  selected  for  resettlement  in  the  EU  could  be 
organized by IOM which has a long standing experience in this field 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
32. 

33. 

34. 

Initially  an  EU  Resettlement  Scheme  could  take  the  same  route  as  some  European 
Resettlement countries now do in which UNHCR plays a key role in preparing and 
referring  the  dossiers  to  a  resettlement  country  for  selection.  Direct  applications 
could also be allowed in some circumstances and there may be a role for NGOs in 
this process. For example, for the US Refugee Admissions Programme, field based 
contracted NGOs or IOM act as processing bodies, completing dossiers in the field 
prior  to  interview  by  the  Immigration  Service.  These  bodies  do  not  refer  cases  as 
such, but rather facilitate processing.  

EU level technical assistance to the participating Member States will also need to be 
explored.  Such  assistance  could  include  the  preparation,  referral,  and  selection  of 
resettlement  cases  and  the  assignment  of  a  particular  dossier  to  a  specific  Member 
State within an agreed cooperation framework. A planning and coordination system 
could  among  other  tasks,  determine  the  policy  goals  and  working  methods  of  a 
potential scheme within the parameters agreed and by reference to international best 
practice. It could oversee the implementation of a scheme and monitor its outcomes 
in  accordance  with  defined  indicators  as  well  as  analyzing  and  identifying  the 
refugee  situations  for  which  resettlement  would  be  an  appropriate  tool.  Within  the 
context  of  the  preparations  of  an  EU  Resettlement  Scheme  the  Commission  will 
explore the feasibility of such technical assistance and what is required to deliver it. 

Financial implications 

In terms of the financing of such an EU resettlement scheme the explicit inclusion of 
resettled  refugees  as  beneficiaries  of  the  second  phase  of  the  European  Refugee 
Fund,  as  proposed  by  the  Commission  and  submitted  to  the  Council  and  the 
European Parliament, will reinforce the collective and cooperative notion underlying 
any  such  scheme.  In  this  proposal  the  same  target  groups  as  in  the  first  phase  are 
retained, with the addition of people admitted into the EU for international protection 
reasons under resettlement schemes. Although this group was not formally excluded 
from  the  Fund  before,  there  was  no  mention  of  it,  which  led  to  confusion.  This  is 
now an issue of European concern, referred to in Commission Communications and 
recent Presidency Conclusions, and the subject of operational programmes in several 
Member States. The goal is to provide an EU level budgetary mechanism to support 
those  Member  States  which  have  or  will  have  a  resettlement  programme,  in 
particular  by  ensuring  reasonable  financial  support  for  the  resettling  of  refugees 
during  their  first  year  in  such  EU  Member  State.  Also,  the  Community  Actions 
strand  of  the  ERF,  set  up  to  finance  innovative  action  or  action  of  interest  to  the 
Community as a whole concerning asylum policy could support best practice, more 
transnational  projects,  dialogue  and  information  on  projects  results  in  the  area  of 
resettlement,  and  could  initially  finance  the  costs  involved  in  starting  up  an  EU 
Resettlement scheme. In the longer term, in connection with the second multi-annual 
programming  phase  of  the  ERF  II  (2008-2010),  a  specific  strand  on  resettlement 
could  be  created,  the  implementation  of  which  would  associate  the  European 
Parliament on an appropriate basis. 

Protected Entry Procedures (PEP) 

35. 

UNHCR is of the view that in addition to the obvious protection benefit they offer, 
such procedures can bring an element of order and predictability into the secondary 
movements of refugees, and mitigate the need to resort to unlawful means of travel, 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
including  smuggling  and  trafficking.  However,  it  became  clear  from  the  Rome 
Seminar and from Member States’ relevant legislative practice that with regard to the 
potential  of  Protected  Entry  Procedures,  there  is  not  the  same  level  of  common 
perspective  and  confidence  among  Member  States  as  exists  vis  a  vis  resettlement. 
The Commission does not therefore plan to suggest the setting up at EU level of an 
EU  Protected  Entry  Procedure  mechanism  as  a  self  standing  policy  proposal. 
However,  in  certain  circumstances,  a  protected  entry  in  the  EU  of  persons  with 
immediate and urgent protection needs could nevertheless be procedurally facilitated. 
Such  a  procedure  could  feature  as  an  “emergency  strand”  of  wider  resettlement 
action,  though  at  the  full  discretion  of  individual  Member  States  and  if  local 
circumstances  warranted  such  availability.  Such  procedures  would  obviously  have 
similar  legal  implications  to  those  described  in  the  context  of  the  EU  Resettlement 
Scheme  with  the  important  difference  that  the  refugee  status  determination  would 
take place in the EU (after a screening process). 

