Commission staff working document accompanying the communication of the Commission on the establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme and the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending decision no 573/2007/EC OF the European Parliament and of the Council OF 23 may 2007 establishing the european refugee fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the general programme "Solidarity and management of migration flows" and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC - Summary of the impact assessment {COM(2009) 447 final} {COM(2009) 456 final} {SEC(2009) 1127}
Date: 2009-09-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: admission of aliens, cooperation policy, financial aid, immigration, migratory movement, political asylum, political refugee, refugee, right of asylum, third country

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 2.9.2009 
SEC(2009) 1128 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the 

COMMUNICATION OF THE COMMISSION  

on the establishment of a Joint EU Resettlement Programme  

and the proposal for a  

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

amending Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
23 May 2007 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as 
part of the General programme "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows" and 
repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC 

Summary of the Impact Assessment 

{COM(2009) 447 final} 
{COM(2009) 456 final} 
{SEC(2009) 1127} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION  

Resettlement is the relocation of refugees, who are recognized by UNHCR as being in need of 
international protection, from the first country of asylum (mostly in the third world) to another 
country  where  they  receive  permanent  protection.  Resettlement  offers  solutions  to  refugees 
who  can  not  return  to  their  country  of  origin,  and  who  can  not  be  integrated  locally  in  the 
country of first asylum. 

Resettlement is the transfer of refugees from outside EU territory to an EU Member State. 

The number of refugees worldwide is around 10 million. Around 5% out of them are in need 
of  resettlement.  Only  a  small  proportion  of  these  refugees  are  effectively  resettled.  There  is 
therefore a structural discrepancy between the needs and the humanitarian response. 

Only a small part of the refugees who are resettled each year are resettled to the EU. Out of 
the 65.596 refugees who departed for resettlement in 2008, 4.378 refugees departed to the EU. 
This contrasts sharply with the numbers of resettled refugees who were taken in by the USA 
and other traditional resettlement countries in the industrialized world. 

2. 

RESETTLEMENT IN THE EU: CURRENT SITUATION (BASELINE) 

There  are  at  present  ten  EU  Member  States  which  participate  annually  in  resettlement. 
Sweden,  Denmark,  Finland,  Netherlands,  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  have  had  a 
resettlement  programme already  for some years. Since 2007 Portugal, France, Romania and 
the  Czech  Republic  decided  to  introduce  national  resettlement  programmes.  This  positive 
development  is  due  to  a  number  of  factors.  Firstly,  resettlement  receives  strong  financial 
support  by  the  European  Refugee  Fund  (ERF  III)  since  2007.  Secondly,  many  project  and 
twinning  activities  on  resettlement  were  developed  among  stakeholders  from  different 
Member  States  over  the  past  few  years.  A  third  positive  development  is  the  strong  political 
interest  at  the  EU  level.  This  interest  focused  particularly  on  the  needs  to  resettle  Iraqi 
refugees from Syria and Jordan to the EU. In 2008 the JHA Council adopted conclusions on 
the  resettlement  of  refugees  from  Iraq,  which  highlight  that  resettlement  contributes  to  the 
maintenance  of  the  protection  situation  in  Syria  and  Jordan.  Following  the  Council 
Conclusions four Member States which until recently were not engaged in resettlement, have 
committed themselves to resettle refugees from Iraq (DE, IT, BE, LU). 

The European Asylum Support Office (EASO), which is expected to become operational in 
2010,  will  support  the  Member  States  and  other  stakeholders  in  practical  cooperation, 
including resettlement. 

3. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The  current  situation  is  generally  positive  and  is  gradually  evolving,  particularly  given  the 
expected  creation  of  the  EASO.  However,  there  are  a  number  of  important  deficits  and 
structural constraints. 

The principal problem is the current low level of solidarity by the EU with third countries in 
receiving  refugees.  This  number  is  too  limited,  given  the  scale  of  the  global  resettlement 
needs. A second problem is that too few Member States participate in resettlement. At present 
only 10 Member States (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, 
France,  Romania  and  the  Czech  Republic)  resettle  refugees  on  a  yearly  basis.  The 
international  role  of  the  EU  regarding  resettlement  is  not  sufficient.  This  has  a  negative 

EN 

2 

   EN 

impact on the ambition of the EU to play a prominent role in global humanitarian affairs and 
on the influence of the EU in international fora. 

