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 - Impact Assessment {COM(2009) 447 final} {COM(2009) 456 final} {SEC(2009) 1128}
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) 1127 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the 

COMMUNICATION OF THE COMMISSION  

on the establishment of a Joint EU Resettlement Programme  
and the proposal for a  

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN 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 

Impact Assessment 

{COM(2009) 447 final} 
{COM(2009) 456 final} 
{SEC(2009) 1128} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 4 

Policy background...................................................................................................... 4 

General information on resettlement ....................................................................... 5 

Consultation of Stakeholders .................................................................................... 7 

PROBLEM DEFINITION ........................................................................................ 8 

Scope of the problem.................................................................................................. 8 

Current situation (baseline) ...................................................................................... 9 

2.2.1.  Resettlement in the EU) ............................................................................................. 9 

2.2.2.  Financial costs of current resettlement .................................................................. 10 

2.2.3.  Financial assistance by European Refugee Fund (ERF III) on resettlement ..... 11 

2.2.4.  Positive developments in recent years .................................................................... 12 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

5.1. 

Overview of main problems associated with current situation............................ 14 

EU right to act .......................................................................................................... 16 

Subsidiarity test........................................................................................................ 17 

DEFINITION OF POLICY OBJECTIVES .......................................................... 17 

POLICY OPTIONS ................................................................................................. 19 

Short description of 1st option: no further EU action .......................................... 20 

Short description of 2nd option: medium option.................................................... 21 

Short description of 3rd option: maximum option................................................. 25 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS...................................................................................... 27 

Assessment of 1st option: maintenance status quo ................................................ 28 

5.1.1.  Effectiveness in reaching objectives ....................................................................... 29 

5.1.2. 

Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 31 

5.1.3.  Political feasibility, subsidiarity and proportionality ........................................... 32 

5.2. 

Assessment of 2nd option: medium option (the dynamic process) ....................... 32 

5.2.1.  Effectiveness in reaching objectives ....................................................................... 34 

5.2.2. 

Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 35 

5.2.3.  Political feasibility, subsidiarity and proportionality ........................................... 36 

5.3. 

Assessment of 3rd option: maximum option ......................................................... 38 

EN 

2 

   EN 

5.3.1.  Effectiveness in reaching objectives ....................................................................... 39 

5.3.2. 

Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 40 

5.3.3.  Political feasibility, subsidiarity and proportionality ........................................... 41 

6. 

7. 

Comparison of options / Preferred option ............................................................. 42 

MONITORING and EVALUATION..................................................................... 43 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Lead DG: 

Justice, Freedom and Security 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Policy background 

In  The  Hague  Programme1  of  4-5  November  2004,  the  European  Council  stated  that  EU 
policy  should  aim  at  assisting  third  countries  in  their  efforts  to  improve  their  capacity  for 
migration management and refugee protection. The need for the EU to contribute in a spirit of 
shared  responsibility  to  a  more  accessible,  equitable  and  effective  international  protection 
system  in  partnership  with  third  countries,  and  to  provide  access  to  protection  and  durable 
solutions at the earliest possible stage, was emphasized. The Programme stated that countries 
in regions of origin and transit will be encouraged in their efforts to strengthen their capacity 
to  protect  refugees.  The  Commission  was  invited  to  develop  EU-Regional  Protection 
Programmes in partnership with the third countries concerned and in close cooperation with 
UNHCR.  It  was  announced  that  these  programmes  would  incorporate  a  variety  of  relevant 
instruments,  primarily  focused  on  capacity  building,  and  include  a  joint  resettlement 
programme for Member States willing to participate in such a programme.  

The Commission put forward its plans with respect to Regional Protection Programmes in a 
Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on 1 September 20052. The 
Communication mentions that the resettlement of refugees from countries in regions of origin 
to EU Member States will be an important factor in demonstrating the partnership element of 
Regional  Protection  Programmes  to  third  countries.  It  was  also  announced  that  the 
Commission  would  examine  the  possibility  of  bringing  forward  a  proposal  for  a  more 
structured  approach  to  resettlement  activities.  It  was  announced  that  such  a  proposal  would 
have  to  take  account  of  the  operational  and  logistic  challenges  involved  in  managing 
resettlement  on  an  EU  scale.  Furthermore,  it  was  noted  that  the  Commission  would  come 
forward  with  a  proposal  to  amend  the  Council  Decision  establishing  the  European  Refugee 
Fund3  so  that  resettlement  under  Regional  Protection  Programmes  could  be  substantially 
financed by the Community. 

With respect to external solidarity the Policy Plan on Asylum, adopted by the Commission 
on 17 June 20084, states the following:  

"In  the  coming  years,  the  focus  on  the  external  dimension  of  asylum  will  become  even 
stronger. The EU must share the responsibility for managing refugees with third countries and 

1 

The  Hague  Programme:  Strengthening  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice  in  the  European  Union, 
PresidencyConclusions: Brussels, 4/5 November 2004. 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/information_dossiers/the_hague_priorities/doc/hague_programme_en.pdf

2 
3 

4 

. 
Communication by the European Commission COM (2005) 388 final on Regional Protection Programmes. 
Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing 
the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General Programme "Solidarity 
and  Management  of  Migration  Flows"  and  repealing  Council  Decision  2004/904/EC,  OJ  L  144, 
6.6.2007, p. 1. 
Communication from the Commission to the EP, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the  Committee  of  Regions:  Policy  Plan  on  asylum,  An  integrated  approach  to  protection  across  the  EU, 
Com(2008)360 Final. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
countries of first asylum, which receive a far greater percentage of the world's refugees than 
Europe. Furthermore, the Commission will continue to integrate capacity building for asylum 
in  development  cooperation  with  third  countries,  placing  the  emphasis  on  a  long  term, 
comprehensive approach. Asylum should not be treated as crisis management but as integral 
part  of  the  development  agenda  in  the  area  of  governance,  migration  and  human  rights 
protection." 

With respect to resettlement the Policy Plan states:  

"Resettlement fulfils an important role in the external asylum policies of the EU and there is 
much  to  be  gained  from  a  higher  degree  of  cooperation  on  resettlement  among  Member 
States,  UNHCR  and  NGOs.  This  was  widely  acknowledged  in  the  responses  to  the  Green 
Paper.  Resettlement  will  therefore  be  further  developed  and  expanded  into  an  effective 
protection instrument to be used by the EU to meet the protection needs of refugees in third 
countries and to show solidarity with third countries of first asylum. 

In the course of 2009, the Commission will make proposals on developing an EU resettlement 
scheme,  in  which  Member  States  would  participate  on  a  voluntary  basis,  setting  common 
criteria  and  coordination  mechanisms.  Cooperation  on  practical  and  logistical  aspects  will 
lead  to  more  financial  and  quality  effectiveness.  The  Commission  will  cooperate  with 
Member  States  and  other  relevant  stakeholders,  such  as  UNHCR  and  NGOs,  to  discuss  the 
shape and functions of the EU resettlement scheme." 

On 24 September 2008 the JHA Council adopted the European Pact on Immigration and 
Asylum5. With respect to asylum the Pact stated that the time has come to take new initiatives 
to complete the establishment of a Common European Asylum System, which was provided 
for in the Hague programme, and thus to offer a higher degree of protection, as proposed by 
the Commission in its asylum action plan.  

The  Council  agreed  that  cooperation  with  the  Office  of  the  United  Nations  High 
Commissioner  for  Refugees  should  be  strengthened  to  ensure  better  protection  for  people 
outside the territory of European Union who request protection, in particular by "moving, on a 
voluntary basis, towards the resettlement within the European Union of people placed under 
the protection of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees..".  

1.2. 

General information on resettlement 

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  is  one  of  three 
'durable  solutions'  available  to  refugees,  the  other  ones  being  return  and  local  integration. 
Resettlement is generally carried out with UNHCR acting as an intermediary. UNHCR has a 
mandate with respect to international protection and is in a position to recognize refugees and 
to  identify  suitable  cases  for  resettlement.  Even  if  not  the  appropriate  solution  for  many 
refugees, resettlement is essential in that it 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 
either.  Global  resettlement  needs  are  structurally  much  greater  than  the  resettlement  places 

5 

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st13/st13440.en08.pdf 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
which  are  available  worldwide.  There  are  currently  21  countries  worldwide  which  provide 
annually places for the resettlement of refugees. 10 of these countries are EU countries.  

There are some differences among EU countries with respect to the status which the resettled 
refugee  receives  after  being  resettled.  In  most  cases  this  is  the  status  of  refugee  under  the 
Geneva Convention6 and a residence permit, which normally  will  be automatically  renewed 
after 3 or 5 years. The procedure in the case of resettlement is fundamentally different from 
the regular asylum procedure, in the sense that, for a resettled refugee, the legal determination 
that  the  person  in  question  is  a  refugee,  that  he/she  deserves  protection  and  that  he/she 
qualifies for resettlement, takes place before the refugee is effectively transferred. By contrast, 
the normal procedure for refugee status determination procedure commences with the request 
of the asylum seeker, after the arrival of the asylum seeker in an EU Member State. UNHCR 
usually has a key role in this process and submits only cases for resettlement if the person in 
question  has  been  recognized  as  a person in  need  of  protection  under  the  UNHCR  mandate 
and after it has been established that the person is in need of resettlement. Resettled refugees 
generally  receive  a  residence  permit  immediately  upon  arrival  which  recognizes  them  as  a 
person  in  need  of  international  protection  and  allows  them  to  stay  indefinitely  in  the 
resettlement country. Reception and integration activities can therefore also be planned ahead 
as  well  as  other  necessary  facilities,  for  example  with  respect  to  schooling  or  medical 
treatment. 

As  explained  above,  resettlement  is  only  a  solution  for  a  relatively  small  percentage  of 
refugees  worldwide.  UNHCR  generally  submits  cases  for  resettlement  only  if  they  fulfil 
certain criteria,  including  those  cases in  which return to the country of origin is no option 
and in which there is no prospect of local integration either, as well as particularly vulnerable 
persons, such as women at risk, children and persons with serious medical needs. See Annex 
1 for more information on resettlement (definition, purposes etc.) and the numbers of persons 
resettled according to the UNHCR resettlement criteria. (Annex 1)  

Resettlement  is  an  orderly  procedure  which  contrasts  sharply  with  the  undesirable  forms  of 
migration  (human  smuggling  etc.)  which  are  often  associated  with  spontaneous  arrivals. 
Moreover,  resettlement  targets  those  refugees  whose  protection  needs  have  already  been 
clearly  established.  Moreover,  in  offering  resettlement,  developed  countries  provide  a 
humanitarian solution for refugees in third countries, some of whom would otherwise seek to 
travel to developed  countries,  usually by  illegal means. For this reason resettlement may be 
considered to have some positive impact on the prevention of illegal migration.  

A clear distinction should be made between resettlement, which is the transfer of refugees 
from outside EU territory to an EU Member State, and the issue of intra-EU relocation of 
refugees  or  asylum  seekers.  The  issues  are  to  be  clearly  separated:  while  resettlement  is  a 
humanitarian instrument and an expression of solidarity by the EU vis-à-vis third countries, 
intra-EU relocation is primarily an issue of burden sharing and solidarity among EU Member 
States.  

6 

Geneva Convention of 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees; Protocol of 1967 Relating to the Status of Refugees; 
http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.3. 

Consultation of Stakeholders  

(See Annex 2) 

•  In order to prepare for a proposal, the Commission organized a first consultation meeting 
with a limited number of stakeholders on 12 December 2008. 5 Member States, UNHCR, 
ECRE  and  ICMC  participated  in  this  consultation  meeting.  This  meeting  concentrated 
mainly on the deficits of the current situation and on possible improvements.  

•  A  second  consultation  took  place  through  a  Questionnaire  which  was  sent  out  to  all 
Member  States  in  December  2008.  To  date  22  Member  States  have  replied  to  the 
Questionnaire.  The  objective  of  the  Questionnaire  was  twofold:  to  receive  input  from 
Member States with respect to the needs in terms of EU cooperation on resettlement (all 
Member states were requested to respond to this part of the Questionnaire) and to collect 
data on resettlement as it is currently carried out by Member States.  

•  A  third  consultation  of  stakeholders  took  place  through  consulting  Member  States  in  the 
framework of the Committee on Immigration and Asylum7. In February 2009 a discussion 
paper was sent out to the representatives of the Member States in this Committee. On the 
basis of this paper discussions took subsequently place in the meeting of the Committee on 
2 March 2009. 19 Member States gave written or oral replies to the questions put forward 
in the discussion paper. 

•  Since  the  questionnaire  was  specifically  addressed  to  Member  States,  other  major 
stakeholders  on  resettlement,  namely  the  UNHCR,  the  International  Organization  on 
Migration  (IOM)  and  the  European  Council  on  Refugees  and  Exiles  (ECRE),  were 
requested  to  give  written  input  with  respect  to  a  joint  EU  resettlement  scheme.  All  three 
stakeholders sent extensive papers on this issue.  

•  During  the  consultations  with  stakeholders  the  following  general  points  were  widely 

emphasized:  

–  Participation in resettlement by Member States should be voluntary. This element 
is  stressed  by  many  Member  States,  particularly  also  by  those  Member  States 
which  consider  that  they  face  particular  migration  and  asylum  pressures. 
According to these Member States these elements should be taken into account in 
the over-all capacity of Member States to resettle refugees from outside the EU; 

–  It  is  important  to  widen  the  scope  of  resettlement  actively  in  the  EU  by 
familiarizing as many Member States as possible with resettlement. Therefore it is 
essential  that  the  resettlement  scheme  is  'inclusive',  including  all  interested 
Member  States.  This  view  is  shared  by  most  Member  States  and  other 
stakeholders; 

–  It is also essential that it includes non-governmental actors, such as UNHCR, IOM 

and NGO's which are active in resettlement; 

7 

This  Committee  is  a  consultative  committee  chaired  by  the  Commission  and  composed  of  representatives  of  all 
Member States specialised in asylum and immigration issues. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
–  It  is  very  important  that  the  mechanism  which  will  be  established  allows  a  high 
degree of adaptability to changing circumstances. Adaptability is required in order 
to  respond  adequately  to  evolving  needs  with  respect  to  possible  forms  of 
practical  cooperation  on  resettlement  between  Member  States.  In  order  to  use 
resettlement  strategically  it  should  also  be  possible  to  review  and  revise 
resettlement priorities at regular intervals. 

–  The emphasis within the EU with respect to resettlement should at this stage be on 
broadening  the  basis  of  resettlement  and  increasing  the  numbers  of  resettled 
refugees.  At  the  same  time  it  should  be  acknowledged  that  resettlement  is 
sensitive to national preferences and that there are important disparities between 
Member States with respect to the caseloads they want to resettle, the resettlement 
criteria which are used and the partners through which resettlement is carried out. 
A majority of Member States shares this view. Many other stakeholders share this 
view  as  well,  although  some  NGOs  would  prefer  to  see  more  harmonization  of 
resettlement criteria within the EU. 

–  The  approach  should  be  incremental  and,  with  experience,  the  resettlement 

scheme could be more ambitious in scope.  

The specific results of the consultations of stakeholders will be further discussed in chapter 5, 
which provides an analysis of impacts. 

•  In order to ensure inter-service coordination, an Inter-service Steering Group (ISSG) was 
established,  to  which  representatives  of  SG/D3,  LS,  BEPA,  COMM/A2,  EMPL/E2, 
RELEX/L3,  DEV/C2,  ELARG/A1,  AIDCO/E3,  ECHO/01,  ESTAT/F1,  BUDG/A3, 
JLS/A2,  JLS/B3,  JLS/B4  and  JLS/D1  were  invited.  The  draft-Impact  Assessment  was 
discussed at a meeting of the ISSG on 31 March 2009.  

•  The Impact Assessment was revised to take into account the opinions issued by the Impact 
Assessment Board (IAB) on 13 May 2009. All the comments made by the IAB were taken 
into  consideration  in  the  revised  Impact  Assessment:  the  presentation  of  the  preferred 
policy  option  was  further  elaborated;  it  was  further  explained  how  the  preferred  option 
would  encourage  Member  States  to  participate  in  resettlement;  a  clarification  of  the 
financial implications for the ERF was provided; the different views expressed by Member 
States and other stakeholders were reported in more detail.   

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Scope of the problem 

Resettlement numbers (Annexes 3,4,5,6,7): A first problem relates to a general discrepancy 
between  resettlement  needs  and  resettlement  carried  out.  The  UNHCR  estimates  the  global 
resettlement  needs  at  about  747.000  persons,  including  populations  where  resettlement  is 
envisaged over a period of several years. On the basis of a prioritization, UNHCR estimates 
that  out  of  this  number,  for  2010  alone,  203.000  persons  will  be  in  need  of  resettlement8. 
According to the UNHCR, in 2008 65.596 refugees were resettled worldwide. Of these, 4.378 

8  

UNHCR projected global resettlement needs 2010. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
refugees,  or  6,7%,  departed  to  one  of  the  EU  countries9.  In  2009  the  number  of  refugees 
which  are  expected  to  be  resettled  will  be  approximately  the  same.  There  is  therefore  a 
structural  discrepancy  between  the  number  of  refugees  who  are  in  need  of  resettlement  and 
the numbers which are effectively resettled each year. This is a global and structural problem.  

A second problem relates to the numbers of refugees who are resettled to the EU. Out of the 
65.596 refugees who departed for resettlement in 2008, 4.378 refugees departed to one of the 
EU countries. This contrasts sharply with the numbers of resettled refugees who were taken in 
by  the  USA  and  other  traditional  resettlement  countries  in  the  industrialized  world,  such  as 
Canada, Australia and New Zealand. For example, the number of refugees who are resettled 
to Canada each year – around 10.000 - is more than double the number of refugees resettled to 
the total of the EU. For 2009 Canada plans to resettle between 7.300 and 7.500 Government-
assisted  Refugees  and  3.300  and  4.500  Privately  Sponsored  Refugees.  See  chart  below  and 
Annex 5.  