Chapter II 

Second  objective  Conclusion  26:“to  examine  ways  and  means  to  enhance  the  protection 
capacity of regions of origin” 

EU policy framework 

36. 

The  Commission  Communication  of  December  2002  “Integrating  migration  issues 
in  the  European  Union’s  relations  with  third  countries”  (the  December  2002 
Communication) outlined the different Community actions in favour of refugees and 
particularly  the  work  undertaken  by  the  Community  in  terms  of  humanitarian 
assistance to alleviate the plight of refugee populations. These actions also included 
Community  development  cooperation  and  economic,  financial  and  technical 
cooperation with third countries. The Communication commented that the burden on 
host developing countries of large refugee populations was often exacerbated by the 
intrinsic  limited  financial  and  institutional  capacities  of  those  countries.  Specific 
Community actions were aimed at providing the necessary funds for protection, care 
and maintenance  of  refugee  populations for as long as they were required. Projects 
funded to address refugee needs also assisted indirectly the host country in providing 
better  protection,  their  own  infrastructure  and  institutional  capacity  often  being 
inadequate to deal effectively with the demands placed upon them. A number of EC 
instruments aim at providing assistance to refugees and/or host countries, including 
Aid  to  Uprooted  People  in  Asia  and  Latin  America,  humanitarian  aid  delivered 
through  ECHO  and  Financial  and  Technical  Assistance.  However, 
the 
Communication  also  said  that  humanitarian  assistance  was  neither  sufficient  nor 
adequate to address all needs arising from protracted refugee situations and could not 
always of itself ensure durable and sustainable solutions to refugee problems. In this 
context  reference  was  made  to  the  importance  of  initiatives  linking  relief, 
rehabilitation  and  development  as  well  as  to  Community  actions  such  as  EDF, 
MEDA and CARDS. 

37. 

The  General  Affairs  and  External  Relations  Council  of  19  May  2003  noted  the 
December  2002  Communication  and  invited  the  Commission  to  ensure  that,  inter 
alia, migration related assistance in relation to third countries would be focused on 
improving national legislation and management of legal migration and asylum with 
full respect to international obligations. Account should be taken of the financial and 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
38. 

39. 

institutional capacities of many developing countries and the impact of refugees on 
those  structures.  The  Council  asked  the  Commission  to  consider  ways  of 
strengthening reception capacity and to elaborate further on the use of development 
cooperation in the search for durable solutions for refugees and to develop concrete 
proposals  on  how  more  aid  could  be  directed  towards  assisting  refugees  in  the 
region. The Council also said that the integration of migration aspects in the external 
action  of  the  Community  should  respect  the  coherence  of  EU  external  policies  and 
actions  and  should  be  part  of  a  comprehensive  approach  towards  each  country  or 
region, taking into account their specific situation. 

In  the  March  2003  Communication  the  Commission  had  set  the  development  of  a 
common European asylum policy in the context of developments on the global stage 
and  called  for  increased  co-ordination  between  the  EU’s  internal  process  and  the 
external aspect of the governance of refugees. The March 2003 Communication had 
highlighted the importance of sharing responsibility for managing refugees with third 
countries  and  particularly  countries  of  first  asylum  and  the  need  for  more  effective 
cooperation to reinforce the protection capacities of countries receiving refugees. The 
June 2003 Communication had stressed in particular that possible new approaches to 
asylum  should  focus  more  sharply  on  action  that  could  be  taken  outside  the  EU, 
within a framework of genuine burden- and responsibility sharing. The overall aim of 
such an approach should be to better manage asylum related flows in their European 
territorial dimension and in regions of origin, resulting in more accessible, equitable 
and managed systems. In parallel, many programmes to build up asylum systems in 
third  countries  and  to  ensure  their  proper  functioning,  in  line  with  the  UNHCR 
standards  have  already  been  financed,  in  particular  in  the  Balkans  and  Eastern 
Europe regions. 