There is little coordination between those EU Member States which carry out resettlement, on 
the resettlement priorities, i.e. the nationalities and specific groups which are resettled. These 
priorities are currently set by the Member States on a national level in close bilateral contacts 
with  UNHCR,  without  prior  discussions  and  decision  making  at  the  EU  level.  As  a  result 
there  is  also  a  lack  of  strategic  use  of  resettlement  as  an  EU  external  policy  instrument. 
Resettlement  serves  not  only  a  humanitarian  purpose  vis-à-vis  those  persons  who  are 
effectively resettled, but also to relieve the third country in question of the burden associated 
with hosting large numbers of refugees. Resettlement can therefore play an important role as a 
component  of  EU  external  asylum  policies  and  EU  external  policy  more  generally.  The 
impact  of  resettlement  in  strategic  terms  would  be  larger  if  priorities  with  respect  to 
nationalities and specific categories to be resettled were largely set at an EU level. The current 
financial  framework  poses  constraints.  ERF  III  provides  additional  financial  assistance  to 
those  Member  States  which  resettle  specific  categories  of  refugees.  These  criteria  are 
considered to be too rigid. 

A  third  set  of  problems  of  the  present  situation  relate  to  the  lack  of  structured  practical 
cooperation among Member States on resettlement. There is currently a lack of exchange of 
information  and  coordination  on  resettlement  activities.  This  has  a  negative  effect  on  the 
quality  of  resettlement.  Another  consequence  is  that  there  is  a  lack  of  economies  of  scale. 
Resettlement requires much logistical preparation, such as selection and orientation missions, 
medical  and  security  screenings,  arrangements  for  travel  and  visa,  reception  and  integration 
programmes.  Some  of  these  activities  could  potentially  be  carried  out  jointly  or  in  close 
cooperation between Member States. 

4. 

SUBSIDIARITY 

–  Community involvement in the asylum field is founded on the need for solidarity among 
Member States in addressing a challenge that, in an EU without internal borders, cannot be 
effectively dealt with by individual countries acting alone. 

–  The  need  to  act  as  regards  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  (CEAS)  has  already 

been assessed in recent impact assessment reports.  

–  There have been repeated calls from the European Council and the European Parliament to 

develop the CEAS, including its external dimension.  

5. 

OBJECTIVES  

Overall policy objectives: 

(a) 

to give support to the international protection of refugees through resettlement; 

to  increase  the  humanitarian  impact  and  efforts  of  the  EU  by  greater  common 

(b) 
involvement in resettlement; 

Specific objectives: 

(c) 

(d) 

to ensure greater solidarity by the EU with third countries in receiving refugees; 

to ensure that more EU Member States participate in resettlement; 

EN 

3 

   EN 

to ensure that resettlement efforts in the EU are better targeted, on an ongoing basis, 
(e) 
towards  those  persons  or  groups  of  persons  (e.g.  particularly  vulnerable  persons,  including 
children, or persons from specific geographic areas) who are most in need of protection; 

(f) 

to increase the strategic use of resettlement at an EU level;  

(g) 
to  reinforce  the  international  role  of  the  EU  generally,  regarding  resettlement 
specifically by developing resettlement as an integral and coherent component of EU external 
policies; 

to improve through cooperation the quality of the resettlement procedures in the EU; 

to lower through cooperation the economic and financial costs of resettlement in the 

(h) 

(i) 
EU; 

to reduce the differences among EU Member States regarding protection standards and 

(j) 
to increase efficiency through the convergence of resettlement criteria; 

6. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

On the basis of the problem analysis three main components of resettlement policies at the EU 
level have been identified: the practical cooperation, political and financial component. They 
form the starting point for the elaboration of the policy options. 

6.1. 

1st policy option: maintenance of status quo 

The  European  Asylum  Support  Office  will  provide  a  framework  for  carrying  out  practical 
cooperation  activities  on  asylum,  including  activities  with  respect  to  resettlement.  There  is 
potentially a wide range of practical cooperation activities which EASO could develop with 
respect to resettlement, such identification of best practices, trainings, twinning arrangements 
targeted  at  Member  States  which  are  not  involved  in  resettlement  yet,  and  organizing  joint 
activities and operations between existing resettlement countries. 

If  the  status  quo  is  maintained,  the  political  and  financial  components  will  not  be  further 
developed. 

6.2. 

2nd policy option: medium option (the dynamic process) 

Under this option practical cooperation will also be developed by the EASO. The distinction 
between  the  practical  cooperation  under  this  option  and  option  1  is  primarily  related  to  the 
link between practical cooperation activities and the further development of the political and 
financial  component.  The  practical  cooperation  component  is  expected  to  be  stimulated  and 
reinforced by the development of the other two components. 