UNHCR Resettlement departures - EU vs. All Other Countries

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

EU All Others

Source: UNHCR 

2.2. 

Current situation (baseline)  

2.2.1.  Resettlement in the EU) 

See Annex 8 

There are six Member States which have annual resettlement quotas in place for many years: 
Sweden,  Denmark,  Finland,  UK,  Ireland  and  the  Netherlands.  Since  2007  other  Member 
States have introduced annual resettlement quotas (see par. 2.2.4). Apart from these Member 

9 

See annex 4 of the Impact Assessment on a Joint EU resettlement programme p.5. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
States, some other Member States have provided resettlement on a very limited scale and on 
an ad-hoc basis, for example if UNHCR submitted individual emergency cases. Furthermore, 
resettlement  is  not  a  historically  novel  phenomenon  for  many  Member  States:  Europe  has 
offered  resettlement  places  to  many  thousands  of  refugees  during  the  Yugoslav  wars  in  the 
1990-s, to Indo-Chinese boat refugees in the 1980-s and after crises such as the down-fall of 
the Allende government in Chile during the 1970-s. 

Resettlement quotas in EU MS 

Annual Quotas 

Sweden 

Finland 

UK 

Ireland 

Portugal 

France 

Czech Republic 

Romania 

 Multi-annual Quotas 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1700 

1800 

1900 

750 

750 

750 

750 

750 

750 

200 

200 

200 

2009 

1900 

750 

750 

170 

30 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

30 

350-450 

350-450 

30 

0 

30 

40 

Denmark (three-year period) 

1500 

Netherlands (four-year period) 

2000 

Source: responses to Commission questionnaire on resettlement to Member States, Jan. 2009 

2.2.2.  Financial costs of current resettlement  

Exact details on the financial costs of resettlement for all EU resettlement countries  are  not 
available. In response to the questionnaire, however, data were given with respect to the costs 
of resettlement in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, UK, France and the Czech Republic. 
These  provide  a  useful  basis  for  estimation  of  costs,  although  it  remains  difficult  to 
extrapolate from these data an estimate of the costs for all EU Member States. In Denmark the 
expenses related to selection missions, pre-departure programmes, transportation etc. for 2008 
were  1.653  Euros  per  resettled  refugee.  The  expenses  related  to  the  integration  of  refugees 
(incl. resettled refugees) were 19.763 Euros per person per year. The total expenses in Sweden 
(pre-departure,  reception  and  integration  during  first  year)  per  resettled  refugee  are 
approximately 16.500 Euros. In France the total costs of pre-departure activities are estimated 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
  
to be 500.000 for 450 refugees to be selected. This equals 1.111 Euros per person. It should be 
noted that this does not include the costs of selection missions, because until now France has 
selected cases on the basis of dossiers and not through selection missions. The reception and 
integration  costs  in  France  are  estimated  to  be  2,5  M.  Euros  for  the  total  of  450  resettled 
persons  during  the  first  six  months  after  the  arrival  in  France.  This  equals  5.555  Euros  per 
resettled  refugee  during  the  first  six  months.  In  the  Czech  Republic  the  average  costs  per 
resettled  refugee  in  2008  were  7.085  Euros  (incl.  pre-departure,  reception  and  integration 
during the first year). (Annex 9) 

The  total  costs  per  resettled  refugee  (incl.  pre-departure  activities,  reception  and 
integration  during  the  first  year  after  arrival)  are  estimated  to  be  in  Ireland  (22.500 
Euros),  Denmark  (21.416  Euros),  Sweden  (16.500  Euros)  and  Czech  Republic  (7.085 
Euros).  

It is difficult to estimate the average costs of resettlement per resettled refugee for the whole 
EU. On the basis of the financial costs provided by the different Member States the average 
cost of resettlement per person (incl. pre-departure activities, reception and integration 
during  the  first  year  after  arrival)  within  the  EU  is  estimated  to  be  roughly  15.000 
Euros.  This  estimate  takes  among  other  elements  into  account  the  numbers  and  costs  of 
resettlement in Sweden, being the biggest resettlement country in the EU, as well as the costs 
of resettlement in the Czech Republic. It is expected that the expansion of resettlement will 
take place in new Member States which have a lower cost of living than Sweden. 

It  is  equally  difficult  to  give  an  estimate  of  the  average  pre-departure  costs  per  resettled 
refugee  for  the  whole  EU.  These  costs  are  particularly  relevant  because  these  costs  are 
expected  to  be  reduced  by  improved  practical  cooperation  among  Member  States.  On  the 
basis  of  the  data  provided  by  Denmark  and  France  the  average  pre-departure  costs  per 
resettled refugee within the EU is estimated to be roughly 1.500 Euros. In the calculation 
it is taken into account that pre-departure costs in France were relatively low, because France 
has so far not carried out selection missions yet.  

2.2.3.  Financial assistance by European Refugee Fund (ERF III) on resettlement  

The  European  Refugee  Fund  (ERF  III)  provides  financial  assistance  with  respect  to 
resettlement for the following three categories of activities. (See Annex 10, 11) 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

A wide range of resettlement activities which are carried out by the Member States are 
eligible for funding under the ERF national programmes if they fulfil certain criteria 
(notably  Articles  3(1)(d),  3(5)  and  6  of  Decision  No  573/2007/EC  establishing  the 
ERF). These can be included in the ERF Annual Programmes under priority 3.  

Resettlement of specific categories of persons by Member States will be compensated 
under the ERF with a fixed amount of 4.000 Euro per resettled person (Article 13(3) 
and  (4)  of  ERF  Decision).  The  Member  State  which  intends  to  resettle  such  persons 
has to do a pledging in advance according to Article 13(6) of ERF Decision.  

Transnational actions or actions of interest to the Community as a whole concerning 
asylum  policy,  including  those  related  to  resettlement,  are  eligible  for  funding  under 
the  ERF  community  actions  (Article  4  of  ERF  Decision).  Many  of  the  project 
activities  related  to  resettlement  which  have  been  carried  out  so  far  (see  par.  2.2.3), 
were co-financed through ERF Community actions.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

An  overview  of  the  activities  as  mentioned  under  point  1  (ERF  national  programmes)  is 
supplied  in  Annex  11.  More  information  on  the  specific  categories  of  persons  for  which 
Member States may receive additional financial assistance under ERF article 13, as mentioned 
above under point 2, is given in Annex 10.  

2.2.4.  Positive developments in recent years 

Over the last few years there have been some important positive developments with respect to 
resettlement.  

2.2.4.1.  New resettlement commitments  

New  resettlement  commitments  were  made  by  Member  States  which  until  recently  had  no 
annual resettlement quotas. In 2007 Portugal decided to establish an annual resettlement quota 
(30  places).  In  2008  France  concluded  an  agreement  with  UNHCR  which  provides  that 
annually  100  resettlement  cases  which  are  submitted  by  UNHCR  will  be  examined  (i.e. 
approximately 350-450 persons to be resettled). In the same year Romania announced it will 
resettle  annually  40  persons.  In  2008  Romania  also  concluded  a  tripartite  agreement  with 
UNHCR  and  IOM  on  the  establishment  in  Romania  (Timisoara)  of  an  Evacuation  Transit 
Center.  This  Center  serves  for  the  resettlement  of  emergency  and  other  specific  cases.  The 
Czech  Republic  also  announced  in  2008  that  they  would  start  resettlement  through  the 
introduction of a pilot through which 30 persons would be resettled.  

2.2.4.2.  Interest by other Member States in resettlement  

Belgium  (participation  in  many  projects  and  twinning  activities,  as  well  as  participation  at 
ministerial level in visit to resettlement mission in February 2009), Luxemburg (participation 
at  ministerial  level  in  visit  to  resettlement  mission  in  April  2008),  Spain  (participation  in 
resettlement  project  MOST),  Poland  (participation  in  resettlement  training),  Hungary 
(legislation adopted to include resettlement) and Italy. There are a number of Member States 
which have included training and twinning activities in their ERF Multi-annual programmes 
for 2008-2013 in order to get familiarized with resettlement (Slovenia, Poland, Belgium). 

2.2.4.3.  Project and twinning activities 

A number of project and twinning activities on resettlement has been developed over the past 
few  years.  These  were  co-financed  by  the  Commission  through  ARGO10  and  the  European 
Refugee Fund (Community Actions). A wide range of activities, such as the selection process 
and  reception  and  integration  of  resettled  refugees  were  covered.  Different  Member  States 
participated  in  these  projects  –  both  resettlement  countries  and  non-resettlement  countries  – 
and  involved  many  different  actors,  both  governmental  as  well  as  non-governmental 
(international and local NGOs, UNHCR, IOM). The following projects need to be mentioned 
in  this  context:  MORE  project  (FI,  IE),  MOST  project  (IE,  FI,  SE,  ES),  project  'Durable 
solutions  in  practice'  (NL,  BE,  CZ,  RO),  project  'Practical  cooperation  for  a  European 
resettlement  Network'  by  the  International  Catholic  Migration  Committee  (ICMC)  (SE,  FI, 

10 

ARGO was until 2006 an action programme for administrative cooperation at European Union level in 
the  fields  of  asylum,  visas,  immigration  and  external  borders,  replacing  in  part  the  Odysseus 
programme. 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/2004_2007/argo/funding_argo_en.htm 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
NL,  CZ,  ES,  IT),  project  'resettlement-broadening  the  basis  in  Europe'  by  Churches 
Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME) (BE, DE, CZ, ES, IT, AT), CCME-resettlement 
project (DE, FR, BE, PT, HU, RO and Baltic states).  

2.2.4.4.  Joint resettlement operations and ministerial visits  

There  have  been  a  number  of  joint  resettlement  operations  and  ministerial  visits  to 
resettlement operations over the past years. The UK and Ireland currently carry out a project 
for the resettlement of persons from Tanzania, which provides for a joint selection of refugees 
and  which  provides  also  for  joint  activities  concerning  integration.  In  April  2008  the 
Netherlands  and  Luxembourg  ministers  of  Immigration  and  the  Belgian  Commissioner-
General  paid  a  joint  visit  to  a  resettlement  operation  in  Thailand.  In  February  2009  the 
Netherlands and Belgian ministers of Justice and Immigration visited together a resettlement 
selection mission in Kenya.  

2.2.4.5.  Strong political interest at EU level 

Since  2008  there  has  been  a  strong  political  interest  in  resettlement  at  the  EU  level.  This 
interest focused particularly on the needs to resettle Iraqi refugees from Syria and Jordan to 
the  EU.  In  July  and  November  2008  the  JHA  Council  adopted  conclusions  on  the 
resettlement  of  refugees  from  Iraq11.  These  Conclusions  are  significant,  not  only  with 
respect  to  the  resettlement  of  refugees  from  Iraq,  but  also  in  general  terms  because  they 
highlight the fact that 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 – 2.500 persons, IT – 50 persons, BE – 50 persons, LU – 25 persons). 

2.2.4.6.  European Asylum Support Office (EASO) 

The Commission has recently made a proposal concerning the establishment of the European 
Asylum Support Office (EASO)12. If approved by the Council and the European Parliament, 
the EASO could be operational in 2010. The EASO will give support to Member States and 
other  stakeholders  with  respect  to  practical  cooperation  activities,  including  those  related  to 
resettlement. The EASO will have its own dedicated budget to develop practical cooperation 
activities.  The  draft  Regulation  establishing  a  European  Asylum  Support  Office  states  with 
respect  to  support  for  the  external  dimensions  of  asylum  policy,  that  "the  Office  shall,  in 
agreement with the Commission, coordinate the exchange of information and all other action 
taken  on  issues  arising  from  the  implementation  of  instruments  and  mechanisms  relating  to 
the external dimension of the Common European Asylum System. The Office shall coordinate 
exchanges of information and all other action taken on the resettlement of refugees within the 
European Union."  

11 

12 

EN 

meeting 

Council  Conclusions  on  the  reception  of  Iraqi  refugees;  2987th  JUSTICE  and  HOME  AFFAIRS 
Council 
2008; 
Brussels, 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/104360.pdf 
Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a  European 
Asylum Support Office {SEC(2009) 153} {SEC(2009) 154}/* COM/2009/0066 final - COD 2009/0027 
*/ 

November 

27-28 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
In  spite  of  the  different  positive  developments  which  are  described  above,  the  current 
situation suffers from a number of important deficits and structural constraints. These 
are described below.  

2.3. 

Overview of main problems associated with current situation 

The  general  problem  is  that  the  EU  currently  does  not  participate  sufficiently  in  the 
international protection of refugees through resettlement. This general problem can be 
translated into the following specific problems.  

(1)  Current  level  of  EU  solidarity  with  third  countries  in  receiving  refugees  is  too 
limited; This conclusion is based on the total number of resettlement needs as identified by 
UNHCR (see also above in par. 2.1) and is based particularly on a comparison between the 
available  places  offered  by  EU  Member  States  with  the  numbers  offered  by  non-EU 
industrialized countries, such as the USA, Canada and Australia. Even if we take into account 
that some EU countries receive relatively more spontaneous arrivals of asylum seekers than 
some non-EU countries, the numbers of refugees who are taken in for resettlement in the EU 
is considered to be very low.  

(2)  The  international  role  of  the  EU  regarding  resettlement  is  not  sufficient.  The 
relatively  low  involvement  of  the  EU  in  resettlement  impacts  negatively  on  the  ambition  of 
the EU to play a prominent role in global humanitarian affairs and on the influence of the EU 
in  international  fora.  Many  stakeholders  have  recognized  this  as  an  important  deficit  of  the 
current  situation  (UNHCR,  EU  resettlement  countries,  non-EU  resettlement  countries,  the 
European Commission and several NGO's which are active in the field of resettlement).  

(3) Too few Member States participate in resettlement; At present there are ten Member 
States  which  are  structurally  engaged  in  resettlement:  Sweden,  Finland,  Denmark,  UK, 
Ireland,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  France,  Romania  and  the  Czech  Republic.  Currently  the 
majority  of  EU  MS  do  not  demonstrate  -  through  the  resettlement  of  refugees  –  solidarity 
towards non-EU countries, which are globally faced with many refugees and asylum seekers. 
From  the  perspective  of  burden  sharing,  this  is  considered  to  be  unbalanced  and 
unsatisfactory. Those Member States which are engaged in resettlement, regard this situation 
also  as  'uneven'.  This  internal  imbalance  is  considered  also  sub-optimal  because  the  full 
development of resettlement as a component of EU external asylum policies presupposes that 
a  majority  of  member  states  participate  in  it.  In  this  context  it  should  be  recalled  that  the 
European  Pact  on  Immigration  and  Asylum13,  which  was  adopted  by  the  Council  in 
September 2008, reiterated the need for the EU to engage in resettlement.  

(4) Lack of strategic use of resettlement as an EU external policy instrument; It is widely 
recognized  that  resettlement  serves  not  only  a  humanitarian  purpose  vis-à-vis  those  persons 
who are effectively resettled and indirectly for those refugees remaining in the first country of 
asylum, but that it serves 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. Currently 
the member states which are resettlement countries largely set priorities at the national level, 

13 

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st13/st13440.en08.pdf 

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
without much coordination at EU level regarding both resettlement itself and with regard to 
other related external policy instruments. (Annex 12) 

The lack of joint EU prioritization is illustrated by the experience with respect to resettlement 
from  the  beneficiary  countries  of  Regional  Protection  Programmes.  As  mentioned  above, 
Tanzania  and  the  three  former  NIS  countries  (Ukraine,  Belarus  and  Republic  of  Moldova) 
were  identified  by  the  European  Council  as  beneficiary  countries  of  Regional  Protection 
Programmes. It was also decided that one of the key components of RPP's was resettlement of 
refugees from RPP countries. In spite of this, relatively few refugees have been resettled by 
EU Member States from RPP countries. (Annex 13) 

The recent discussions in the European JHA Council of Ministers on the resettlement of Iraqi 
refugees  from  Syria  and  Jordan,  demonstrate  the  advantages  of  discussing  resettlement 
priorities  at  an  EU  level.  (See  also  par.  2.2.4.5)  The  conclusions  adopted  by  the  Council 
underscore  the  fact  that  resettlement  is  an  important  component  of  EU  external  asylum 
policies and EU external policies in general vis-à-vis Iraq and Iraq's neighbouring countries. 

(5)  Constraints  posed  by  current  financial  framework  as  regards  specific  financial 
resources  for  resettlement;  In  the  view  of  many  stakeholders  which  were  consulted,  the 
financial support which ERF III provides to resettlement has clearly led to positive effects on 
resettlement. There are, however, a number of constraints within the current ERF mechanism 
which needs to be considered. The additional assistance which is provided to Member States 
per  refugee  resettled  (Article  13(3)  of  ERF  Decision)  applies  only  with  respect  to  specific 
categories: a) persons from RPP countries, b) unaccompanied minors, c) children or women at 
risk, d) persons with serious medical needs that can only be addressed through resettlement.  

With respect to RPPs it should be noted that the principal objective of these programmes is 
the  strengthening  of  the  protection  situation  in  a  third  country  through  capacity  building 
measures.  In  most  cases  this  is  expected  to  require  medium  to  long  term  assistance. 
Resettlement  needs  may  on  the  other  hand  change  more  quickly.  The  case  of  Tanzania  is 
illustrative: the number of refugees and the resettlement needs in Tanzania were much larger 
in 2005 then they are today.  

Secondly,  the  question  may  be  posed  whether  it  is  justified  that  under  the  current  financial 
framework additional assistance is provided for resettlement of refugees from RPP countries 
and not for resettlement of refugees from other countries, such as Iraqi refugees from Syria or 
Jordan. The financial framework is arguably too rigid in this respect.  

A  third  critical  remark  on  the  current  financial  framework  is  that  it  appears  to  provide 
insufficient  incentives  for  non-resettlement  countries  to  start  resettlement  activities.  Many 
stakeholders have expressed the view that the financial incentive for Member States to engage 
de novo in resettlement should be stronger.  