The  June  2003  Communication  suggested  a  graduated  implementation  of  this  new 
approach;  first  by  taking  preparatory  actions  to  test  the  ground  for  what  could  be 
done  followed  by  more  concrete  proposals  for  programmes  and  projects  to  be 
implemented. Indeed, budget line B7-667 (budget year 2003), on co-operation with 
third  countries  in  the  area  of  migration,  allowed  actions  enhancing  the  protection 
capacity of regions of origin to be financed. Several projects have been selected, all 
to  be  conducted  through  UNHCR,  which  focus  on  protection  gap  analysis,  on 
strengthening international protection and self-reliance for refugees, on undertaking 
preparatory  activities  towards  a  Comprehensive  Plan  of  Action  for  specific  refugee 
groups,  on  needs-based  protection  planning  as  a  precursor  to  building  effective 
protection capacities in selected countries, and  on institution  building on  asylum in 
specific regions of origin. The findings of these projects should prove invaluable, in 
both policy and operational terms, for the development of policy on the enhancement 
of the protection capacity of the regions or origin, and for developing strategies for 
measuring effective protection. 

Global Policy framework 

40. 

According to UNHCR, there is a collective duty of the broader community of States, 
including  through  UNHCR,  to  equip  States  receiving  or  likely  to  receive  asylum-
seekers  with  the  means  to  live  up  to  international  standards  in  their  treatment  of 
refugees.  From  the  perspective  of  international  burden-sharing,  those  regions  that 
host the smallest number of refugees relative to their wealth can be expected to assist 
those  with  the  highest  number  of  refugees  in  relation  to  their  economies.  UNHCR 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
has consistently stressed that the ultimate goal of capacity building in host countries 
for the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers is to enhance the ability of states to 
meet  their  international  legal  obligations  towards  refugees  and  asylum-seekers,  to 
build  protection  networks  in  civil  society  and  to  strengthen  the  rule  of  law  and 
respect for human rights in those States. UNHCR say that if protection capacities are 
adequately  developed  and  enhanced,  asylum-seekers  and  refugees  will  be  better 
protected and assisted. 

Standards  for  the  protection  of  refugees  and  asylum-seekers  cover  all  stages  of  a 
refugee  situation,  from  initial  reception  and  status  determination,  comprehensive 
protection,  to  the  ultimate  resolution  of  their  situation  (be  it  voluntary  repatriation, 
local  integration  in  the  host  country,  or  resettlement  to  a  third  country).  To  be 
effective,  however,  these  standards  need  to  be  ‘operationalised’  (that  is  applied 
through practical actions). It is clearly important for the EU to select indicators for 
ongoing  work  on  protection  in  third  countries  which  are  both  measurable  and 
achievable. Recognition that this kind of improvement will take place at a different 
pace from country to country is important when evaluating protection. Indeed, some 
countries may take decades before they can reach the institutional and infrastructural 
standards  required.  In  the  Handbook  on  strengthening  protection  capacities  in 
host  countries  UNHCR  identifies  several  components  relevant  to  both  the 
development and assessment of the protection capacity. 

Action  to  enhance  protection  capacity  requires  a  coordinated  and  systematic 
approach to strengthen and build protection capacities for processing, receiving and 
integrating asylum seekers and refugees in third countries in regions of origin, with 
the  aim  of  assisting  these  countries  in  becoming  robust  providers  of  effective 
protection. In other words, the third country in the region of origin should be able to 
offer the possibility of eventual local integration to a refugee if one of the UNHCR-
identified  traditional  other  two  durable  solutions  (resettlement  or  return  to  the 
country  of  origin)  is  not  available,  or  while  waiting  for  a  durable  solution.  In  this 
context it is necessary to work towards a benchmark of effective protection towards 
which host countries, with the help and partnership of the EU, should aim.  