Under  this  option  it  is  envisaged  to  develop  further  structured  political  cooperation  through 
the establishment of a political framework and to underpin it via the financial component. 

It is foreseen that a political framework will be created which would set political and strategic 
priorities with respect to resettlement. All relevant stakeholders (experts from Member States, 
Commission, UNHCR, NGO's) will participate in this political framework. The tasks will be 
the following: 

1. 

2. 

Setting  of  common  EU  annual  priorities  with  respect  to  resettlement,  both  with 
respect  to  nationalities  and  specific  categories  of  refugees  to  be resettled.  This  will 
allow to respond in an effective and adaptable manner to new arising needs. 

Member States would receive extra financial assistance under Article 13 of ERF III, 
if they resettle according to these common EU annual priorities. It should, however, 

EN 

4 

   EN 

3. 

4. 

be underlined that Member States will remain free to carry out resettlement of other 
categories of refugees. 

Ensure  an  integrated  approach  between  resettlement,  external  asylum  policies  and 
EU external policies as a whole. 

Within  this  political framework resettlement will  also be discussed  more generally. 
The  creation  of  a  political  framework  will  lead  to  more  steering  of  practical 
cooperation activities to be carried out by EASO. 

Extra financial assistance will be provided to Member States for the resettlement of refugees 
which fall under the annually agreed EU priorities. This requires an amendment of ERF. No 
structural reallocation of funding under ERF III is foreseen, which would have an impact on 
the funding of other asylum related activities. 
Within  the  2nd  option,  two  sub-options  are  identified.  The  difference  between  these  sub-
options  relate  only  to  the  mechanism  which  is  foreseen  for  the  political  framework.  Sub-
option  2A  provides  for  the  establishment  of  a  new  Committee  on  resettlement  under 
Comitology rules. Sub-option 2B provides for the use of existing structures. 

6.3. 

3rd policy option: maximum option 

Under this option it is considered that a fully developed EU wide resettlement scheme will be 
established. Resettlement would be carried out jointly in terms of priority setting and also in 
terms  of  implementation.  A  full-fledged  joint  EU  resettlement  scheme  could  consist  of  the 
following elements. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

All  Member  States  would  participate  in  the  scheme  by  making  a  certain  number  of 
places  available.  The  total  number  of  available  resettlement  places  within  the  EU 
would be set and filled at EU level. At EU level decisions would be made on priorities 
to  be  resettled.  At  EU  level  it  would  also  be  ensured  that  resettlement  would  be 
integrated into external asylum policies and EU external policies as a whole. 

No  resettlement  would  be  carried  out  by  the  Member  States  outside  of  the  joint 
resettlement  scheme.  There  would  also  be  full  harmonization  of  resettlement  criteria 
and the status which resettled refugees would receive after arrival. 

The resettlement selection process would be fully centralized at the EU level. All pre-
departure  operations  would  be  carried  out  jointly.  EASO  would  most  likely  have  a 
leading organizational role. This would require an increase in capacity of EASO with 
respect to resettlement. 

(4) 

The financial component would need to be reviewed completely. 

7. 

ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS 

See for assessment of the different impacts the Table on page 5. 

1.  The  baseline  is  evolving,  particularly  because  of  the  expected  establishment  of  the 
European  Support  Office  (EASO)  in  2010.  In  order  to  quantify  the  expected  impacts  of  the 
creation of EASO, we have made a distinction between the static baseline (situation in spring 
2009)  and  the  evolving  baseline  (situation  expected  after  the  creation  of  EASO  without 
further EU action taken).  

2.  Since  the  expected  output  of  sub-options  2A  and  2B  is  expected  to  be  the  same,  the 
assessment of the effectiveness in reaching the objectives as well as impacts is done together 

EN 

5 

   EN 

for sub-options 2A and 2B. However, what distinguishes sub-option 2A from sub-option 2B 
is the assessment of political feasibility and proportionality. 

8. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

Quantified impact of options 1, 2 and 3 

•  The  effectiveness  of  the  options  in  reaching  the  principal  objective  (to  ensure  greater 
solidarity by the EU with third countries in receiving refugees) is rated as follows: option 1 
– 5% increase, option 2 – 15 % increase, option 3 – 10 % increase; 

•  The  first  impact  (direct  financial  costs  related  to  resettlement)  of  the  options  is  rated  as 
follows: option 1 – increase of Euros 3.825.000, option 2 – increase of Euros 11.475.000, 
option 3 – increase of Euros 7.650.000. 