(6)  Insufficient  exchange  of  information  and  lack  of  coordination  on  resettlement 
activities; Resettlement is largely carried out through bilateral contacts between resettlement 
countries  and  the  UNHCR.  Apart  from  this  there  is  a  resettlement  working  group  which  is 
coordinated  by  UNHCR  and  which  meets  twice  a  year.  This  resettlement  working  group 
includes  all  resettlement  countries  worldwide.  Its  focus  is  therefore  not  primarily  on  issues 
specific to Europe. For this reason, informal resettlement expert meetings have been convened 
by the Commission since 2007. These take place twice a year and are considered useful for 

EN 

15 

   EN 

the sharing of information and to discuss best practices. As a framework this is, however, very 
unstructured.  There  is no guarantee that useful information, which may relate to all sorts of 
aspects of resettlement, such as features of specific resettlement caseloads, security concerns, 
family reunification aspects, false information, fraud, identity documents etc., is structurally 
shared among Member States. The lack of a structured exchange of information applies also 
to  the  reception  and  integration  of  resettled  refugees.  The  practices  among  resettlement 
countries differ considerably in this respect.  

(7) 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.  The  current  situation, 
which  is  marked  by  a  lack  of  joint  activities  and  practical  cooperation  between  Member 
States, increases the financial costs of resettlement currently carried out. This may also be an 
impediment  for  potential  new  resettlement  countries  to  engage  in  resettlement.  This  is 
particularly relevant for Member States which consider introducing small resettlement quotas 
(Portugal, the Czech Republic and Romania have currently quotas of 30 and 40 persons). To 
organize  a  separate  selection  mission  for  a  caseload  of  30  persons  is  impractical  and  very 
costly.  

Current  twinning  arrangements  take  place  on  an  ad-hoc  basis,  however,  and  there  is  no 
structural basis for it, either in terms of human resources, or in terms of financial resources. 
There  is  furthermore  a  significant  cost  advantage  in  carrying  out  specific  resettlement 
activities jointly and on a structural basis. This will reduce the over-all costs of resettlement.  

(8) The current situation is marked by divergences among EU Member States with respect 
to  resettlement  criteria  and  the  status  accorded  to  resettled  refugees.  (Annex  8)  While 
some  Member  States  require  that  the  person  to  be  resettled  qualifies  for  refugee  status 
according to the Geneva Convention, other Member States may accept cases for resettlement 
also on humanitarian grounds or if they qualify for subsidiary protection status. Furthermore, 
some  Member  States  apply  the  integration  potential  of  the  person  to  be  resettled  as  an 
additional  criterion,  while  other  Member  States  don't.  This  implies  that  with  respect  to 
persons to be resettled different protection standards among Member States are applied. There 
are, as mentioned in paragraph 1.2 above, also differences among Member States with respect 
to the status which refugees receive after they have been resettled. It is questionable whether 
this  situation  is  satisfactory  given  the  objective  of  creating  a  Common  European  Asylum 
System  (CEAS)  and  further  developing  EU  external  asylum  policies.  The  fact  that  EU 
resettlement countries use different resettlement criteria is also inefficient, because it requires 
extra time and resources for UNHCR in identifying and preparing resettlement submissions.  

2.4. 

EU right to act 

The current legal basis for Community action in the area of asylum policy is set out in Article 
63(1) and (2) TEC. These provisions state that the Council is to adopt “measures on asylum, 
in  accordance  with  the  Geneva  Convention  of  28  July  1951  and  the  Protocol  of  31  January 
1967  relating  to  the  status  of  refugees  and  other  relevant  treaties”  and  also  “measures  on 
refugees  and  displaced  persons”  in  areas  such  as  Member  State  responsibility,  reception 
conditions, refugee qualification, granting of protection (including temporary protection) and 
balancing of Member States’ efforts in receiving refugees and displaced persons. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

As  regard  practical  cooperation  in  the  field  of  asylum  policy,  the  current  legal  basis  is 
established  in  Article  66  TEC,  which  states  that  the  Council,  acting  in  accordance  with  the 
procedure  referred  to  in  Article  67,  shall  take  measures  to  ensure  cooperation  between  the 
relevant departments of the administrations of the Member States in the areas covered by title 
IV  (visas,  asylum,  immigration  and  other  policies  related  to  free  movement  of  persons),  as 
well as between those departments and the Commission.  

2.5. 

Subsidiarity test 

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.  This  led  to  adoption  by  the 
Community legislator of the acquis in the field of asylum, on the basis of specific dedicated 
legal bases enshrined in the Treaty. 

The need to act as regards the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) has already been 
assessed in recent impact assessment reports, and in particular in the impact assessment on the 
asylum  policy  plan14,  which  has  pointed  specifically  to  the  need  to  develop  a  joint  EU 
resettlement  scheme.  There  have  been  repeated  calls  from  the  European  Council  and  the 
European Parliament to develop the CEAS, including its external dimension. The institutions 
of  the  Union  committed  to  improving  implementation  of  the  acquis  in  the  field  of  asylum 
clearly expressed the view that strengthening practical cooperation between Member States as 
well as strengthening the external dimension are key priorities. 

The nature of the objectives to be achieved – improvement of quality and cost-effectiveness 
of  resettlement  through  practical  cooperation,  increasing  the  strategic  use  of  resettlement, 
developing external asylum policies – requires an initiative to be taken at the EU level. The 
other  general  objectives  also  require  action  at  EU  level.  The  establishment  of  a  joint  EU 
resettlement scheme will be instrumental in ensuring that more EU Member States participate 
in resettlement and in bringing about an over-all increase in the total of available resettlement 
places in the EU.  

3. 

DEFINITION OF POLICY OBJECTIVES 

The overall policy objectives of the Commission proposal for the establishment of a joint EU 
refugee resettlement scheme are the following: 

(a) 

(b) 

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

to  increase  the  humanitarian  impact  and  efforts  of  the  EU  by  greater  common 
involvement in resettlement;  

The  specific  objectives  of  the  Commission  proposal  for  the  establishment  of  a  joint  EU 
refugee resettlement scheme are the following: 

14 

Commission staff working document Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the 
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
Regions  Policy  Plan  on  Asylum  an  Integrated  Approach  to  Protection  Across  the  EU  Impact 
Assessment {COM(2008) 360 final} {SEC(2008) 2030} 

EN 

17 

   EN 

                                                 
(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

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

to ensure that more EU Member States participate in resettlement; 

to ensure that resettlement efforts in the EU are better targeted, on an ongoing basis, 
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;  

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

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 
EU; 

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

The  operational  objectives  of  the  Commission  proposal  for  the  establishment  of  a  joint  EU 
refugee resettlement scheme are the following: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

to  increase  the  number  of  available  resettlement  places  in  the  EU  by  at  least  10% 
over the next 5 years (this is a general target which is considered to be realistic, given 
the input through stakeholder consultations); 

to ensure that at least 5 more Member States, which until now have not engaged in 
resettlement, will become engaged in resettlement within the next 5 years; 

to  define  priorities  at  the  EU  level  with  respect  to  the  nationalities  and  specific 
categories of refugees to be resettled; 

to  establish  resettlement  as  a  central  component  of  the  further  development  of 
Regional Protection Programmes and their extension to other regions; 

to create a framework through which cooperation among EU countries with respect 
to resettlement - both with respect to practical cooperation, as well as with respect to 
political cooperation - can be carried out and can be further developed in a structured 
and systematic way;  

to provide the financial underpinning for the resettlement priorities which are set at 
EU level; 

to  ensure  intensified  practical  cooperation  among  EU  resettlement  countries  in  an 
effective  and  structured  way,  more  in  particular  with  respect  to  the  following 
activities:  

- organization of selection missions 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
- interviewing of cases, use of interpreters, use of interviewing facilities 

- medical screening 

- security screening 

- pre-departure orientation missions 

- logistical arrangements concerning travel, visa etc. 

- development of reception and integration programmes 

(h) 

(i) 

to ensure exchange of best practices with respect to resettlement; 

to formulate EU wide harmonized resettlement criteria.  

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Three  policy  options  have  been  defined.  The  second  option  is  divided  in  two  sub-options. 
These are presented in the Table below. The options are discussed in paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 
4.3.  

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

POLICY OPTIONS 

1st option: Maintain Status quo 

-maintain status quo practical cooperation 

practical cooperation would be developed through EASO 

-maintain status quo political component 

no development 

-maintain status quo financial component 

no development 

2nd option: Medium option 

-develop practical cooperation 

Practical cooperation would be developed through EASO 

-develop political component 

Sub option A 

Political  and  financial  components  allowing  for  a  dynamic  annual 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-develop financial component 

definition of resettlement priorities will be developed by: 

amendment of ERF 
establishment of a new Committee under Comitology 

Sub option B 

Political  and  financial  components  allowing  for  a  dynamic  annual 
definition of resettlement priorities will be developed by: 

amendment of ERF 
the use of existing structures (Solid Committee and Resettlement Expert 
Platform) 

3rd option: Maximum option 

-develop practical cooperation 

-develop political component 

-develop financial component 

Fully developed EU wide resettlement scheme; 
Total of available resettlement places within EU would 
be set and filled at EU level; 
Full harmonization of resettlement criteria; 
Resettlement selection process fully centralized; 
EU would act collectively towards UNHCR, IOM, third countries on resettlement 

4.1. 

Short description of 1st option: no further EU action 

Practical cooperation component: 

The  status  quo  situation  already  foresees  the  establishment  of  a  European  Asylum  Support 
Office, which is expected to be operational by 2010 (the proposal tabled by the Commission 
is  currently  discussed  with  the  Council  and  the  EP).  This  will  provide  a  framework  for 
carrying out practical cooperation activities, including activities with respect to resettlement. 
The  experiences  over  the  past  years  and  the  consultation  of  stakeholders  have  showed  that 
there is a strong need for practical cooperation activities. Many practical cooperation activities 
have  been  carried  out  on  an  ad-hoc  basis  between  different  governmental  and  non-
governmental actors over the past years. They were financed on an ad-hoc basis, primarily by 
ERF Community Actions. The establishment of the European Asylum Support Office will be 
well-placed to provide a structural framework for these activities.  

There  is  potentially  a  wide  range  of  practical  cooperation  activities  which  EASO  could 
develop with respect to resettlement. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Sharing of information on resettlement: this covers a wide range of issues and may 
cover both factual information as well as analysis, studies and results of resettlement 
projects; 

Identify best practices on resettlement; 

Trainings, seminars etc., both for persons working on resettlement and for persons in 
Member States which are not engaged in resettlement yet; 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(4) 

(5) 

Twinning  arrangements  targeted  at  Member  States  which  are  not  involved  in 
resettlement yet; 

Fostering and organizing joint activities and operations between existing resettlement 
countries, such as:  

•  joint  selection  missions  (joint  use  of  interpreters,  other  facilities,  medical 

screening, security screening);  

•  joint pre-departure activities;  

•  joint travel arrangements for resettled refugees (provided by IOM);  

•  Joint activities with respect to reception and integration of resettled refugees; 

•  Leading and coordinating a specific expert group on resettlement submissions (eg: 

dossier submissions, emergency submissions, humanitarian criteria etc.); 

•  setting  up  an  EU  'clearing  house'  which  receives  resettlement  submissions  from 

UNHCR; 

A recent development is the establishment in Romania of an Evacuation Transit Center (ETC) 
for  resettlement  (see  par.  4  above).  This  requires  specific  attention,  since  several  Member 
States have recently demonstrated an interest in the use of this Evacuation Transit Center as a 
facility  from  which  they  can  resettle  specific  categories  of  refugees  in  urgent  need  of 
resettlement. 

Political component: if the status quo is maintained, this will not be further developed. 

–  This means that the EU resettlement expert group which was convened by the Commission 

since 2007 will continue its work on an ad-hoc basis. 

–  It also means that the JHA Council may continue to have occasional high-level discussions 
on  resettlement  in  specific  cases,  such  as  the  recent  example  of  the  discussion  on  the 
resettlement of Iraqi refugees.  

Financial component: if the status quo is maintained, this will not be further developed. 

–  This  means  that  financial  support  for  resettlement  activities  will  be  continued  to  be 
provided by ERF III on the basis of the current criteria. As explained above, these criteria 
are fixed and the current mechanism is thus quite rigid. See paragraph 2.2.3.  

4.2. 

Short description of 2nd option: medium option  

This  option  is  based  on  the  voluntary  participation  of  Member  States  in  an  EU  joint 
resettlement  scheme.  There  is  an  important  political  consideration  in  this  respect,  which  is 
mentioned  in  paragraph  1.3.  This  is  the  emphasis  which  some  Member  States  put  on  the 
particular migration and asylum pressures which they currently face. In the light of this these 
Member States insist on the voluntariness of participation in resettlement.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
Practical cooperation component:  

Under this option practical cooperation will also be developed by the EASO. The tasks which 
EASO could have are described above in paragraph 4.1. The distinction between the practical 
cooperation under this option and option 1 (status quo) is primarily related to the link between 
practical  cooperation  activities  and  the  further  development  of  the  political  and  financial 
component.  As  described  below,  under  this  option  it  is  foreseen  that  a  political  framework 
would be created which would set political priorities with respect to resettlement, particularly 
with respect to geographic areas, nationalities as well as specific groups. Within this political 
framework  resettlement  will  also  be  discussed  more  generally  and  coordinated  with  EU 
external asylum policies and EU external policies in general. The framework will include all 
relevant  stakeholders  (experts  from  MS,  Commission,  UNHCR,  NGO's).  Furthermore,  the 
political framework will discuss how resettlement can be promoted and what sorts of practical 
cooperation  activities  are  particularly  needed.  It  will  thus  enable  the  resettlement-related 
activities to be carried out by EASO to be better-focused on the most important and current 
needs of Member States and will facilitate more effective steering of these activities. Under 
this  option  development  of  the  practical  cooperation  component  is  therefore  expected  to  be 
stimulated and reinforced by the development of the other two components.  

Political and financial components: 

As described above, there is currently very limited structured political cooperation with 
respect to resettlement. It is envisaged to develop this further through the establishment 
of a political framework and to underpin it via the financial component.  

Political component:  

•  A  mechanism  would  be  established  to  enable  the  of  setting  of  common  EU  annual 
priorities  with  respect  to  resettlement,  both  with  respect  to  nationalities  and  specific 
categories of refugees to be resettled. The current framework of ERF stipulates that extra 
financial  assistance  is  granted  to  Member  States  if  they  resettle  refugees  who  fall  under 
four  specific  categories,  namely  (1)  unaccompanied  minors,  (2)  children  and  women  at 
risk,  particularly  from  psychological,  physical  or  sexual  violence  or  exploitation,  (3) 
persons with serious medical needs that can only be addressed through resettlement and (4) 
persons from a country or region designated for the implementation of Regional Protection 
Programmes.  The  ERF  framework  today  is  rigid  and  not  adaptable,  which  is  particularly 
relevant with respect to geographic priorities. See also paragraph 2.3, under points 4 and 5. 
The  political  framework  will  therefore  be  responsible  for  setting  annual  resettlement 
priorities in order to respond to newly arising needs. 

•  The  political  framework  would  also  ensure  an 

integrated  approach  between 
resettlement, external asylum policies and EU external policies as a whole. The setting 
of  resettlement  priorities  would  be  done  on  the  basis  of  current  needs  as  regularly 
identified  by  UNHCR  and  on  the  basis  of  humanitarian  and  political  considerations 
identified  by  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission.  The  departments  responsible  for 
external relations, humanitarian assistance and development will contribute to formulating 
priorities in order to ensure an integrated approach. 

•  Implications  of  formulating  EU  wide  resettlement  priorities.  Firstly,  it  would  be 
politically important to have EU endorsed resettlement priorities. Secondly, Member States 

EN 

22 

   EN 

would  receive  extra  financial  assistance  under  Article  13  of  ERF  III,  if  they  resettle 
according  to  EU  priorities.  It  should,  however,  be  underlined  that  the  formulation  of  EU 
wide resettlement priorities does not impact on the freedom of Member States to carry out 
resettlement of other categories of refugees.  

•  There would, moreover, be an added-value in coordinating and promoting resettlement 
efforts generally at the EU level. The political framework would therefore not necessarily 
limit  itself  to  deciding  on  strategic  and  political  priorities.  It  could  also,  for  example, 
discuss  whether  Member  States  are  willing  to  set  quantitative  targets.  The  framework 
would also discuss activities aimed at ensuring that Member States which are not engaged 
in  resettlement  yet,  have  the  opportunity  to  become  familiar  with  resettlement,  through 
training, twinning arrangements etc. 

•  Identification of needs for specific practical cooperation activities, which would be the 

basis for EASO to develop these in cooperation with its operational partners; 

Financial component:  

•  The  intensification  of  practical  cooperation  activities  in  the  field  of  resettlement  will  be 
covered  largely  by  the  budget  of  the  EASO  and  to  some  extent  by  ERF-Community 
Actions. The envisaged total budget of EASO is scheduled to be after its establishment as 
follows: 5,25 million Euros (2010), 8 million Euros (2011), 12 million Euros (2012) and 
15  million  Euros  (2013).  This  covers  all  sorts  of  asylum  related  practical  cooperation 
activities, including those on resettlement.  

•  As described above under the political component, the political framework will set annual 
resettlement  priorities  in  order  to  respond  to  newly  arising  needs.  In  order  to  provide  an 
effective financial underpinning of these priorities Article 13 of ERF III will be amended.  

•  The specific assistance which is provided by ERF under Article 13 gives also an incentive 
to Member States which are not resettlement countries to engage de novo in resettlement. 
It should also be recalled that – in order to familiarize themselves with resettlement – these 
Member States can include resettlement activities in their ERF annual programmes under 
priority 3 as defined in the ERF strategic guidelines. 