To do this the EU should first look at the elements it uses itself when guaranteeing 
protection to those who require it and which are largely contained in Article 63 TEC. 
These  measures  focus  on  protection  from  persecution  and  refoulement  (minimum 
standards  on  qualification  as  a  refugee),  access  to  a  legal  procedure  (minimum 
standards  on  procedures)  and  the  possibility  of  adequate  subsistence  (minimum 
standards  on  reception  conditions).  This  is  the  subject  matter  of  what  effective 
protection  should  represent.  While  international  obligations  must  necessarily  be 
respected, levels of subsistence will differ from country to country.  

The  protection  components  identified  below  could  serve  two  purposes.  They  could 
be regarded as suitable indicators to assess the protection capacity of a host country 
and whether a sustainable protection system has developed. Furthermore they could 
serve  as  orientations  for  capacity-  and  institution  building  benchmarks,  suitable  for 
targeted technical assistance such as, for example, that envisaged for funding under 
the AENEAS programme. 

41. 

42. 

43. 

44. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
a. 

Accession  and  adherence  to  refugee  instruments,  including  regional  refugee 
instruments  and  other  human  rights  and  international  humanitarian  law 
treaties, including withdrawal of reservations 

Accession  and  adherence  to  the  international  refugee  and  other  human  rights 
instruments  can  be  considered  a  first  key  step  to  a  full  and  more  effective  national 
refugee protection regime. 

b. 

National legal frameworks: adoption/ amendment of refugee/asylum legislation 

It is important that national refugee and asylum legal frameworks not only exist, but 
also that they conform to international standards, including the establishment of fair 
and efficient asylum procedures. Moreover, proper legal frameworks and procedures 
are  of  no  use  if  they  are  not  implemented  or  implemented  unfairly.  Capacity-  and 
institution  building,  including  staff  support  and  training,  facilitating  the  creation  of 
proper refugee management structures are also key features. 

c. 

Registration and documentation of asylum seekers and refugees 

Registration  and  documentation  are  important  aspects  of  refugee  protection.  It  is  a 
State responsibility to document a need or request for international protection, once 
identified.  Documentation,  as  an  asylum-seeker  or,  within  the  context  of  group 
recognition  prima  facie,  as  a  refugee,  is  not  only  an  important  guarantee  for  the 
person  concerned,  it  is  also  a  service  to  other  States,  to  whom  this  information  is 
potentially  relevant.  Without  proper  registration,  including  the  use  of  biometrics, 
and/or  documentation  of  the  fact  that  an  asylum-seeker  sought  protection,  any 
collective system for apportioning subsequent State responsibilities may be seriously 
undermined. UNHCR therefore stresses the need for harmonized approaches to, and 
support  for,  comprehensive  and  systematic  registration  and  documentation  of 
refugees  and  asylum-seekers  including  standards  on  exchange  of  information  and 
incentives for asylum-seekers and refugees to retain and for States to provide travel 
and/or identity documents.  

d. 

Admission and reception of asylum-seekers 

Reception  standards  are  closely  related  to  the  quality  of  individual  status 
determination procedures. These conditions of reception and stay for asylum-seekers 
should be consistent with relevant international and national legal standards, taking 
into account the socio-economic  situation prevailing in the host country, and based 
on the principle that asylum-seekers should enjoy an “adequate standard of living” in 
relation to this host country throughout the asylum procedure. In particular it should 
be  ensured  that  the  basic  needs  of  refugees  are  met,  including  food,  shelter,  health 
and education.  

e. 

Support for self-reliance and local integration 

The  quality  of  protection  and  the  quality  of  life  of  persons  in  need  of  international 
protection, with prospects for a durable solution, in third countries heavily impact on 
the  possibilities  to  reduce,  and  eventually  remove  the  need  for  onward  irregular 
secondary movement. That is what makes the difference between whether a person is 
simply safe or whether they have the possibility of having a decent life while waiting 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
for a durable solution, be it return, local integration or resettlement. Integration in the 
host country, in particular economic self-reliance and access to basic social services 
also facilitates significantly a proper reintegration in the home country when return is 
finally possible. Therefore, there should be good prospects for the refugees to have 
access  to  productive  activities,  to  appropriate  education  and  other  basic  social 
services including health services. Improved safety and availability of and access to 
means for self-reliance are particularly relevant to avert secondary movements, and 
is  an  important  precursor  to  a  durable  solution.  In  this  context,  the  importance  of 
supporting host state government’s efforts to curtail the proliferation of illicit weapon 
in refugee hosting areas, to dismantle armed groups and demobilise and reintegrate 
ex-combatants should be stressed. 