•  The  second  impact  (direct  financial  cost  /  effect  of  economies  of  scale)  of  the  options  is 
rated  as  follows:  option  1  –  decrease  of  Euros  803.350,  option  2  –  decrease  of  Euros 
1.759.000, option 3 – decrease of Euros 2.524.500. 

Over-all assessment: 

Option  2  and  3  score  better  than  option  1.  There  are  two  main  objections  against 
political 
the 

score  on 

objective 

principal 

reaching 

and 

1. 
option  3: 
feasibility/proportionality. 

lower 

A majority of Member States favour an approach which is incremental and which puts 
2. 
emphasis  on  closer  cooperation  and  familiarizing  new  Member  States  with  resettlement, 
rather  than  on  harmonizing  resettlement  criteria.  Particularly  on  the  voluntary  nature  of 
participation  in  the  scheme,  positions  of  Member  States  are  very  firm.  Even  if  there  was 
sufficient support for the establishment of a fully-fledged joint EU resettlement scheme, it is 
doubtful  whether  some  Member  States  would  under  the  current  situation  be  sufficiently 
prepared  to  implement  resettlement.  It  is  questionable  whether  the  establishment  of  a  fully-
fledged joint EU resettlement scheme is necessary and proportionate at this stage to reach the 
set objectives. 

•  A comparison of options 1 and 2 shows a clear preference for option 2. 

•  Sub-option 2B is preferred on grounds of political feasibility and proportionality. There is 
a strong preference among a majority of Member States to build on existing consultation 
and  decision  making  mechanisms.  The  current  political  situation  is  positive  towards 
resettlement but reluctant to create any new formal structure, because of the bureaucratic 
burden this might entail and the fear that Member States' freedom to decide on priorities 
themselves would be reduced. From the perspective of proportionality the use of existing 
structures is considered preferable, if this is as effective in reaching the objectives and if it 
is expected to have the same impacts. 

•  Sub-option 2B is therefore the preferred option. 

9. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The Commission will carry out an evaluation within three years after the introduction of the 
EU joint resettlement scheme. The evaluation will include the progress made with respect to 
political cooperation, the financial component as well as practical cooperation. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

Eight  quantifiable  indicators  have  been  identified,  which  cover  the  different  aspects  of  the 
option and the objectives (political, financial and practical cooperation). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

Comparison of impacts of options 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Objectives  

now 

progressive 

dynamic 

maximum 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

ensure greater solidarity by the EU with third countries in receiving refugees   0 

Low/medium   Medium/high 

Medium 

ensure that more EU Member States participate in resettlement  

ensure  that  resettlement  efforts  are  better  targeted,  on  ongoing  basis, 
towards those most in need (e.g. children, refugees from specific regions) 

Increase strategic use of resettlement at an EU level 

0 

0 

0 

Low/medium  Medium/high 

High 

Low/medium  High 

High 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

reinforce  the  international  role  of  the  EU  regarding  resettlement  by 
developing it as an integral and coherent component of EU external policies   0 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

improve  through  cooperation  the  quality  of  the  resettlement  procedures  in 
the EU  

lower  through  cooperation  the  economic  and  financial  costs  per  capita  of 
resettlement in the EU 

reduce  the  differences  among  EU  Member  States  regarding  protection 
standards  and 
the  convergence  of 
to 
resettlement criteria 

increase  efficiency 

through 

Direct 
integration)  

financial  costs 

related 

to 

resettlement 

(selection, 

reception, 

Direct 

financial  costs 

related 

to 

resettlement 

(selection, 

reception, 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Low/medium  Medium/high 

High 

Low/medium  Medium/high 

High 

Low 

Medium 

High 

Small 
increase 

Medium/high 
increase 

Small 

medium decrease 

Medium  

significant 

Impacts 

 1 

 2 

EN 

8 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
integration) pro capita  

Economic and social costs related to the integration of resettled refugees, in 
a wide sense (total costs)  

Economic and social costs related to the integration of resettled refugees, in 
a wide sense (per capita costs) 

Impact  of  resettlement  on  third  countries,  specific  categories  and  EU 
external relations 

Increased equality in providing protection to refugees 

Impact on fundamental rights  

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

Political feasibility and proportionality 

 1 

Support among key stakeholders for this option  

 2 

Proportionality  

decrease 

Small 
increase 

decrease 

Medium/high 

Medium 

Low 

Low 

Low 

low 

Low 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

medium 

High 

Medium/high 

medium 

2 A 

2 B 

Medium 

Low/medi
um 

Mediu
m/High  Low 

Some concern 

Some 
concern 

Little 
concern 

Large concern 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

EN 

9 

EN