•  The  proposal  which  will  be  made  by  the  Commission  has  a  potential  impact  on  the 
quantitative  allocations  which  are  provided  by  the  ERF.  The  ERF  provides  financial 
assistance to different asylum related activities; resettlement is one of them. If the principal 
objective, namely the increase in the total of resettlement places within the EU, is reached 
and if Member States resettle refugees on the basis of the priorities which are set jointly, 
the allocation under article 13 may increase substantially. Under the pledging exercise in 
2008  Member  States  announced  that  they  would  resettle  2.393  persons  for  whom  they 
would  qualify  to  receive  additional  financial  assistance  under  article  13.  This  equalled  a 
total allocation under article 13 of 9.572.000 Euros. Under the pledging exercise in 2009 
Member States announced originally that they would resettle 2.711 persons for whom they 
would  qualify  to  receive  additional  financial  assistance  under  article  13.  This  equalled  a 
total allocation under article 13 of 10.844.000 Euros. The pledging in 2009 was, however, 
revised following Council Conclusions which called upon Member States to resettle Iraqi 
refugees from Syria and Jordan. This led to a revised pledging by Member States to resettle 
4.976  persons,  for  whom  they  would  qualify  to  receive  additional  financial  assistance 

EN 

23 

   EN 

under  article  13,  which  equalled  a  total  allocation  under  article  13  of  19.904.000  Euros. 
The revised pledging, however, was mainly due to a pledging by Germany to resettle 2.160 
Iraqi refugees  from Syria  and Jordan, for whom they would qualify to receive additional 
financial  assistance  under  article  13.  This  was  an  exceptional  development  which  is 
unlikely  to  be  sustained  on  an  annual  basis.  Nevertheless,  it  is  likely  that  the  allocation 
under  article  13  will  increase  somewhat,  and  possibly  substantially.  The  extent  of  this 
increase  depends  on  the  increase  in  the  number  of  the  persons  who  will  be  resettled  by 
Member States and on the way in which resettlement priorities will be formulated, on the 
basis  of  which  Member  States  qualify  to  receive  the  specific  financial  assistance  under 
article 13. Although it is difficult to estimate this effect, it is not unlikely that the increase 
may be around 25 % on average. This would imply an increased allocation under article 13 
of 2.711.000 Euros on average per year.  

•  A disproportionate increase in the allocation under article 13 may potentially penalize the 
allocations  under  the  ERF  generally  to  Member  States  which  do  not  participate  in 
resettlement. However, a total budget increase will take place gradually over a number of 
years and the "assigned revenues" made available in the ERF budget each year, which is 
expected to be up to 2 million Euros per year from 2010, could also match the increase in 
the allocation. The total ERF budget will increase as follows: 92,5 million Euros (2010), 
103,33  million  Euros  (2011)  and  122,13  million  Euros  (2012).  It  is  therefore  considered 
unlikely that the increase in the allocation under article 13 for resettlement activities will 
have a disproportionate effect on the allocation of ERF funding to other asylum activities. 
At this stage it is therefore not considered necessary to include a "ceiling" with respect to 
the  allocation  of  ERF  funds  under  article  13  ERF  III  (the  existing  structure  of  the  Fund 
does  not  provide  a  ceiling  with  respect  to  these  allocations),  but  the  Commission  will 
monitor  the  allocations  under  article  13  ERF  III  closely  each  year  in  order  to  decide 
whether the establishment of a "ceiling" at a later stage is necessary.   

The  difference  between  sub-option  2A  and  2B  relates  to  the  way  in  which  the  political 
framework  is  going  to  be  organized.  In  terms  of  intended  output  there  is  no  distinction 
between sub-options 2A and 2B. 

Description sub-option 2A: To formulate political and strategic priorities a new Committee 
on  Resettlement  chaired  by  the  Commission  would  be  established,  in  which  all  Member 
States  would  participate.  Other  stakeholders  (i.e.  UNHCR,  IOM,  ECRE,  NGO's  which  are 
active  in  resettlement)  would  participate  in  the  Committee  as  consultative  partners.  This 
Committee  on  Resettlement  would  be  a  new  Committee  to  be  set  up  and  would  function 
according  to  Comitology  rules.  The  allocation  of  financial  assistance  provided  by  ERF  III 
under  Article  13  would  be  on  the  basis  of  the  priorities  as  set  by  the  Committee  on 
Resettlement. 

Description sub-option 2B: To formulate political and strategic priorities existing structures 
would be used. Since, as is indicated in chapter 6, this is the preferred option, this option is 
described hereunder in more detail. 

In spring each year UNHCR will provide an indicative forecast of the resettlement needs for 
the  following  year.  The  Commission  will  thereupon  convene  a  meeting  of  the  Resettlement 
Expert  Platform,  in  which  all  Member  States  and  other  stakeholders  (i.e.  UNHCR,  IOM, 
ECRE  and  NGOs)  will  participate.  In  this  meeting  resettlement  priorities  will  be  discussed 
and  identified  on  the  basis  of  the  forecast  provided  by  UNHCR.  Priorities  may  relate  to 

EN 

24 

   EN 

nationalities, geographic areas or specific groups of refugees, such as particularly vulnerable 
persons,  or  on  the  basis  of  any  other  relevant  criteria.  The  Commission  will  subsequently 
make a draft Decision specifying the resettlement priorities for the coming year, on which the 
SOLID-Committee - which is the existing Committee of Member States for the management 
of the 'General Programme on Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows' and which is 
chaired  by  the  Commission  -  will  be  consulted.  After  the  consultation  of  the  SOLID 
Committee the Commission will decide on the resettlement priorities for the following year, 
which will be published in the form of a Decision.  

ERF III will provide for the financial underpinning of these common EU annual resettlement 
priorities.  Article  13  of  the  ERF  Decision  will  be  amended  and  will  provide  for  financial 
assistance of 4.000 Euros per resettled person to Member States which resettle according to 
the common EU priorities. After the Commission Decision on the resettlement priorities has 
been published, Member States will communicate to the Commission how many persons they 
intend to resettle during the following year according to the common EU priorities (pledging-
exercise  according  to  Article  13  ERF).  On  the  basis  of  the  pledging  Member  States  will 
receive financial assistance. The timing of the annual Commission Decision will need to be 
such  as  to  enable  Member  States  to  submit  resettlement  pledging,  for  the  purposes  of 
qualifying for the financial payments under Article 13 ERF, in line with the decided priorities.  

The current Resettlement Expert Group, which has been convened by the Commission on an 
informal and ad-hoc basis, will be developed into a Resettlement Expert Platform, in which 
all Member States and other stakeholders participate, and which will meet on a regular basis. 
This  Platform  will  serve  as  a  political  framework  and  will  discuss,  apart  from  the  annual 
priority setting, also other issues related to resettlement within the EU.  

One  of  the  main  challenges  for  this  Platform  will  be  to  ensure  that  more  Member  States 
within the EU will participate in resettlement. An important way to reach this objective, will 
be to provide training on resettlement and to organize twinning operations in which different 
actors are involved, both from Member States which currently carry out resettlement as well 
as  from  other  Member  States.  To  this  end  the  Resettlement  Expert  Platform  will  need  to 
cooperate  closely  with  the  European  Asylum  Support  Office  (EASO),  which  will  be 
responsible for practical cooperation activities, including those on resettlement.  

The Platform will be the primary interlocutor with the EASO also on other issues related to 
resettlement,  for  example  with  respect  to  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  resettlement 
activities,  the  identification  of  best  practices,  the  examination  and  development  of  new 
practices with respect to resettlement, such as the sponsorship-model, as well as identifying 
priorities for the next years.  

The  fact  that  political  and  practical  cooperation  on  resettlement  is  further  developed  at  EU 
level, is expected to make it easier for Member States, which until recently were not engaged 
in resettlement, to become involved. The Resettlement Expert Platform and the EASO will be 
able to supply relevant expertise. If joint EU policies are in place, the threshold for Member 
States to engage in resettlement will also be lower in political terms. 

4.3. 

Short description of 3rd option: maximum option 

Political, financial and practical cooperation components: 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
A  fully  developed  EU  wide  resettlement  scheme  could  imply  some  or  all  of  the  following 
elements: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

All  EU  Member  States  would  commit  themselves  to  contribute  to  resettlement  by 
effectively making a certain number of resettlement places available. The number of 
places  made  available  by  the  Member  States  would  be  based  on  a  distribution 
calculated on the basis of fixed criteria, which would be set at EU level. 

The  total  number  of  available  resettlement  places  within  the  EU  would  be  set  and 
filled  at  EU  level.  This  would  imply  that  at  EU  level  decisions  would  be  made  on 
priorities  to  be  resettled  and  that  the  selection  of  resettled  refugees  would  be  made 
fully in accordance with these joint EU criteria.  

The fact that resettlement priorities would be decided upon at central EU level would 
enable to fully integrate resettlement 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 be no discretionary power left to Member States 
therefore  to  decide  themselves  on  the  resettlement  of  particular  nationalities  or 
specific groups. 

Full  harmonization  of  resettlement  criteria,  as  well  as  the  status  which  resettled 
refugees  would  receive  after  arrival,  would  be  necessary  through  a  legislative 
instrument. 

The  resettlement  selection  process  would  be  fully  centralized  at  the  EU  level.  All 
pre-departure  operations  would  be  carried  out  jointly.  The  capacity  at  the  central 
level  would  have  to  be  reinforced  and  capacity  at  national  level  with  respect  to 
resettlement  could  be  reduced.  In  this  option  EASO  would  most  likely  not  have  a 
support role vis-à-vis national authorities with respect to resettlement activities, but 
would  have  a  leading  organizational  role.  The  necessary  increase  in  capacity  of 
EASO with respect to resettlement would impact on the capacity of EASO to carry 
out practical cooperation in other fields. The enlarged tasks of EASO with respect to 
resettlement would possibly require amendment of the regulation on the EASO as it 
is currently proposed by the Commission. 

The  EU  would  act  collectively  towards  UNHCR,  IOM  and  third  countries  on 
resettlement,  both  with  respect  to  political  discussions  as  well  as  with  respect  to 
practical and logistical arrangements.  

The  financial  component  would  need  to  be  reviewed  completely  under  this  option. 
Since all Member States would participate in a fully-fledged EU resettlement scheme 
and  priorities  would  be  set  at  the  EU  level,  there  would  be  no  need  for  additional 
financial  assistance  as  provided  under  Article  13  of  ERF.  ERF  would  need  to  be 
revised.  

(i) 

A  fully-fledged  joint  EU  resettlement  scheme  would  require  a  separate  legal  base, 
probably in the form of a regulation. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

In the paragraphs below an analysis of the options is made against the following criteria: 

- 

- 

- 

effectiveness of the options in reaching the objectives; 

impacts of the options; 

political feasibility and proportionality. 

The different impacts are defined as follows: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

The  first  impacts  are  the  direct  financial  costs  related  to  resettlement.  These  costs 
relate to all the different resettlement activities, such as selection and pre-departure 
activities as  well as  reception and integration  activities during the first year  after 
the resettlement. They are mainly paid by the governments of Member States, even 
if  in  some  Member  States  some  of  these  activities  are  carried  out  by  local  NGO's. 
During  the  consultations  with  stakeholders  data  were  collected  from  the  existing 
resettlement countries within the EU with respect to these costs. See also paragraph 
2.2.2. In annex 7 is an overview of the financial costs of resettlement in the Member 
States.  

The  second  impact  is  the  effect  of  increased  practical  cooperation  among  Member 
States on the financial costs of resettlement per resettled refugee (per capita).  

The  third  and  fourth  categories  of  impacts  relate  to  the  economic  and  social  costs 
related  to  the  integration  of  resettled  refugees,  after  the  first  year  of 
resettlement: housing, education, medical assistance, social assistance, employment 
and integration potential within the EU at the local level. Apart from costs there are 
also  benefits  to  society,  such  as  labour  capacity,  cultural  diversity  etc.  It  is  not 
possible  to  quantify  this  impact  with  any  precision,  given  the  wide  divergence 
between costs in the different Member States and the widely differing characteristics 
of refugees resettled.  

The  fifth  category  of  impacts  relates  to  the  direct  humanitarian  impact  (on 
resettled refugees themselves), the indirect humanitarian impact (on improvement 
of the protection situation to other refugees in third countries) and the effectiveness 
of EU external relations. 

The  sixth  impact  relates  to  the  degree  in  which  the  option  leads  to  increased 
equality  in  providing  protection  to  refugees  (equal  treatment  of  a  particular 
group).  

The seventh impact which needs to be assessed is the effect on fundamental rights. 
As  explained  above,  resettlement  becomes  necessary  when  there  is  inadequate 
protection  in  the  country  of  first  asylum.  This  inadequacy  of  protection  can  have 
various reasons, including among others, violation of fundamental rights, e.g. if the 
living  conditions  are  so  deplorable  that  they  amount  to  inhuman  or  degrading 
treatment  (see  Article  3  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  EU).  In  other  cases, 
resettlement  may  be  necessary  because  the  country  of  first  asylum  does  not  offer 
legal  recognition  of  refugees  and  thus  puts  into  question  the  fundamental  right  to 

EN 

27 

   EN 

asylum as such (see Article 18 EU Charter). EU measures that aim at enhancing and 
strengthening the use of resettlement schemes therefore implement and promote the 
fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter and notably, human dignity, the right 
to  asylum,  prohibition  of  torture  and  inhuman  or  degrading  treatment,  non-
discrimination and the rights of the child.  

5.1. 

Assessment of 1st option: maintenance status quo  

As  described  in  paragraphs  2.2  and  2.3  the  "baseline"  is  an  evolving  picture, 
particularly  because  of  the  expected  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  baseline  now  (situation  in  spring  2009)  and  the 
baseline  in  two  years  time  (situation  expected  after  the  creation  of  EASO  without 
further EU action taken).  

Impact Assessment  

Option 1 

Objectives  

now  progressive 

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

2  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)  

3 

4 

Increase strategic use of resettlement at an EU level 

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

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

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

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Low/medium 

Low/medium

Low/medium

Low 

Low 

Low/medium

Low/medium

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

0 

Low 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Impacts 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

Direct 
financial  costs 
integration) (total costs) 

related 

to 

resettlement 

(selection, 

reception, 

Effect  of  economies  of  scale  on  direct  financial  costs  related  to  resettlement 
(selection, reception, integration) (total costs)  

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 

 Small 
increase 

Small 
decrease 

Small 
increase 

Low 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
wide sense (pro capita costs) 

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

 5 

 6 

Increased equality in providing protection to refugees 

 7 

Impact on fundamental rights  

Political feasibility  

 1  Support among key stakeholders for this option  

 2  Proportionality 

 0 

 0 

 0 

Low 

Low 

Low 

 0 

Medium 

Some 
concern 

 0 

5.1.1.  Effectiveness in reaching objectives  

The  status  quo  situation  is  discussed  and  analyzed  in  paragraphs  2.1,  2.2  and  2.3.  As 
highlighted  above  there  have  been  important  positive  developments  with  respect  to 
resettlement within the EU. These recent developments demonstrate that there is certainly a 
political  momentum  which  is  favourable  to  resettlement.  Furthermore,  the  establishment  of 
the  European  Asylum  Support  Office  (EASO),  which  is  expected  in  2010,  will  provide  a 
framework  for  carrying  out  practical  cooperation  activities,  including  those  related  to 
resettlement.  

As  pointed  out  above  in  paragraph  2.2  and  2.3,  there  are,  however,  a  number  of  important 
drawbacks to the current situation. These drawbacks have implications on its effectiveness in 
attaining the defined objectives. 

Specific objectives 1, 2 and 3 

•  The current trend is positive and it is likely that the practical cooperation which EASO will 
develop on resettlement will lead to some increase in resettlement in the EU. However, this 
increase is likely to be limited;  

•  If the status quo is maintained, it is likely that a couple of EU Member States, which have 
until now not been engaged into resettlement, will decide to become engaged; this increase 
is estimated to be low; 

•  If  the  status  quo  is  maintained,  it  is  possible  that  Member  States  will  from  time  to  time 
decide  ad  hoc  to  prioritise  the  resettlement  of  persons  currently  in  particular  need  of 
protection  (e.g.  the  recent  Council  decision  to  resettle  10.000  Iraqis  in  Syria  and  Jordan. 
However,  the  absence  of  a  regular,  structured  priority-setting  framework  means  that 
resettlement efforts in the EU will not always be optimally targeted, on an ongoing basis, 
towards those persons or groups of persons (who are most in need of protection; 

•  There are, however, some serious deficits to the status quo. In particular, the absence of a 
framework  for  structured  political  cooperation  on  resettlement.  This  will  also  hamper 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
practical cooperation on resettlement within EASO. This will remain a barrier for Member 
States to newly engage into resettlement.  

Specific objectives 4 and 5 

•  If no EU action is taken on resettlement, there will be little strategic use of resettlement at 
EU  level.  This  means  that  priorities  with  respect  to  nationalities  and  categories  to  be 
resettled, would continue to be set at the national level. This would lead to the maintenance 
of a fragmented situation in terms of priorities; 

•  If  no  EU  action  is  taken,  resettlement  will  become  less  integrated  and  developed  as  a 
component of EU external asylum policies. This would make the external asylum policies 
and the EU's external policies as a whole less effective; 

•  Common  initiatives  such  as  the  resettlement  of  Iraqis  from  Syria  and  Jordan  would 

continue to be engaged in on an ad-hoc basis.  

Specific objectives 6 and 7 

•  Through the establishment of EASO the exchange of information concerning resettlement 
within the EU will improve. As a result, the quality of resettlement is expected to improve. 

•  A very important aspect of resettlement is reception and integration. Cooperation on these 
aspects is likely to be mainly in the form of exchange of information and identifying 'best 
practices'. This is an important tool to improve the quality of the reception and integration 
systems in the Member States. The way reception and integration of resettled refugees is 
organized differs considerably among Member States.  

•  The development of practical cooperation on resettlement is expected to deliver important 
synergy effects. In this respect one can think of concrete activities which can be carried out 
together  by  Member  States,  such  as  selection  missions,  cultural  orientation 
missions/programmes, medical screenings, travel or visa arrangements, but one can think 
also  of  other  forms  of  cooperation  such  as  exchange  of  information  on  characteristics  of 
specific resettlement caseloads, etc.  

•  Joint activities will lead to advantages related to economies of scale. Economies of scale 
are expected to lead to improved quality at a lower level of costs per refugee, which will 
lower the threshold for Member States to newly engage into resettlement.  