45. 

The particular circumstances of the person who requires to access protection must be 
considered  in  the  light  of  certain  principles  if  an  assessment  is  to  be  made  on  the 
availability  of  effective  protection.  Those  principles  should  form  a  benchmark  for 
effective  protection  and  directly  address  the  subject  matter  of  the  five  protection 
components  above.  The  following  principles  could  form  a  basis  for  such  a 
benchmark:  

46. 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

life  and  liberty  are  not  threatened  on  account  of  race,  religion,  nationality, 
membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and 

the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with the Geneva Convention is 
respected; and 

the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is 
respected as well as the prohibition of removal to such treatment; and 

the possibility exists to request refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to 
receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention; and 

the possibility exists to live a safe and dignified life taking into consideration 
the relevant socio-economic conditions prevailing in the host country. 

There is a long way to go before most of the current refugee hosting countries in the 
regions  of  origin  could  be  considered  to  meet  such  a  standard  where  they  are  able 
and willing to offer effective protection based on an assessment made in line with the 
benchmarks  above,  and  the  need  for  secondary  movement  is  reduced.  None  of  the 
durable solutions can be arrived at overnight – they are all the products of long term 
planning. In this context it is vital that third countries are assisted in a multi-annual 
engagement  by  the  EU  in  this  transformation  process.  The  December  2002 
Communication  has  established  that  in  the  context  of  the  programming  of  external 
aid  in  countries  in  the  Mediterranean  basin,  central  Asia,  the  Balkans,  the  ACP 
countries and elsewhere already financial and technical support is being provided to 
this  type  of  actions.  Furthermore,  the  EU  has  an  established  record  of  specific 
activities  in  the  building  of  protection  capacity,  including  through  the  Phare 
Horizontal  Programme  on  Asylum  and  the  Twinning  Tool.  A  possible  ACP 
Migration  Capacity  Building  Facility  (which  is  currently  being  considered)  would 
also provide resources for specific targeted action in this area. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
47. 

In  the  short  term,  action  with  a  view  to  enhancing  the  protection  capacity  of  third 
countries so that the need for secondary movements may be reduced, could be taken 
under  the  new  AENEAS  Programme  for  financial  and  technical  assistance  to  third 
countries  in  the  area  of  migration  and  asylum.  This  financial  instrument  offers  the 
opportunity to Member States, third countries, international organisations or NGO's 
to propose in response, in particular to protracted refugee situations or situations of 
influx from a particular region, in full partnership with all countries concerned and in 
close  cooperation  with  UNHCR,  projects  enhancing  the  protection  capacity  of  the 
country  or  region  concerned.  Work  has  already  started  in  this  area  with  UNHCR 
projects under the former B7-667 Budget line on needs-based protection planning as 
a precursor to building effective protection capacities in selected countries in Africa. 

Chapter III: 

A comprehensive approach to asylum and migration 

48. 

49. 

A  wider  and  more  comprehensive  approach  to  immigration  and  asylum  issues  has 
long  been  the  aim  of  the  EU.  The  Tampere  European  Council  of  October  1999, 
whilst  noting  that  asylum  and  migration  are  distinct  but  interlinked  issues, 
underpinned  the  need  for  such  a  comprehensive  approach,  and  stressed  the 
importance of partnership with third countries in the region of origin and transit as a 
key  element  of  the  success  of  such  policies. The Seville European  Council of June 
2002 underlined the importance of such action and called for a targeted approach in 
the  EU’s  relations  with  third  countries  which  utilised  all  appropriate  EU  external 
relations instruments. Most recently the Thessaloniki European Council of June 2003 
reiterated the top political priority ascribed to migration issues and also agreed that 
dialogue and actions with third countries in the field of migration should be part of 
an  overall,  integrated,  comprehensive  and  balanced  approach,  which  should  be 
differentiated, taking account of the existing situation in the different regions and in 
each  individual  partner  country.  The  Thessaloniki  European  Council  said  that  the 
development of an evaluation mechanism for the monitoring of relations with third 
countries  should  include  participation  by  these  third  countries  in  international 
instruments relating to asylum and human rights, the cooperation of third countries in 
the readmission of their nationals and of third country nationals and the creation of 
asylum systems with specific reference to access to effective protection. 