•  If the status quo is maintained, the financial costs per capita of resettlement are expected to 
decrease  slightly  (through  intensified  practical  cooperation  within  EASO),  compared  to 
their current levels. See below under impacts. 

However,  if  there  is  no  further  political  cooperation  with  respect  to  resettlement,  this 
will  also  have  a  negative  impact  on  practical  cooperation  regarding  resettlement 
activities. Practical cooperation on resettlement would be likely to remain largely ad-hoc and 
fragmented,  even  if  EASO  is  going  to  provide  a  structural  basis  for  these  activities.  In  this 
context it should be emphasized that EASO will have a mandate which is limited strictly to 
operational  cooperation.  EASO  will  not  be  in  a  position  to  make  political  or  strategic 
decisions.  Under  the  status  quo  practical  cooperation  activities  on  resettlement  are 
therefore likely to grow, but the positive effect will be considerably less than it could be 

EN 

30 

   EN 

with the added impetus of structured political prioritising accompanied by appropriate 
financial incentives.  

Specific objective 8 

•  If no EU action is taken, the resettlement criteria which the different Member States rely 
on, are expected to remain divergent. As a consequence of this, protection will be provided 
to different categories of persons, depending on the individual Member State which carries 
out resettlement. This maintains a situation of inequality vis-à-vis those persons who seek 
protection. It also reinforces the perception of fragmented non-harmonized asylum policies 
throughout the EU. 

5.1.2. 

Impacts 

•  As stated above, it is expected that there will be a limited increase in the total number of 
available resettlement places within the EU, if the status quo is maintained. This is in line 
with the current positive trends, which show some increase in resettlement, and can also be 
attributed to the modest efficiency gains likely to be brought about by EASO. (See above 
under objective 1 and 2.) In line with these current trends, the increase is estimated to be 
small, perhaps around 5  % over the next five  years. Since  the total resettlement  capacity 
within the EU is currently 5.100 places this means an increase of 255 places. Based on an 
average cost within the EU of Euro 15.000 per resettled refugee (see par. 2.2.2) this means 
an  increase  of  Euros  3.825.000.  These  are  the  expected  total  costs  of  resettlement, 
including pre-departure costs and reception and integration costs during the first year after 
the arrival. As explained on page 22 under the definition of impacts, these costs are mainly 
paid by the governments of Member States, although part of these costs are also likely to 
be paid through the specific financial assistance provided by article 13 ERF. 

•  Economies  of  scale  are  estimated  to  lead  to  a  small  decrease  in  the  financial  costs  of 
resettlement  per  resettled  refugee  (per  capita)  of  an  estimated  10%.  The  savings  of 
practical  cooperation,  however,  apply  mainly  to  the  pre-departure  costs  (reception  and 
integration costs will remain more or less the same). Pre-departure costs are estimated to 
be  around  1.500  Euros  per  person.  (see  par.  2.2.2)  A  10  %  savings  per  person  implies  a 
decrease in total costs of Euros 803.250.  

•  The third and fourth categories of impacts relate to the economic and social costs related to 
the integration of resettled refugees, after the first year of resettlement. It is not possible to 
quantify  this  impact  with  any  precision,  given  the  wide  divergence  between  costs  in  the 
different Member States and the widely differing characteristics of refugees resettled. The 
total costs and benefits will show a small increase, commensurate with the expected total 
increase  of  5%.  The  impact  per  person  is,  however,  estimated  to  remain  the  same, 
regardless of which option is chosen.  

•  Maintenance of the status quo will not lead to a substantial increase of the strategic use of 
resettlement  and  will  therefore  not  lead  to  a  substantial  improvement  in  the  protection 
situation  in  third  countries.  Maintenance  of  the  status  quo  will  not  lead  to  the  further 
development of resettlement as a component of EU external relations and to the improved 
effectiveness of EU external relations.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

  
•  The  current  situation  is  marked  by  a  lack  of  harmonized  resettlement  criteria  and  status 
conferred upon resettled refugees. The consequence of this is a relatively large degree of 
inequality:  there  are  important  differences  among  Member  States  with  respect  to  which 
refugees  qualify  for  resettlement.  Under  the  baseline  scenario  this  will  remain  the  same. 
See also above paragraph 2.2, point 8.  

•  Due  to  the  small  increase  in  the  number  of  resettlement  places  expected,  the  positive 

impact on fundamental rights of this option can be considered low.  

5.1.3.  Political feasibility, subsidiarity and proportionality 

•  It  is  politically  feasible  to  maintain  the  status  quo.  However,  stakeholder  consultations 
have shown that there is considerable support for moving beyond the current situation and 
putting in place an EU structure for resettlement, even if the general preference would be 
for  a  light  structure.  Particularly  those  Member  States  which  currently  carry  out 
resettlement are in favour of having more cooperation at EU level on resettlement, because 
they regard this as a useful step to get other Member States involved in resettlement. Also 
many Member States, which currently do not carry out resettlement, have expressed their 
support  for  more  EU  cooperation  on  resettlement,  although  most  have  emphasized  that 
participation  in  resettlement  should  remain  voluntary.  There  is  wide  support  for  the 
strategic  use  of  resettlement  and  to  develop  resettlement  further  as  a  component  of  the 
external dimension. Maintenance of current situation does not respond to this need. There 
is  therefore  reason  to  believe  that  maintenance  of  the  current  situation  will  not  be 
sustainable. Political feasibility is therefore rated as medium. 

•  As explained in par. 2.5 the nature of the needs and the objectives to be achieved, require 
action  to  be  taken  at  the  EU  level.  Maintenance  of  the  status  quo  does  not  provide  for 
sufficient  political  cooperation  at  EU  level  and  is  therefore  not  satisfactory  from  the 
perspective of subsidiarity and proportionality.  

5.2. 

Assessment of 2nd option: medium option (the dynamic process) 

Since  the  expected  output  of  sub-options  2A  and  2B  is  expected  to  be  the  same,  the 
assessment  of  the  effectiveness  in  reaching  the  objectives  as  well  as  impacts  is  done 
together  for  sub-options  2A  and  2B.  However,  what  distinguishes  sub-option  2A  from 
sub-option  2B  is  the  assessment  of  political  feasibility  and  proportionality.  These  are 
therefore assessed separately.  

Impact Assessment  

Objectives  

Option 2 A and 
2B 

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

1 

Medium/high  

2  Ensure that more EU Member States participate in resettlement  

Medium/high 

3 

ensure  that  resettlement  efforts  are  better  targeted,  on  ongoing  basis, 

High 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
towards  those  most  in  need  (e.g.  children,  refugees  from  specific 
regions)  

4 

Increase strategic use of resettlement at an EU level 

Medium 

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

Medium 

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

Medium/high 

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

Medium/high 

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

Medium 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Impacts 

Direct  financial  costs  related  to  resettlement  (selection,  reception, 
integration)  

Medium/high 
increase 

Effect  of  economies  of  scale  on  direct  financial  costs  related  to 
resettlement (selection, reception, integration) (total costs)  

medium decrease 

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

Medium/high 

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

Low 

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

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

Increased equality in providing protection to refugees 

 7 

Impact on fundamental rights  

Political feasibility, subsidiarity and proportionality 2A  

 1  Support among key stakeholders for this option  

 2  Proportionality 

Political feasibility, subsidiarity and proportionality 2B  

 1  Support among key stakeholders for this option  

 2  Proportionality 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium/high 

Low/medium 

Some concern 

Medium/high 

Little concern 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
5.2.1.  Effectiveness in reaching objectives 

Under option 2 the political and financial components will be further developed. This is 
expected  to  provide  also  stimulus  and  political  steering  to  the  practical  cooperation 
activities. This distinguishes option 2 from option 1. 

Specific objectives 1, 2 and 3 

•  If the practical cooperation activities on resettlement are accompanied by further political 
cooperation and if a financial underpinning is provided, it will be easier, both in practical 
and political terms, as well as more cost-effective for Member States to engage de novo in 
resettlement.  For  the  following  reasons  this  option  is  expected  to  lead  to  a  medium/high 
increase  in  resettlement  as  well  as  to  more  involvement  of  other  Member  States  in 
resettlement:  through  enhanced  synergies  the  costs  of  resettlement  per  resettled  refugee 
will be lower; EASO will provide a basis for joint EU operations on resettlement, which 
makes it easier for Member States to engage in resettlement; through EASO other Member 
States  will  provide  technical  assistance,  know-how  and  experience  on  resettlement; 
through  the  dynamic  priority  setting  which  takes  place  each  year  Member  States  can 
influence  the  resettlement  priorities;  on  the  basis  of  these  priorities  they  will  receive 
additional financial assistance from ERF per resettled refugee; the fact that there is a joint 
EU resettlement scheme in place, makes it politically easier for Member States to engage 
in resettlement;  

•  It  will  also  provide  an  incentive  for  existing  resettlement  countries  to  increase  their 

resettlement commitments; 

•  This option will enable Member States, within a structured priority-setting framework, to 
prioritise on an annual basis, the resettlement of those persons  or  groups of persons who 
are most in need of protection;  

•  Consequently, if this option is embraced, the increase in the total number of refugees to be 
resettled in the EU is estimated to be medium/high. Since 2007 four Member States, which 
were  previously  not  engaged  in  resettlement,  have  introduced  annual  resettlement 
programmes  (PT,  FR,  RO,  CZ).  In  total  these  programmes  have  made  500  resettlement 
places  available.  Under  option  2  it  is  assumed  that  over  the  coming  years  other  Member 
States will decide to engage in resettlement and that this will lead to an increase of the total 
available resettlement places within the EU of approximately 765 places, i.e. an increase of 
15%.  Under  this  option  the  increase  is  expected  to  be  higher  than  under  options  1  or  3, 
because,  for  the  reasons  described  in  detail  above,  Member  States  will  benefit  from  the 
synergies and expertise resulting from enhanced cooperation, and will have a direct stake 
in the setting of priorities to be underpinned by financial support, while at the same time 
remaining at liberty to also resettle in accordance with their own national preferences. 

Specific objectives 4 and 5 

•  Option  2  provides  for  political  cooperation  and  the  formulation  of  joint  EU  political  and 
strategic  priorities  with  respect  to  resettlement.  This  would  lead  to  less  fragmentation  of 
priorities  and  more  strategic  use  of  resettlement  at  EU  level.  The  positive  impact  on  the 
protection situation in third countries will be larger. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

•  Political  cooperation  will  ensure  that  resettlement  will  be  integrated  and  developed  as  a 
component  of  EU  external  asylum  policies  and  EU  external  policies  as  a  whole.  This  is 
expected to lead to improved effectiveness of EU external policies.  

Specific objectives 6 and 7 

•  Through the establishment of EASO the exchange of information concerning resettlement 
within the EU will improve. As a result, the quality of resettlement is expected to improve.  

•  A very important aspect of resettlement is reception and integration. Cooperation on these 
aspects is likely to be mainly in the form of exchange of information and identifying 'best 
practices'. This is an important tool to improve the quality of the reception and integration 
systems in the Member States. The way reception and integration of resettled refugees is 
organized differs considerably among Member States.  

•  The development of practical cooperation on resettlement is expected to deliver important 
synergy effects. In this respect one can think of concrete activities which can be carried out 
together  by  Member  States,  such  as  selection  missions,  cultural  orientation 
missions/programmes, medical screenings, travel or visa arrangements, but one can think 
also  of  other  forms  of  cooperation  such  as  exchange  of  information  on  characteristics  of 
specific resettlement caseloads, etc.  

•  Joint activities will lead to advantages related to economies of scale. Economies of scale 
are  expected  to  lead  to  improved  quality  at  a  lower  level  of  costs  pro  capita,  which  will 
lower the threshold for Member States to engage de novo in resettlement.  

Specific objective 8 

•  Option 2 does not provide for harmonization of the resettlement criteria which the different 
Member  States  use.  However,  improved  political  cooperation  and  improved  practical 
cooperation  are  expected  to  lead  to  some  improvement  with  respect  to  reaching  this 
objective.  

5.2.2. 

Impacts  

•  As  stated  above,  it  is  expected  that  there  will  be  a  medium/high  increase  of  the  total 
number of available resettlement places within the EU, if option 2 is implemented. Taking 
into account both current trends (see above under option 1) and the anticipated reduction in 
resettlement costs per refugee, particularly for those not currently engaged in resettlement, 
this  increase  is  estimated  to  be  around  15  %.  Since  the  total  of  currently  available 
resettlement places in the EU is 5.100 this means an estimated increase with 765 places. 
Based  on  an  average  cost  within  the  EU  of  Euro  15.000  per  resettled  refugee  (see  par. 
2.2.2)  this  means  an  increase  of  Euros  11.475.000.  These  are  the  expected  total  costs  of 
resettlement,  including  pre-departure  costs  and  reception  and  integration  costs  during  the 
first year after the arrival. As explained on page 22 under the definition of impacts, these 
costs are mainly paid by the governments of Member States, although part of these costs 
are  also  likely  to  be  paid  through  the  specific  financial  assistance  provided  by  article  13 
ERF.  As  explained  above  in  paragraph  4.2  (under  financial  component)  it  is  difficult  to 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
estimate  how  large  the  increase  in  the  allocation  under  article  13  ERF  will  be.  If  it  is 
assumed  that  an  increase  of  765  places  leads  to  an  increase  of  the  pledging  by  Member 
States under article 13 in 50% of these cases, this will lead to an increase of the allocation 
under article 13 of 1.530.000 Euros.  

•  Option  2  provides  for  practical  cooperation  to  be  carried  out  by  the  EASO  and  for  an 
effective  political  steering  and  financial  underpinning.  This  is  estimated  to  lead  to  a 
medium reduction of the financial costs of resettlement per resettled refugee (pro capita) of 
an estimated 20%. The savings of practical cooperation, however, apply mainly to the pre-
departure  costs  (reception  and  integration  costs  will  remain  more  or  less  the  same).  Pre-
departure costs are estimated to be around 1.500 Euros per person. (see par. 2.2.2) A 20 % 
savings per person implies a decrease in total costs of Euros 1.759.500. 

•  The third and fourth categories of impacts relate to the economic and social costs related to 
the integration of resettled refugees, after the first year of resettlement. It is not possible to 
quantify  this  impact  with  any  precision,  given  the  wide  divergence  between  costs  in  the 
different  Member  States  and  the  widely  differing  characteristics  of  refugees  resettled. 
Since this option is estimated top lead to a 15% increase in the total of resettlement within 
the  EU  these  costs  are  expected  also  to  increase  with  15%.  The  impact  per  person  is, 
however, estimated to remain the same, regardless of which option is chosen. 

•  Firstly, this option is estimated to lead to 15 % increase of resettlement, from which 765 
refugees  will  benefit  annually.  Secondly,  this  option  will  lead  to  a  more  strategic  use  of 
resettlement and will therefore lead to an improvement in the protection situation in third 
countries. Thirdly, this option will also lead to the further development of resettlement as a 
component  of  EU  external  relations  and  to  the  improved  effectiveness  of  EU  external 
relations. These impacts can not be measured, but are estimated to be medium-size. 

•  The  current  situation  is  marked  by  a  lack  of  harmonized  resettlement  criteria.  The 
consequence  of  this  is  a  relatively  large  degree  of  inequality:  there  are  important 
differences among Member States with respect to which refugees qualify for resettlement. 
Under  option  2  the  practical  and  political  cooperation  are  expected  to  lead  to  an 
improvement, which is estimated to be medium. See also above paragraph 2.2, point 8.  

•  The positive impact fundamental rights corresponds to the expected medium/high increase 

in the total number of refugees to be resettled in the EU.  

5.2.3.  Political feasibility, subsidiarity and proportionality 

Assessment of sub-option 2A 

As described in paragraph 4.2 a new Committee would be established under this sub-option 
which will serve as the political framework.  

•  Stakeholder  consultations  have  demonstrated  that  there  is  wide  support  for  the 
development of an EU wide resettlement scheme, and that the scheme should be based on a 
number  of  principles.  The  most  important  of  which  are  (1)  voluntary  participation,  (2) 
emphasis on broadening the basis of resettlement, (3) incremental approach, (4) large need 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
for intensified practical cooperation, (5) more strategic use of resettlement at EU level, (6) 
further  development  of  external  dimension,  (7)  ERF  financial  support  should  be  more 
carefully targeted, and (8) scheme should include all interested Member States as well as 
all  other  stakeholders.  This  approach  is  particularly  favoured  by  those  Member  States 
which are currently resettlement countries as well as other non-Member State stakeholders 
(UNHCR, NGOs). There are no Member States which have expressed opposition against 
more cooperation within the EU on resettlement, as long as participation is voluntary; 

•  Stakeholder consultations have shown that there is reluctance among many Member States 
to  create  a  new  formal  structure  to  reach  these  objectives.  The  establishment  of  a  new 
Committee  which  is  especially  dedicated  to  resettlement,  and  which  would  act  under 
Comitology  rules,  would  therefore  meet  substantial  opposition  from  Member  States, 
because  Member  States  fear  this  would  be  a  bureaucratic  burden  and  might  reduce  their 
room to decide on resettlement priorities themselves.  

•  To  reach  the  set  objectives  there  is  a  clear  need  to  act  at  EU  level.  However,  from  the 
perspective  of  proportionality  the  question  can  be  posed  whether  the  establishment  of  a 
new Committee is a proportionate means of reaching these objectives, if the use of existing 
structures can have the same effect (see sub-option B below).  

Assessment of sub-option 2B 

As  described  in  paragraph  4.2,  under  this  sub-option  the  existing  structures,  i.e.  the  SOLID 
Committee  and  the  EU  expert  group  on  resettlement  would  be  used  as  the  political 
framework.  

•  Stakeholder  consultations  have  demonstrated  that  there  is  wide  support  for  the 
development of an EU wide resettlement scheme, and that the scheme should be based on a 
number  of  principles.  The  most  important  of  which  are  (1)  voluntary  participation,  (2) 
emphasis on broadening the basis of resettlement, (3) incremental approach, (4) large need 
for intensified practical cooperation, (5) more strategic use of resettlement at EU level, (6) 
further  development  of  external  dimension,  (7)  ERF  financial  support  should  be  more 
carefully targeted, and (8) scheme should include all interested Member States as well as 
all  other  stakeholders;This  approach  is  particularly  favoured  by  those  Member  States 
which are currently resettlement countries as well as other non-Member State stakeholders 
(UNHCR, NGOs). There are no Member States which have expressed opposition against 
more cooperation within the EU on resettlement, as long as participation is voluntary. 

•  There is a strong preference among a majority of Member States to build on the existing 
consultation and decision making mechanisms. The current political situation is on the one 
hand  positive  towards  resettlement,  but  on  the  other  hand  reluctant  to  create  any  new 
formal  structure,  because  of  the  bureaucratic  burden  this  might  entail  and  the  fear  that 
Member States' room to decide on priorities themselves would be reduced.  

•  To reach the set objectives there is a clear need to act at EU level. From the perspective of 
proportionality the use of existing structures is considered preferable, if this is as effective 
as sub-option A in reaching the objectives and if it is expected to have the same impacts. 

Conclusion: Sub-option 2 B scores considerably higher than sub-option 2A in terms of 
political feasibility and proportionality.  

EN 

37 

   EN 

5.3. 

Assessment of 3rd option: maximum option 

Impact Assessment  

Objectives  

Option 3 

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

1 

Medium  

2  ensure that more EU Member States participate in resettlement  

High 

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

3 

4 

Increase strategic use of resettlement at an EU level 

High 

Medium 

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

Medium 

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

High 

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

High 

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

High 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Impacts 

Direct  financial  costs  related  to  resettlement  (selection,  reception, 
integration)  

Medium 

Effect  of  economies  of  scale  on  direct  financial  costs  related  to 
resettlement (selection, reception, integration) (total costs)  

Significant 
decrease 

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

Medium 

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

Low 

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

Medium 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 4 

 5 

Increased equality in providing protection to refugees 

 6 

Impact on fundamental rights  

High 

Medium 

Political feasibility , subsidiarity and proportionality  

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 1  Support among key stakeholders for this option  

 Low 

 2  Proportionality 

 Large concern 

5.3.1.  Effectiveness in reaching objectives 

For the purposes of assessing the "maximum option" in this section, the assumption is made 
that it incorporates all of the elements mentioned in section 4.3 above. 

Specific objectives 1, 2 and 3 

•  If  a  fully-fledged  joint  EU  resettlement  scheme  were  established,  this  would  imply  –  as 

described above – that all EU Member States would participate in resettlement. 

•  This option would enable Member States, within a structured priority-setting framework, 
to prioritise the resettlement of those persons or groups of persons who are most in need of 
protection;  

•  This option might lead to an increase in the total of resettlement places which are available 
in the EU. A maximalist scheme not allowing for "parallel" national resettlement policies 
might,  on  the  other  hand,  have  a  negative  overall  impact  on  the  numbers  of  refugees 
resettled. See also below, under impact 1. 

Specific objectives 4 and 5 

•  A  fully-fledged  joint  resettlement  scheme  would  imply  that  priorities  were  set  at  the  EU 
level  and  that  all  resettlement  in  the  EU  would  be  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  these 
priorities. This would ensure the strategic use of resettlement at the EU level. However, if 
overall resettlement numbers were not to show an increase under an integrated scheme, this 
would undermine the effectiveness of any such strategic use. For this reason, the impact of 
this option on strategic use is rated as medium. 

•  Since under option 3 resettlement policies would be completely formulated at the EU level, 
and  since  the  implementation  of  resettlement  would  also  be  carried  out  jointly  (through 
EASO),  this  would  be  the  optimal  option  to  ensure  that  resettlement  is  integrated  and 
developed  as  a  component  of  EU  external  asylum  policies  and  EU  external  policies  as  a 
whole.  As  stated  above,  it  would,  however,  be  uncertain  whether  the  establishment  of  a 
fully-fledged joint EU resettlement scheme would lead to more resettlement places being 
available in the EU. For that reason the impact of this option on the improvement of EU 
relations with third countries is rated as medium. 

•  The EU would act collectively towards UNHCR, IOM and third countries on resettlement, 
both with respect to political discussions as well as with respect to practical and logistical 
arrangements.  

Specific objectives 6 and 7 

•  Under  option  3  the  implementation  of  all  pre-departure  resettlement  activities  (selection 
missions,  cultural  orientation  missions/programmes,  medical  and  security  screenings, 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
travel  or  visa  arrangements  etc.)  would  be  carried  out  jointly.  A  very  high  degree  of 
practical cooperation would be required among Member States and other stakeholders. The 
capacity of the EASO on resettlement would have to be increased considerably.  

•  Since  resettlement  operations  would  under  option  3  be  carried  out  jointly,  the  issue  of 
exchange  of  information  is  less  relevant.  Joint  EU  resettlement  policies  would  probably 
also  lead  to  more  convergence  with  respect  to  reception  and  integration  of  resettled 
refugees.  

•  A fully-fledged joint EU resettlement scheme would have important advantages related to 
economies of scale. The average costs related to resettlement would decrease. There would 
be increased cost-effectiveness and increased efficiency.  

Specific objective 8 

•  Under option 3 there would be a complete harmonization of the resettlement criteria which 

the different Member States use.  

5.3.2. 

Impacts 

•  It is difficult to predict what the effect of a fully-fledged EU resettlement scheme will be 
on the number of available resettlement places in the EU. The effect could be positive, but 
the effect could also be lower than expected, due in particular to the influence in such an 
integrated scheme of Member States which are less inclined to resettle refugees. Moreover, 
those  countries  which  currently  resettle  in  larger  numbers  may  be  inclined  to  resettle  in 
smaller numbers if they are not satisfied with the commonly-agreed priorities, and have no 
longer the possibility to resettle voluntarily in accordance with their own priorities. There 
could also be significant resistance against resettlement by Member States, which consider 
relocation of refugees and asylum seekers from their territory to other EU Member States 
to  be  a  higher  priority  than  resettlement.  Given  this  uncertainty,  and  taking  into  account 
both current trends (see above under option 1) and the anticipated reduction in resettlement 
costs per refugee, particularly for those not currently engaged in resettlement, this increase 
is estimated to be medium, around 10 %. Since the total of currently available resettlement 
places in the EU is 5.100 this means an estimated increase with 510 places. Based on an 
average cost within the EU of Euro 15.000 per resettled refugee (see par. 2.2.2) this means 
an  increase  of  Euros  7.650.000.  These  are  the  expected  total  costs  of  resettlement, 
including pre-departure costs and reception and integration costs during the first year after 
the arrival. As explained on page 22 under the definition of impacts, these costs are mainly 
paid by the governments of Member States, although part of these costs are also likely to 
be paid through the specific financial assistance provided by article 13 ERF. 

•  The  second  impact  is  the  effect  of  the  establishment  of  a  fully-fledged  EU  resettlement 
scheme  on  the  financial  costs  of  resettlement  per  resettled  refugee  (per  capita).  This  is 
estimated  to  lead  to  a  significant  reduction  of  the  financial  costs  of  resettlement  per 
resettled refugee (pro capita) of an estimated 30%. The savings, however, apply mainly to 
the pre-departure costs (reception and integration costs will remain more or less the same). 
Pre-departure costs are estimated to be around 1.500 Euros per person. (see par. 2.2.2) A 
30 % savings per person implies a decrease in total costs of Euros 2.524.500. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
•  The third and fourth categories of impacts relate to the economic and social costs related to 
the integration of resettled refugees, after the first year of resettlement. It is not possible to 
quantify  this  impact  with  any  precision,  given  the  wide  divergence  between  costs  in  the 
different  Member  States  and  the  widely  differing  characteristics  of  refugees  resettled. 
Since this option is estimated top lead to a 10% increase in the total of resettlement within 
the  EU  these  costs  are  expected  also  to  increase  with  10%.  The  impact  per  person  is, 
however, estimated to remain the same, regardless of which option is chosen. 

•  The impact of option 3 in terms of numbers of persons who will benefit from resettlement 
is  difficult  to  forecast.  However,  this  is  estimated  to  lead  to  a  10  %  increase  of 
resettlement,  from  which  510  refugees  will  benefit  annually.  Since  resettlement  will  be 
carried out jointly under option 3 this is likely to lead to more strategic use of resettlement 
at EU level and will therefore lead to an improvement of the protection situation in third 
countries.  Option  3  will  also  lead  to  the  further  development  of  resettlement  as  a 
component  of  EU  external  relations  and  to  the  improved  effectiveness  of  EU  external 
relations.  

•  Under  option  3  there  will  be  most  likely  harmonized  resettlement  criteria.  The 

consequence of this is more equality. 

•  The positive impact fundamental rights corresponds to the expected medium/high increase 

in the total number of refugees to be resettled in the EU.  

5.3.3.  Political feasibility, subsidiarity and proportionality 

•  As stated above stakeholder consultations have shown that there is strong support for more 
EU  cooperation  on  resettlement.  Some  stakeholders,  particularly  the  non-governmental 
stakeholders,  would  be  favourable  to  the  establishment  of  a  scheme,  which  would  imply 
full harmonization of criteria. A majority of Member States, however, favour an approach 
which is incremental and which puts emphasis on closer cooperation and familiarizing new 
Member  States  with  resettlement,  rather  than  on  harmonizing  resettlement  criteria. 
Particularly  on  the  voluntary  nature  of  participation  in  the  scheme,  positions  of  Member 
States  are  very  firm.  The  establishment  of  a  truly  EU  wide  joint  resettlement  scheme  in 
which all Member States participate seems therefore politically not feasible at present. 

•  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 – in terms of capacity – to implement resettlement. Many 
Member  States  are  currently  not  familiar  with  resettlement.  The  experience  shows  that 
thorough preparation is required (training, facilities etc.) before a resettlement programme 
can be actually implemented.  

•  Another  relevant  concern  relates  to  aspects  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality.  It  is 
questionable whether the establishment of a fully-fledged joint EU resettlement scheme is 
necessary and proportionate at this stage to reach the set objectives.  

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
6. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS / PREFERRED OPTION  

See table with the comparison of impacts of options (page 34).  

Effectiveness in reaching the objectives  

–  Options 2 and 3 score better than option 1. 

–  Option 2 scores better on the principal objective, i.e. to ensure greater solidarity by the EU 
to  third  countries  in  receiving  refugees.  Option  3  scores  worse  than  option  2  on  the 
principal objective, because of the uncertainty with respect to the outcome. As explained 
above, there is a possibility that option 3 would fail to result in an increase of resettlement 
due  to  important  political  opposition  on  the  part  of  some  Member  States.  It  is  not 
unrealistic  to  assume  there  would  be  opposition  against  an  increase  of  resettlement  from 
Member  States,  which  consider  relocation  of  refugees  and  asylum  seekers  from  their 
territory to other EU Member States to be a higher priority than resettlement.  

–  Option 2 and 3 score equally well on the objective to reinforce the international role of the 
EU regarding resettlement by developing it as an integral and coherent component of EU 
external policies. 

Conclusion:  In  terms  of  effectiveness  in  reaching  the  objectives  option  2  is  to  be  preferred. 
This is primarily the case because it scores better on the principal objective.  

Impacts 

–  The direct financial costs and the indirect social economic costs and benefits of option 2 
are estimated to be higher that those of option 1 and 3. This is due to the fact that option 2 
is  expected  to  lead  to  the  highest  increase  in  resettlement  numbers.  Most  of  the  direct 
financial costs and the indirect social economic costs are paid by the governments of those 
Member  States  which  carry  out  resettlement.  There  will  be  financial  assistance  with 
respect  to  these  costs  through  ERF  funding,  particularly  through  the  specific  financial 
assistance procured by article 13.  

–  Option 3 leads to the best result with respect to reduction of financial costs of resettlement 

per refugee, and in terms of increased equality. 

–  Option 2 scores highest with respect to the impact on fundamental rights. 

–  With respect to impact on third countries and EU external relations options 2 and 3 score 

the same: the impact is estimated to be medium improvement.  

Political feasibility, subsidiarity and proportionality 

–  Sub-option 2B scores best (medium/high) on political feasibility. With respect to this sub-

option there is no concern in terms of proportionality. 

–  The political feasibility of option 3 is assessed as low, while there is a large concern with 

respect to proportionality with respect to this option.  

Conclusion: In terms of political feasibility and proportionality sub-option 2B is the preferred 
option.  

EN 

42 

   EN 

Over-all assessment: 

A  comparison  of  option  1  and  2  shows  a  clear  preference  for  option  2.  There  are  two  sub-
options distinguished within option 2. Both sub-options have equal scores on effectiveness in 
reaching the objectives and impacts. Option 2B is the preferred option on grounds of political 
feasibility. Option 2B should also be preferred to option 2A on grounds of proportionality. 
If the need for joint action at the EU level is acknowledged (see above, under subsidiarity), it 
is necessary to assess how far EU measures should go and whether these are proportionate to 
the  objectives  to  be  reached.  Option  2B  responds  effectively  to  the  objectives  in  a 
proportionate manner.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

In  order  to  monitor  the  progress  made  with  respect  to  the  implementation  of  the  preferred 
option  –  and  the  progress  of  resettlement  in  general  within  the  EU  –  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, 
notably in the framework of the SOLID Committee and the Resettlement Expert Platform, as 
well  as  the  allocations  under  ERF.  The  EASO  will  also  have  a  key  role  in  monitoring 
progress,  because  it  will  coordinate  practical  cooperation  activities  on  resettlement.  The 
progress made in this field will also be included in the evaluation. 

As for indicators to assess progress and effectiveness of the preferred option in achieving the 
policy objectives, the following indicators will be taken into consideration: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Persons effectively resettled annually in the Member States; 

Number of Member States introducing annual resettlement programmes;  

Number  of  Member  States  which  engage  in resettlement  through other activities, for
example ad-hoc resettlement of specific groups of refugees, projects or twinnings; 

Level  of  financial  allocations  under  ERF  with  respect  to  resettlement,  including 
whether  modulation  of  the  lump  sum  according  to  categories  of  resettled  persons 
might be appropriate;  

Volume  of  practical  cooperation  activities  on  resettlement  carried  out  under
coordination of EASO; 

The degree in which annual priority setting leads to alignment of resettlement within
the EU  

More visible EU role in the political decision making and consultations with UNHCR
and  other  major  stakeholders  in  Geneva  (Annual  Tripartite  Consultations  on
Resettlement, Working Group on Resettlement)  

The impact of resettlement on EU relations with third countries  

EN 

43 

   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 to third countries in receiving refugees  

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 

0 

Low/medium   Medium/high 

Medium 

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 

Impacts 

Direct 
integration)  

financial  costs 

 1 

related 

to 

resettlement 

(selection, 

reception, 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Low/medium  Medium/high 

High 

Low/medium  Medium/high 

High 

Low 

Medium 

High 

Small 
increase 

Medium/high 
increase 

Medium  

EN 

44 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Direct 
integration) pro capita  

financial  costs 

related 

to 

resettlement 

(selection, 

reception, 

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  

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

Political feasibility and proportionality 

 1 

Support among key stakeholders for this option  

 2 

Proportionality  

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Small 
decrease 

Small 
increase 

medium decrease 

significant 
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 

EN 

45 

EN 

 
  
 
 
ANNEXES15  

1.  UNHCR Resettlement Departures by (primary) Characteristics 2007 – 2008 
2.  List of stakeholders consulted 
3.  Global Resettlement Needs 2009 by Region of Asylum 
4.  UNHCR Resettlement Submissions /Departures per country of origin  – 2005 – 

2008 

5.  UNHCR Resettlement Departures per resettlement country 2003 – 2008 
6.  UNHCR Resettlement Submissions per resettlement country 2003 – 2008 
7.  Approximate capacity of resettlement countries in 2008 
8.  Main Features of European Resettlement Programmes 2009 
9.  Financial costs of resettlement 
10. Resettlement under the European Refugee Fund III 
11. Resettlement activities under ERF national programmes  
12. UNHCR Resettlement - Top 10 Arrivals to EU, by Country of EU vs. Country of 

Origin 2007 -2008 

13. UNHCR Resettlement Departures - RPP Countries of Asylum by Country of 

Origin - 2004 – 2008 

15 Please note that most of the above annexes are statistics provided by UNHCR (submissions and departures). Please note 
that there may be a difference between these numbers and the numbers provided by individual Member states. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
Source: UNHCR 

ANNEX 1 

UNHCR Resettlement Departures by (primary) Characteristics 2007 - 2008 

Woman-at-Risk 

Children & Adolescents 

Family Reunification 

2007 

2008 

EU 

All Others 

EU 

All Others 

526 

20 

187 

1.993

550 

3.642

194

568

27 

93 

568

375

Legal & Physical Protection Needs 

2.297 

24.243

2.060 

33.418

Medical Needs 

Older (elderly) refugees 

Refugees without Local Integration Prospects 

Survivor of Violence & Torture 

Unspecified. 

240 

12 

180 

449 

24 

379

273 

2.117

37

18 

135

16.531

817 

17.089

2.034

536 

3.863

14

4 

11

Total

3.935 

45.993

4.378 

61.218

Who qualifies for resettlement? 

Resettlement  is  geared  primarily  towards  the  protection  of  refugees  whose  life,  liberty, 
safety,  health  or  fundamental  human  rights  are  at  risk  in  their  country  of  refuge.  
Resettlement  is  normally  only  promoted  by  UNHCR  when  the  other  durable  solutions  – 
voluntary repatriation or local integration in the country of asylum – are inappropriate or 
unavailable, or where the specific protection needs of the refugee cannot be met by the host 
State, even if there is a willingness to grant asylum.  