To  address  and  operationalise  Thessaloniki’s  clear  call  for  an 
integrated, 
comprehensive  and  balanced  approach  which  would  be  flexible  and  situation 
specific,  EU  Regional  Protection  Programmes  would  be  brought  forward  by  the 
Commission  with  an  agenda  of  actions  and  projects  on  asylum  and  migration,  and 
elaborated  in  full  partnership  with  third  countries  in  the  region.  These  programmes 
would  be  drawn  up  in  conjunction  with,  and  following  the  same  cycles  as,  the 
Regional  and  Country  Strategy  Papers,  that  provide  the  overarching  framework  of 
EC  relations  with  developing  countries.  Thus,  the  regional  protection  programmes 
would have a multi-annual basis and include the opportunity for mid-term reviews as 
a  response  to  protracted  refugee  situations  in  a  particular  region  where  a  solution 
seem to be reachable. 

50. 

The analysis and the proposed actions in EU Regional Protection Programmes shall 
be  fully  consistent  with  the  Regional  Strategy  and  Country  Strategy  Papers.  The 
protection  programmes  would  thereby  be  part  and  parcel  of  the  overall  strategy 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
towards the country or region concerned and synergies with the various components 
of the strategy (in particular good governance, judiciary reform, institution building, 
democratisation  and  human  rights  etc)  will  be  fully  exploited.  The  EU  Regional 
Protection Programmes would also provide the guiding framework for action taking 
place in a particular country or in a region by individual Member States. Likewise, 
the  programmes  would  as  far  as  possible  be  coherent  with  and  complementary  to 
actions  of  other  third  countries  (such  as  USA,  Canada)  or  other  actors,  including 
international  organisations.  Their  constituent  elements  would  be  as  far  as  possible 
measurable,  practical  actions  that  would  deliver  real  benefits  both  in  terms  of 
protection offered and in terms of their impact within existing arrangements with the 
third country. 

51. 

EU Regional Protection Programmes would provide a “tool box” comprising a range 
of measures; some already in existence, some still in the process of development and 
some  still  to  be  proposed  (see  Resettlement  schemes  above).  These  tools  would  be 
mainly  protection  oriented.  However,  taking  into  consideration  the  need  to  balance 
and  assess  all  interests  concerned,  including  the  previously  expressed  interest  third 
countries take in migration related tools, the following specific characteristics might 
in particular be included in such a “tool box”: 

•  Action  to  enhance  protection  capacity:  a  coordinated  and  systematic  approach 
to  strengthen  and  build  protection  capacities  for  processing,  receiving  and 
integrating  asylum  seekers  and  refugees  in  third  countries  in  regions  of  origin, 
with  the  aim  of  assisting  them  in  becoming  robust  providers  of  effective 
protection based on the protection components identified above.  

•  Registration  Scheme:  The  UNHCR  registration  scheme  “Profile”,  which  will 
ultimately utilise biometric technology, constitutes a fundamental protection tool 
to better manage who requires protection in a third country. Such a scheme could 
also prove invaluable in terms of evaluating the effects of the action taken under 
the EU Regional Protection Programmes. 

•  An EU-wide Resettlement Scheme: Such a scheme, based on the main elements 
set  out  above,  could  prove  an  important  element  in  such  Programmes,  both  in 
terms of ensuring orderly entry and in enhancing the protection capacities of third 
countries. 

•  Assistance for improving the local infrastructure: this assistance should help to 
ensure  that  the  presence  of  refugee  communities  doesn't  put  to  much  strains  on 
local infrastructure (be it social infrastructure, water supply, environment, energy, 
transport networks etc.), and brought benefits rather than problems to the refugee-
affected  communities,  taking  into  account  their  genuine  needs  and  aspirations. 
Host communities should be actively involved in the design and implementation 
of such programmes. 