Refugee  resettlement  is  distinguished  from  other  forms  of  migration  by  the  primary 
consideration  of  “protection  and  durable  solutions  needs”  above  all  other  concerns.    States 
and UNHCR have repeatedly affirmed that the primary purpose of resettlement must always 
be  the  provision  of  individual  protection  for  those  who  cannot  be  provided  with  adequate 
protection  in  the  first  country  of  asylum.  They  also  affirm  that  resettlement  can  provide  a 
durable solution and a tool for burden and responsibility sharing. 

Accordingly, individuals supported for resettlement by UNHCR are (i) recognized as refugees 
under  UNHCR's  mandate;  and  (ii)  deemed  eligible  according  to  UNHCR’s  resettlement 
guidelines and criteria.  The UNHCR resettlement criteria and related considerations form the 
basis  for  the  identification  of  refugees  in  need  of  resettlement.    They  are  contained  in  the 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, which was endorsed by UNHCR's Executive Committee in 
1996. UNHCR encourages States to use these criteria to inform and guide their decisions on 
resettlement. 

The agreed global criteria for UNHCR to determine its resettlement interventions encompass 
both its use as a tool of international protection and as a durable solution. They were endorsed 
by UNHCR's EXCOM in 1996 and include the following: 

when  there  is  no  other  way  to  guarantee  the  legal  or  physical  security  of  the 

refugees concerned in the country of first asylum; this includes a  threat of refoulement;  

survivors of  torture  and  violence, where the conditions of asylum could result in 

further trauma or where appropriate treatment is not available; 

persons with medical needs, in particular life-saving treatment, that is unavailable 

in the country of first asylum; 

women  and  girls  at  risk,  where  there  is  a  real  risk  that  they  could  be  exposed  to 

sexual or gender-based violence; 

children and adolescents, where a best interests determination supports this; 

elderly  refugees  who  may  be  particularly  vulnerable  and  for  whom  resettlement 

appears to be the best solution, generally due to family links; 

when  it  represents  the  only  means  to  reunite  refugee  families  who,  owing  to 

refugee flight or displacement, find themselves divided by borders or by entire continents; 

when voluntary repatriation or local integration are not available or feasible in the 

foreseeable future.  
As can be seen, most of the criteria relate to specific international protection needs, such as 
where the physical or legal security of a refugee is at stake or where specialised services (e.g. 
psychosocial or medical) are required that are not available in the country of asylum. The use 
of  resettlement  as  a  tool  for  international  protection  generally  requires  the  identification  of 
particularly vulnerable persons within a much larger group of refugees.  

At  times,  the  resettlement  of  an  entire  refugee  population  in  a  country  may  be  warranted 
based on international protection grounds. This could be the case, for example, where refugee 
status  is  not  acknowledged  or  recognized  and  where  all  refugees  face  a  risk  of  deportation 
and/or refoulement. This could arise where a country has not ratified any of the international 
or regional refugee treaties, or where it has maintained a geographical restriction with respect 
to  the  1951  Convention.  It  could  also  apply  in  situations  where  States  have  not  adopted 
domestic  legislation  and  policies  in  line  with  the  responsibilities  they  have  assumed  under 
international or regional conventions. In some cases, the reliance on resettlement as a tool for 
international protection may thus involve a considerable number of refugees. 

Even  if  voluntary  repatriation  should  become  viable  and  feasible,  local  integration  and 
resettlement  may  still  continue  to  be  the  most  appropriate  durable  solution  for  certain 
refugees. This may be the case, for example, for refugees who for reasons of trauma do not 
wish to return, or who might face particular protection problems with respect to the country of 
origin,  despite  important  improvements  or  changes  there.  Particularly  in  post-conflict 
situations, it may take quite some time before peace and order have been fully re-established, 
and administrative and judicial institutions are functioning effectively.  

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Where  political  impasses  prevent  voluntary  repatriation  as  a  feasible  or  viable  option,  a 
comprehensive approach could additionally involve concerted efforts to improve the situation 
in  the  country  of  origin,  through  political  processes  and  interventions.  Since  UNHCR  is  a 
non-political organization, any such efforts would need to take place under the leadership of 
the UN or through multilateral or bilateral efforts of States. 

States recognize that resettlement – as a burden and responsibility sharing tool – can be used 
strategically to help open possibilities for self-reliance and even local integration. Even where 
this is not possible, more extended use of resettlement in a particular situation could serve to 
improve the protection situation generally in the first country of asylum. Such a strategic use 
of  resettlement  is  core  to  the  Multilateral  Framework  of  Understandings  on  Resettlement 
agreed  in  2004    as  part  of  the  Convention  Plus  initiative.  It  emphasizes  indeed  both 
comprehensive  approaches  and  the  strategic  use  of  resettlement,  and  specifically  sets  out 
understandings related to such approaches in a multilateral context. 

Source: UNHCR 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 

List of stakeholders consulted 

Experts' meeting on resettlement 12 December 2008 

INS 

INS 

ECRE 

ICMC 

MOI 

IOM 

UK Border Agency 

CGRS 

UNHCR 

UNHCR  

Ministry of Justice  

Ministry of Justice 

Migration Board 

The Netherlands 

The Netherlands 

Czech Republic 

UK 

Belgium 

The Netherlands 

Sweden 

Sweden 

Questionnaire sent to the Member States 

Replies  received  from  22  Member  States:    Ireland,  Portugal,  Czech  Republic,  Austria, 
Finland,  Cyprus,  Bulgaria,  Luxembourg,  Belgium,  Denmark,  The  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Sweden,  Estonia,  Germany,  United  Kingdom,  Italy,  France,  Slovakia,  Spain,  Lithuania, 
Hungary. 

Committee on Immigration and Asylum 

The  Netherlands,  Italy,  France,  Romania,  Belgium,  Finland,  Czech  Republic,  United 
Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Ireland,  Germany, Greece. 

Written input with respect to Joint EU Resettlement Scheme 

UNHCR ' Background paper from UNHCR: EU Resettlement Scheme' 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IOM 'IOM Contribution to an EU resettlement Scheme' 
ECRE ' Concrete steps towards a European Resettlement Programme' 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 3 

Global Resettlement Needs 2009 by Region of Asylum 

Sub-Region 

Individuals in need of Resettlement 

AFRICA 

Great Lakes 
East and Horn of Africa 
West and Central Africa 
Southern Africa 
Chad and Sudan Operation 
Africa TOTAL                                                              

The Americas TOTAL                                                 

THE AMERICAS 

ASIA 

South Asia 
East Asia 
Central Asia 
South-West Asia 
Asia TOTAL 

Eastern Europe 
South-Eastern Europe 
Europe TOTAL 

EUROPE 

Middle East and North Africa TOTAL 

MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA 

GLOBAL TOTAL 

561,137 

Source: UNHCR, Refugee Resettlement: Performance Outcomes 2007 And Global Projections 2009 

15,680
90,575
1,175
3,484
5,550
116,464

1,252

32,061
37,892
1,096
259,900
330,949

1,145
6,332
7,477

104,995

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 4 

UNHCR Resettlement Submissions – 2005 – 2008 

2005 

2006 

2006 

2007 

2007 

2008 

2008 

Country of 
Resettlement 

Region of Origin 

EU  

All Others 

EU 

Africa 
Americas 
Asia & Pacific 
Europe 
Middle  East  & 
North Africa 
Stateless 
Total 

1.364 
556 
2.600 
149 
562 

4 
5.235 

18.578 
642 
19.842 
463 
1.481 

19 
41.025 

2.010 
479 
2.571 
183 
239 

4 
5.486 

All 
Others 
18.645
554
28.129
162
1.188

18
48.696

EU 

All 
Others 

1.802 
185 
2.613 
271 
2.029 

4 
6.904 

18.798 
843 
52.106 
300 
20.034 

14 
92.095 

EU 

1.573 
131 
2.743 
220 
2.883 

4 
7.554 

All 
Others 
23.921
950
56.354
207
31.788

37
113.257

UNHCR Resettlement Departures – 2005 – 2008 

2005 

2006 

2006 

2007 

2007 

2008 

2008 

Region of Origin 

EU  

All Others 

EU 

Country of 
Resettlement 

Africa 
Americas 
Asia & Pacific 
Europe 
Middle  East  & 
North Africa 
Stateless 
Total 

Source: UNHCR 

870 
398 
1.499 
125 
229 

9 
3.130 

18.522 
435 
15.435 
212 
761 

12 
35.377 

1.141 
328 
2.072 
31 
105 

19 
3.696 

All 
Others 
15.980
293
8.849
127
613

2
25.864

EU 

All 
Others 

1.061 
139 
1.806 
85 
841 

3 
3.935 

18.936 
436 
23.205 
206 
3.116 

34 
45.933 

EU 

1.199 
65 
1.765 
91 
1.256 

2 
4.378

All 
Others 
10.446
472
33.305
145
16.839

11
61.218

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5 

UNHCR Resettlement Departures 2003 – 2008 

Country of 
Destination 

Argentina 
Australia 
Austria 
Belgium 
Brazil 
Canada 
Chile 
Czech Rep. 
Denmark 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Iceland 
Ireland 
Israel 
Italy 
Mozambique 
Netherlands 
New Zealand 
Norway 
Portugal 
Rep. of Korea 
Spain 
Sweden 
Switzerland 
United Kingdom 
USA 
Unspecified 
Total 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008

3.961 
154 
34 
16 
4.668 
21 

520 
443 
5 
82 

24 
43 

37 
4 
129 
351 
1.856 

4 
3 
873 
5 
118 
13.987 

27.338 

3.933 

74 
75 
5.279 
26 

379 
727 

29 

64 

26 

252 
107 
859 

1 
1.645 
6 
272 
28.253 
1 
42.008 

31 
5.117 

23 
76 
5.811 
52 
15 
454 
584 
2 
14 

31 
116 

2 

479 
307 
636 

1 
8 
1.190 
27 
242 
23.289 

19 
4.647 
1 
14 
50 
5.218 
42 

750 
548 
1 
10 

119 

6 

327 
622 
871 

32 
6.056 
1 
17 
163 
5.998 
32 
8 
480 
714 
5 
3 

30 
107 
1 
40 

425 
629 
978 
12 

1.571 
13 
349 
14.382 

3 
1.772 
7 
348 
32.007 

38.507 

29.560 

49.868 

78
5.133
20
6
19
5.542
45
46
407
674
276

2
29
87

30

575
775
721
5
23
8
1.545
12
697
48.836
5
65.596

Resettlement departures 2002-08 to EU and all other countries 

Year 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 

Source: UNHCR 

EU 
2.441 
3.469 
3.130 
3.696 
3.935 
4.378 

% 
9 
8 
8 
13 
8 
7 

All Others  % 
91 
24.897 
92 
38.539 
92 
35.377 
87 
25.864 
92 
45.933 
93 
61.218 

Total 
27.338 
42.008 
38.507 
29.560 
49.868 
65.596 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6 

UNHCR Resettlement Submissions 2003 - 2008 

Country of 
Destination 

Argentina 
Australia 
Austria 
Belgium 
Benin 
Burkina 
Faso 
Brazil 
Canada 
Chile 
Czech Rep. 
Denmark 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Iceland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Rep. 
Korea 
Liechtenstei
n 
Luxembourg 
Mexico 
Netherlands 
Norway 
New 
Zealand 
Poland 
Portugal 
Spain 
Swaziland 
Sweden 
Switzerland 
United 
Kingdom 
USA 
Unspec. 
Total 

of 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

4.689 

60 
4.872 

94 
8.582 

3.079 
13 

8 

99 
6.022 
87 

612 
1.053 
4 
73 

16 

3 

396 
9.088 
163 

833 
1.160 
1 
33 

46 
21 
4 

30 
1 
1 

3 

10 

171 
6.264 
75 
40 
706 
1.195 
3 
27 

62 
133 
2 

95 
7.262 
34 
1 
646 
879 
1 
12 

260 

281 
1.691 
437 

635 
1.935 
141 

968 
1.449 
621 

733 
1.431 
996 

3 

1 

1 

11 

1.017 
8 
263 

2.335 
17 
304 

1.929 
22 
217 

5 
2.142 
7 
802 

153 
8.422 
1 
12 

217 
7.694 
119 
9 
735 
1.242 
25 
5 

43 
252 
40 

20 
1.021 
1.744 
1.244 

84 
5 

2.412 
7 
1.061 

109 
7.639 
305 
18 

75 
8.424 
145 
84 
757 
952 
581 
2 
2 
72 
271 

31 

4 

17 

790 
1.369 
778 

5 
67 

2.712 
20 
987 

20.378 
115 
35.314 

17.667 
60 
39.509 

27.429 

30.190 

46.260 

54.182 

72.431 
1 
98.999 

94.590 
5 
120.811 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: UNHCR 

Resettlement submissions 2002-08 to EU and all other countries 

Year 

2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 

EU 

3.386 
5.349 
5.235 
5.486 
6.904 
7.554 

% 

10 
14 
11 
10 
7 
6 

All 
Others 

31.928 
34.160 
41.025 
48.696 
92.095 
113.257 

% 

90 
86 
89 
90 
93 
94 

Total 

35.314 
39.509 
46.260 
54.182 
98.999 
120.811 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 7 

Source: UNHCR  

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
 
Main Features of European Resettlement Programmes 2009 
The table below summarises the research carried out on resettlement programmes in eight European countries for the ICMC publication 'Welcome to Europe! A Guide to 
Resettlement: A Comparative Review of Resettlement in Europe', Brussels, First edition 2007, Second Edition-Update, 2009.  

ANNEX 8 

1978 

1979 

1996 

1992  

1950 

2003 

1998 

1977 

1500 (3-year) 

750 (yearly) 

25-30 (yearly) 

1200 (yearly) 

1900 (yearly) 

750 (yearly) 

200 (yearly) 

2000 (4-year) 

-  1951 

refugee 

-  1951 

refugee 

definition 

definition 

1951 
definition 

refugee

1951 
definition 

-  Humanitarian 
grounds 

in 
of 

-  Persons 
need 
protection 
who  do  not 
fall  under  the 
1951 
Convention 

EN 

refugee 

-  1951 

refugee

1951 refugee definition 

1951 refugee definition

-  1951 refugee definition 

definition 

-  Persons  in  need  of
protection  who  do
not  fall  under  the
1951  Convention
(risk  of  execution, 
corporal 
punishment, torture,
armed conflict) 

58 

-humanitarian grounds 

-  Humanitarian grounds 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cf. 
criteria  
for RST  

-  Protection needs 

-  Protection 

needs 

-  Integration 
potential 

-  Cf. 

criteria 
RST  

HCR 
for 

-  Conditions  to 
receive 
and 
integrate in FI 

UNHCR

-  Protection  

-Protection needs 

-Protection needs 

-  Protection needs 

-  Protection needs 

needs 

-  Service capacity 

-  Majority  on  legal  & 
protection 

physical 
grounds  

-  Humanitarian considerations 

 -Integration potential  

TOM (30) 

VOT,  medical, 
WAR,  UAC, 
elderly 

WAR 

Medical  
(20 
UAC, WAR 

cases), 

No 
formulation 
special categories 

specific 
of 

Elderly, WAR, VOT 

WAR, elderly, 

TOM (30), VOT, WAR 

 medical, VOT 

 (20% of quota) 

Roughly 
(yearly) 

400 

650 

30 

Remaining 
places 

quota 

Roughly 950 

750 

Around 160 

400 (yearly) 

Roughly 

100  100  (urgent  &  No 

100 

Remaining 

quota Roughly 

100 

under Vulnerable 

cases  or 100 (yearly) 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(yearly) 

emergency) 

places 

Mandate Programme 

20% of quota 

75 

100 

No 

90 
(no urgent) 

persons 

350 

No 

No emergency 

Yes (no fixed number set) 

1  week;  Gov 
at 
(municipality 
times) 

3 days; IOM 

Before  selection;
Gov & Red Cross

4 days; IOM 

3 weeks; IOM 

1  week;  Gov  & 
(not 
municipality 
implemented 
on 
regular basis) 

1-2 days, Gov 

4 days; COA 

Convention 
refugee 
(PRP) 

status 

Convention  
refugee 
(TRP) 

status 

Convention  
refugee 
(TRP) 

or 

status 

for 
Application 
status 
refugee 
after arrival (PRP) 

Convention 
status (PRP) 

refugee 

Programme  refugee 
status (TRP) 

Revocable residence permit for 
asylum 

Convention, 
subsidiary 
protection 
humanitarian 
status (TRP) 

Sources: Ministries of Immigration, Integration and Foreign Affairs and other Government bodies involved in decision-making, services and oversight of annual quotas for resettlement.  

More detailed descriptions can be found in chapters 3 and 4 of 'Welcome to Europe! A Guide to Resettlement: A Comparative Review of Resettlement in Europe', Brussels, First edition 2007, Second Edition-Update, 2009. 
Abbreviations and acronyms:  

TOM:   Twenty-Or-More or Ten-Or-More                        

(medical programme) 
VOT:   Victim of Torture or violence 
WAR:   Women at Risk 
UAC:   Unaccompanied Children  

Gov:   Government  
RST:     Resettlement 
UNHCR:   United Nations High Commission for Refugees  
IOM:   International Organisation for Migration  
COA:   Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers and Refugees 
PRP:   Permanent Residence Permit  
TRP:  

Temporary Residence Permit 

EN 

60 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 9 

Financial costs of resettlement 

United 
Kingdom 

- What is the total budgetary allocation with respect to resettlement? 

-  If  available,  could  you  provide  a  specification  of  the  budgetary  allocations  with  respect  to  the  different 
resettlement activities (such as selection and pre-departure activities, post-arrival and integration)?   

UKBA and the European Refugee Fund (ERF) provide funding to cover the full costs of a local authority or other 
service providers to assist and support the resettled refugees for their first 12 months.  

 Whilst UKBA has a £9.4 million budget in 2007/8 and 2008/9 it is difficult to say what the definitive is cost to the 
programme  is  as  this  is  dependent  of  a  number  of  factors,  i.e.  the  type  of  model  being  run  in  the  UK.  The  key 
consideration for the UKBA is whether the overall package is cost effective. For example, where other categories 
create savings, extra categories such as police work may be paid for (efficiency savings).  