•  Assistance  in  regard  to  local  integration  of  persons  in  need  of  international 
protection in the third country; this assistance would help reduce the necessity 
for  secondary  movement  and  enable  refugees  to  access  decent  living  conditions 
either as a durable solution (local integration) or while waiting for such a solution, 
as quickly as possible and close to their needs. The importance of addressing the 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
needs of the various categories of people concerned in such assistance programme 
should be stressed. 

•  Cooperation  on  legal  migration:  the  promotion  of  active  cooperation  and 
dialogue  in  the  area  of  legal  migration  including  the  identification  of  legal 
migration  possibilities  for  nationals  of  the  third  country  involved  in  the 
partnership  negotiation,  and  the  negotiation  of  visa  facilitation  for  certain 
categories of  person. This action may also  have  a  preventative impact  on  illegal 
migration flows as concluded in the Study on the links between legal and illegal 
immigration, as laid down in the Commission’s Communication on that subject.  

•  Action  on  migration  management:  these  arrangements  would  focus  on 
improving  the  response  of  third  countries  and  countries  of  transit  to  mixed 
migratory flows, as well as at combating illegal immigration and organised crime. 
Support could also be given to encourage the return of migrants. 

•  Return:  return  could  be  aimed  at  the  third  country’s  own  nationals,  as  well  as 
other third country nationals for whom the third country has been or could have 
been a country  of first asylum,  if this country  offers  effective  protection.  Where 
transfer  for  return  occurs  in  a  context  which  engages  UNHCR  and  IOM,  and  is 
subject  to  diplomatic  agreement  where  a  package  of  support  and  action  is 
negotiated,  there  are  greater  safeguards  and  more  opportunities  for  monitoring, 
than  there  are  for  individual  asylum  seekers  who  remain  in  the  country  of  first 
asylum,  of  for  an  individual  asylum  seeker  who  is  denied  entry  and  returned  as 
part of generic safe third country arrangements. 

EU  Regional  Protection  Programmes  would  need  to  be  flexible  and  situation-
specific, tailor-made and not generally prescriptive, and their added value would lie 
in the improved coordination and systematisation given to each constituent element, 
as well as in them being used in combination with one another. Their use would add 
genuine  leverage to  partnership arrangements with  the third  countries involved.  An 
EU Regional Protection Programme would be drawn up after a systematic analysis of 
the refugee crisis in the region concerned including a gap analysis of the protection 
situation which could utilise the Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanism requested by 
the  Thessaloniki  and  Seville  European  Councils.  The  aim  of  that  mechanism  is  to 
monitor  the  migratory  situation  in  the  third  countries  concerned  and  also  their 
administrative  and  institutional  capacity  to  manage  asylum  and  migration.  The 
mechanism should provide all the relevant information for the systematic assessment 
and evaluation of the cooperation of the countries in question and any factors which 
might hamper effective protection. 

The  EU  Regional  Protection  Programmes  would  be  updated  in  line  with  the  mid-
term  reviews  of  the  Country  and  Regional  Strategy  Papers.  Through  negotiations 
with  the  third  country  partners  involved,  as  well  as  consultation  with  the  Council 
which  encompasses  all  of  the  relevant  policy  areas,  the  EU  Regional  Protection 
Programmes  would  be  targeted  and  tailored  to  address  the  particular  needs  of  a 
region or country, with the aim of both enhancing protection capacity and ensuring 
that  people  arriving  in  the  EU  from  that  region  do  so  in  an  orderly  and  managed 
manner. The co-ownership of the EU Regional Protection Programmes should ensure 
a practical and operational focus and provide tangible results, to the satisfaction of all 

52. 

53. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
parties. This could be easily evaluated and built upon and clear benchmarks would be 
identified and agreed in advance. 

54. 

UNHCR should play a central role in both the development and implementation of 
EU Regional Protection Programmes. As sponsors of the Convention Plus initiative 
they are ideally placed to lend them a genuine protection focus. Their experience and 
authority  in  the  field  would  enable  them  to  deliver  on  the  key  aspects  of  this 
comprehensive  strategy.  Indeed,  the  formulation  of  such  Programmes  would  also 
address the UNHCR’s “Convention Plus” initiative and would set the foundations for 
“special agreements” along the lines of those envisaged by the High Commissioner. 

Chapter IV Recommendations 

55. 

56. 

57. 

The  EU  is  entering  a  new  phase  in  the  development  of  the  Common  European 
Asylum System, called for in Tampere. It needs to decide what shape it should give 
to the System’s second phase. 2004 will prove crucial in that the global momentum 
created by the Agenda for Protection and the “Convention Plus” initiatives must be 
met  by  action  at  EU  level.  The  EU  must  nevertheless  take  care  when  devising 
responses in a process which  will have a major impact across various policy areas. 
Policy  developments  should  build  upon  the  first  phase  of  that  System  and  be 
integrated in the second phase, paving the way for a Tampere-II agenda 

The  Commission  proposes  that  as  part  of  that  agenda  the  strategic  use  and  the 
introduction  of  EU  Resettlement  Schemes  should  be  considered  as  a  tool  to  ensure 
more  orderly  and  managed  entry  in  the  EU  of  persons  in  need  of  international 
protection.  This  Communication  sets  out  why  the  policy  objective  of  this  kind  of 
managed entry  could  be  beneficial for all concerned  and create  a win/win  situation 
for those in need of international protection, countries of first asylum and destination 
countries, such as EU Member States. Furthermore this Communication highlighted 
the need to assist the countries in the regions of origin, often merely transit countries, 
in  becoming  proper  countries  of  first  asylum  allowing  persons  in  need  of 
international  protection  to  access  effective  protection  sooner  and  closer  to  their 
needs.  In  this  context  it  is  vital  that  these  countries  are  assisted  in  a  multi-annual 
engagement  by  the  EU  in  this  transformation  process,  and  the  Communication  has 
identified  the  various  elements  of  protection  capacity  enhancement  on  which  such 
technical and financial assistance could be focused. 

This  Communication  also  proposes  the  crafting  of  EU  Regional  Protection 
Programmes  which  aim  at  addressing  protracted  refugee  situations  globally  in  a 
comprehensive and concerted approach. EU Regional Protection Programmes would 
need  to  be  flexible  and  situation-specific  and  their  added  value  would  lie  in  the 
improved  coordination  and  systematisation  given  to  each  of  the  identified  possible 
elements  of  which  such  Programmes  could  be  comprised.  The  Commission 
envisages  taking  charge  of  the  drawing-up  of  a  pilot  EU  Regional  Protection 
Programme in relation to a protracted refugee situation identified by the Commission 
in close cooperation with UNHCR and consulting the relevant Council groups with a 
plan of action by July 2005 and a fully fledged EU Regional Protection Programme 
by December 2005. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
58. 

59. 

The  Commission  asks  the  Council  and  European  Council  to  endorse  this 
Communication  as  the  basis  for  contributing  to  more  accessible,  equitable  and 
managed asylum systems, in view of the preparation of the Tampere-II agenda. 

More  specifically,  the  Commission  requests  the  European  Parliament,  Council  and 
the European Council to endorse the following elements, needed in the short to mid 
term for achieving more orderly and managed arrival in the EU and the enhancement 
of the protection capacity of regions of origin, as identified in this Communication: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

EU  Regional  Protection  Programmes  and  their  main  constituent 
elements  as  a  key  policy  tool  to  address  protracted  refugee 
situations globally; 

The  identification  of  the  indicators  of  protection  capacity  as  a 
means of reaching agreed targets of effective protection as set out 
in this Communication; 

An  EU  resettlement  scheme-  proposal  to  be  submitted  to  the 
Council by July 2005- on the basis of the main features as set out 
in  this  Communication,  including  a  proposal  for  technical 
assistance- underpinning such scheme. 

60. 

The  Commission  will  work  towards  achieving  the  objectives  identified  in  the 
Communication,  in  close  co-operation  with  Member  States  and  the  European 
Parliament, in full partnership with countries of origin, transit and first asylum, and 
in close co-operation with UNHCR and other relevant stakeholders. 

EN 

21 

   EN