 The amount of funding for individual activities will vary according to: 

• 

• 

• 

         The size of the refugee group accepted  

         Specific refugee needs (including language and social needs); 

         Support services model used e.g. housing model. 

 In addition, UKBA will provide contingency funds to the service providers (e.g. LAs and PCTs) on a case by case 
needs  assessment.  Specific  health  conditions  such  as  HIV,  mental  health  or  refugees  with  disabilities  will  attract 
extra funding due to their complexities and long-term funding implications.  

 Typically, the programme funding for the resettled refugees would cover: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

 The  education  of  refugees  and  their  dependants  e.g.  learning  the  English  language  via  English  for 
speakers of other languages (ESOL) classes;  

 Interpretation services for those refugees who require it (and where first language would be preferred for 
clarity e.g. when explaining health concerns or social problems); 

  Housing  refugees  (including  costs  associated  with  negotiations  with  private  landlords  and  Housing 
Associations); 

  Refugee casework support services;  

  Monitoring  the  progress  of  integration  of  the  refugees  (e.g.  data  collection  and  input,  writing  of  the 
required quarterly reports); 

  Training of the support caseworkers; 

  Health – registering to GPs / secondary care costs for those with serious medical conditions. 

Unless agreed beforehand, most costs are paid after actual expenditure has been incurred.  

- Do you have a specific reception and integration programme which is available only for resettled refugees 
or do these receive the same facilities in terms of reception and integration as refugees who have arrived in 
your  country  as  a  spontaneous  arrival?  Could  you  in  both  cases  indicate  the  costs  of  the  reception  and 
integration of resettled refugees?   

The  arrangements  and  funding  for  the  reception  and  integration  of  Gateway  refugees  is  separate  from  that  of 
spontaneous arrivals.  Asylum seekers who are waiting for their asylum decisions to be made will be supported by 
National Asylum Support Service.    

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
The package of support consists of accommodation, adequate for the needs of the assisted person and any 
dependants and/or subsistence support for essential living needs.  

The amount of subsistence support provided is set at 70% of the level of Income Support and is means-tested. Any 
income or capital available to the individual is taken into account for the means test.  

Individuals do not have to apply for the full package of support they can apply for subsistence support only. They 
are able to so if they are able to stay with a friend or relative for accommodation.  

Once  a  refugee  has  been  afforded  humanitarian  protection  or  discretionary  leave  status  will  then  be  assisted  by 
mainstream services. 

- Do you have any data available concerning the financial costs per person or case which  
you provide a breakdown of these costs? 

is  resettled?  Can 

Costs vary depending on the number of refugees being resettled to one LA and the LA to which they are resettled. 
We are therefore unable to provide a breakdown in this area. 

Ireland 

Can you provide information with respect to the financial costs of resettlement? 

- What is the total budgetary allocation with respect to resettlement? 

Each  Government  Department  must  provide  for  resettlement  within  their  existing  budgets.    No  special  budgetary 
allocation is made for resettlement.  

-  If  available,  could  you  provide  a  specification  of  the  budgetary  allocations  with  respect  to  the  different 
resettlement activities (such as selection and pre-departure activities, post-arrival and integration)? 

N/A 

- Do you have a specific reception and integration programme which is available only for resettled refugees 
or do these receive the same facilities in terms of reception and integration as refugees who have arrived in 
your  country  as  a  spontaneous  arrival?  Could  you  in  both  cases  indicate  the  costs  of  the  reception  and 
integration of resettled refugees?   

The  resettlement  team  of  the  Office  of  the  Minister  for  Integration  coordinate  a  special  programme  for  resettled 
refugees.  This includes an accommodation and training programme in the National Orientation and Training Centre.  
The team liaise between the refugees and service providers.  The Resettlement team also works with the receiving 
communities to ensure that they are aware of and prepared to meet the needs of the resettled refugees. 

From 2009, funds will be provided through the ERF for special initiatives to support resettlement and integration of 
refugees into the local community. 

- Do you have  any data available concerning the financial costs per person  or case which is resettled? Can 
you provide a breakdown of these costs? 

The total expenses for pre-departure, reception and integration activities during one year for 200 resettled refugees 
are estimated to be 4,5 Million Euro. Per person :22.500 Euros. 

Netherlands  Structural costs made by COA for reception of quota refugees per bed per year 

Regular costs for reception per person   

€    14.000 

Extra costs for reception per bed per quota refugee 

€      3.968*  

Total 

€    17.968 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*Social intake during selection missions 

€    48.000 

IOM services (flights and training facilities) 

€  500.000 

Extra staff reception centre 

€  512.000 

Food packages (at arrival in reception centre) 

€    20.685 

Information materials 

€    10.000 

Interest and depreciation costs 

€    40.268  

Total 

IND: 

€1.130.953:285 beds= €3.968 per bed 

The  costs  are  variable  depending  on  the  facilitation  by  the  local  UNHCR  office,  number  of  staff,  country 
destination.  Expenses  of  staff  for  travel  and  stay,  use  of  the  rooms  and  equipment,  use  of  interpreters  and  local 
transport,  gifts,  daily  expenses,  vaccinations,  entry  visa,  etc.  For  a  mission  in  2008  to  Thailand  €  25.234  was 
needed to  cover  the  costs.  Costs  are  exclusive  the  amounts  for  paying  the  fines  for  Burmese  refugees  to the  Thai 
government because they do not have the right travel documents to leave Thailand. For a mission in Syria in 2007 € 
19.746 was needed and for a mission in Tanzania in 2007 € 32.526 was paid.  

Sweden 

-If available, could you provide a specification of the budgetary allocations with respect   to the different 
resettlement activities (such as selection and pre-departure activities, post-arrival and integration)? 

 Governmental allocation for reception and integration is 313 880 00 SEK (ca 31 million euros), selection, travel 
and pre-departure CO-programs is 16 150 000  SEK (ca 1,6 million euros). The salaries for civil servants are funded 
separately within the Migration Board’s budget.  

- Do you have a specific reception and integration programme which is available only for resettled refugees 
or do these receive the same facilities in terms of reception and integration as refugees who have arrived in 
your country as a spontaneous arrival? Could you in both cases indicate the costs of the reception and 
integration of resettled refugees?   

Same program for both categories. Municipalities claim their initial costs for resettled refugees are much higher but 
the governmental support in this regard is fully the same as for those spontaneous arrived and accepted.   

- Do you have  any data available concerning the financial costs per person  or case which is resettled? Can 
you provide a breakdown of these costs?  

The medium cost/refugee funded by the government is 165 200 SEK (ca 16,5 thousand Euros) 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Denmark 

Can you provide information with respect to the financial costs of resettlement? 

- What is the total budgetary allocation with respect to resettlement? 

- If available, could  you provide a specification  of the budgetary allocations  with respect 
to the different resettlement activities (such as selection and pre-departure activities, post-
arrival and integration)?   

Total annual budgetar y alloca tion with respect to r esettlement* (745 kr. for 100 Euros ) –  
Finance Law of 2008 

 Number of resettlements   

 Health Ca re  

 Transportation  

 Selection Missions  
 Pre-departure Programmes  

 To tal   

                   500  
             6 7.1 
1 4 Euros 

          316.24 2 Euros   

             40.26 8 Euros   
          214.76 5 Euros   

638.38 9 Euros  

* The salaries of employees working with resettlement related tasks have not been included. The budgetary allocation related 
to cost of the three year integration  is not included,  

- Do you have a specific reception and integration programme which is available 
only for   resettled refugees or do these receive the same facilities in terms of reception and 
integration  as  refugees  who  have  arrived  in  your  country  as  a  spontaneous 
you in  both cases indicate  the costs of the reception and integration of 

arrival? Could  
resettled  refugees?   

 Resettled  refugees  and  refugees  who  have  arrived  in  Denmark  as  a  spontaneous 
arrival receive the same facilities in terms of reception and integration as both groups 
are  covered  by  the  Integration Law.  The  average  cost  of  the  three  year  integration 
programme is 59.290 Euros pr. person. 

- Do you have any data  available concerning the financial costs per person or case which 

is resettled? Can you provide a breakdown of these costs? 

Av era ge financial costs of a quota r efugee - 2008-price lev el (745 kr. for 100 Eur os)* 

Expenses related to selection missions, pre-departure prog rammes and 
transportation etc. 

- Co st pr. quota refugee befo re reception in municipality 

1.653 Euro s 

2008-price level  

State expenses related to the integration of refugees 

- Co st pr. quota refugee fo r the three year intro duction programme 

                     59.290 euro s  

Total average financial cost pr. quota refugee 

                  60.943 Euros 

* The ca lc ulation does  not include potential socia l s ecurity or similar  s upport 
financed by  the state. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
France 

- What is the total budgetary allocation with respect to resettlement? 

Il est très difficile d’estimer avec précision le coût de la réinstallation d’un réfugié dans la mesure où ceux-ci ont en 
France accès à l’ensemble des droits sociaux et des programmes d’intégration de droit commun (notamment pour ce 
qui concerne les formations linguistiques, l’accompagnement social ou l’accès au logement). 

On peut toutefois estimer comme suit la partie des dépenses spécifiquement engagées pour la préparation du départ, 
le financement du voyage, ainsi que l’accueil et l’hébergement des réfugiés pendant une période de six mois après 
leur arrivée en France. 

L’estimation du budget nécessaire pour l’accueil de 450 réfugiés réinstallés est de 3 M€ (organisation du voyage et 
mesures d’accueil) : 

- 

- 

les  frais  de  préparation  au  départ  (notamment  bilan  de  santé  et  orientation  culturelle)  et  le  coût  du 
voyage sont estimés à 500 000 € pour 450 personnes, 

les frais d’hébergement en CPH de 450 personnes réinstallées pour une durée de six mois et avec un 
coût  à  la  journée  de  30,35  €  représentent  un  coût   total  de  2,5  M€,  étant  précisé  qu’il  est  parfois 
nécessaire de renouveler cette prise en charge pour une nouvelle période de six mois dans le cas des 
réfugiés les moins autonomes. 

- If available, could you provide a specification of the budgetary allocations with respect  
resettlement activities (such as selection and pre-departure activities,  

post-arrival and integration)?   

to the different 

Cf. supra. 

- Do you have a specific reception and integration programme which is available only for resettled refugees 
or do these receive the same facilities in terms of reception and integration as refugees who have arrived in 
your country as a spontaneous arrival? Could you in both cases indicate the costs of the reception and 
integration of resettled refugees?   

Les  personnes  réinstallées  sont  pour  l’instant  orientées  vers  les  centres  provisoires  d’hébergement  destinés  aux 
réfugiés statutaires ou bénéficiaires de la protection subsidiaire ou vers des dispositifs de logements transitoires pour 
les réfugiés. La question de la mise en place de structures d’accueil spécifiques pour l’accueil et l’hébergement des 
personnes réinstallées est à l’étude. 

-Do you have any data available concerning the financial costs per person or case which  
you provide a breakdown of these costs? 

is  resettled?  Can 

On peut estimer à 6 700 € le coût moye n des mesures mises en place pour la préparation du départ, le financement 
du voyage ainsi que l’accueil et l’hébergement des réfugiés pendant une période de six mois après leur arrivée en 
France. Ce coût moyen n’inclut pas celui des dispositifs de droit commun mobilisés au profit des réfugiés tels que le 
contrat  d’accueil  et  d’intégration  ou  les  diverses  actions  menées  en  vue  de  favoriser  leur  accès  au  logement  et  à 
l’emploi,  difficile  à  estimer  dans  la  mesure  où  ils  bénéficient  aux  autres  réfugiés  ou  même  aux  autres  étrangers 
primo  arrivants.  Enfin,  ce  coût  n’inclut  pas  non  plus  les  dépenses  qui  pourront  être  engagées  à  l’avenir  dans 
l’organisation de missions de sélection sur lesquelles le service de l’asile n’a pas de visibilité dans la mesure où la 
sélection s’est effectuée uniquement sur dossier pendant l’année 2008. 

Czech 
Republic 

- What is the total budgetary allocation with respect to resettlement? 

The total budget with respect to resettlement of 40 Burmese refugees in 2008:  7 600 000 CZK;  

- If available, could you provide a specification of the budgetary allocations with respect  
resettlement activities (such as selection and pre-departure activities, post-arrival and integration)?  

to the different 

Specification  of  the  budget  with  respect  to  the  different  resettlement  activities  in  2008  (with  respect  to 
resettlement  of  40  Burmese  refugees  in  2008):    pre-departure  activities  and  selection  -  150 000  CZK; 
transfer  of  refugees  organized  by  IOM  –  800 000  CZK;  post-arrival  and  integration  phase  (interpreters, 
social  assistance,  cultural  orientation,  temporarily  accommodation)  400 000  CZK;  courses  of  Czech 
language  –  600 000  CZK;  subsidy  for  development  of  the  infrastructure  of  municipalities  -      5 600  000 
CZK;  

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
- Do you have a specific reception and integration programme which is available only for resettled refugees 
or do these receive the same facilities in terms of reception and integration as refugees who have arrived in 
your  country  as  a  spontaneous  arrival?  Could  you  in  both  cases  indicate  the  costs  of  the  reception  and 
integration of resettled refugees?   

There is no a specific reception and integration programme which is available only for resettled refugees 
in  the  Czech  Republic.  Resettled  persons  receive  the  same  facilities  in  terms  of  reception  and
integration as refugees who have arrived in the Czech Republic as a spontaneous arrival. There 
is a programme called the State Integration Programme which has existed in the Czech Republic for more 
than 13 years and is focused on assistance to refugees in securing rented housing, learning Czech language 
and  on  assistance  in  finding  work.  Implementation  of  the  State  Integration  Programme  is  in  close 
cooperation  with  regional  authorities,  municipalities  and  NGOs.  Each  year  the  Czech  government 
approves the release of financial resources (grants) for securing the housing of asylum-seekers which are 
used  for  acquiring  necessary  integration  flats  and  development  of  the  infrastructure  of  municipalities 
which provide rental accommodation to asylum-seekers and their families.  

The costs of the reception and integration of resettled refugees: see above 

Do you have any data available concerning the financial costs per person or case which is resettled?  

Source: Responses to the Commission  questionnaire on resettlement to the Member States, Jan 2009 

Approximately 190 000 CZK; 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 10 

RESETTLEMENT UNDER THE EUROPEAN REFUGEE FUND III 

Legal framework 

(cid:190)  Articles  3(1)(d),  6  and  13  of  Decision  No  573/2007/EC  of  the  European  Parliament 
and of the Council establishing the European refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 
as  part  of  the  general  programme  "Solidarity  and  management  of  Migration  Flows" 
(Legal base). 

(cid:190)  Priority  3  of  Commission  Decision  implementing  Decision  No  573/2007/EC  as 

regards the adoption of the strategic guidelines (2007/815/EC). 

(cid:190)  Article  41  of  Commission  Decision  laying  down  rules  for  the  implementation  of 

Decision No 573/2007/EC (2008/22/EC). 

Definition 

According  to  Article  3(1)(d)  of  Decision  No  573/2007/EC,  resettlement  means  the  process 
whereby,  on  a  request  from  UNHCR  based  on  a  person's  need  for  international  protection, 
third-country nationals or stateless persons are transferred from a third country to a Member 
State where they are permitted to reside with a refugee status within the meaning of Article 
2(d) of Directive 2004/83/EC, or with a status which offers the same rights and benefits under 
national and Community law as refugee status. 

General objective and eligible actions 

To support and encourage the efforts made by the Member States in receiving, and in bearing 
the consequences of receiving, refugees and displaced persons, taking account of Community 
legislation  on  those  matters,  by  co-financing  the  actions  provided  for  in  the  Decision 
establishing the ERF. The Fund shall support actions based on the voluntary efforts made by 
Member States to provide international protection and a durable solution in their territories to 
refugees and displaced persons identified as eligible for resettlement by the UNHCR. 

Priority  3  of  the  strategic  guidelines  provides  for  the  support  of  actions  helping  to  enhance 
responsibility sharing between Member States and third countries. This includes the transfer 
of third-country nationals or stateless persons from a third country to a Member State where 
they are permitted to reside with refugee status or a status which offers the same rights and 
benefits under the national and Community law as refugee status. 

Sources of co-financing for resettlement 

1.  Community actions:  

(cid:190)  Based on the Annual work programmes set up by the Commission 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(cid:190)  Projects selected by the Commission following the call for proposal 
(cid:190)  Projects  focused  on  transnational  cooperation,  pilot  projects  (new  form  of 

cooperation / EC law), studies awareness raising campaigns 

(cid:190)  Co-financing percentage: up to 90% for the call 2008 
(cid:190)  Ex:  for  instance,  Trans-national  Resettlement  Project  UK  &  Ireland  was 

selected for co-financing (up to 495.000 EUR) under the ERF CA 2007 

2.  National programmes of Member States 

(cid:190)  Based on the annual programmes presented by Member States and adopted by 

the Commission 

(cid:190)  Concrete actions of Member States relating to persons to be resettled (from the 

selection to the integration process) 

(cid:190)  Co-financing percentage: up to 50% or for Cohesion countries up to 75% for 

actions 

(cid:190)  Co-financing  percentage:  75%  for  actions  relating  to  resettlement  of  persons 
from  a  country  or  region  designated  for  the  implementation  of  a  regional 
Protection Programme (specific priority defined in the strategic guidelines) 

3.  Additional financial support to Member States whose resettlement actions are targeted 
at  certain  particularly  vulnerable  categories  of  persons  and  persons  falling  under  the 
Regional Protection Programmes (incentive of 4000 EUR for each resettled person). 

Distribution of annual resources between Member States  

The  annual  allocation  under  the  ERF  is  distributed  to  the  Member  States  for  the 
implementation  of  their  annual  programmes  according  to  Article  13  of  Decision  No 
573/2007/EC. Part of the calculation of allocation is based on the following information: 

1.  Data collection exercise 

The data collection exercise is covered by the Migration Statistics Regulation which provides 
for a regular data collection of asylum statistics by EUROSTAT. Annual breakdowns of data 
over the three previous years relevant for the distribution of financial resources under the ERF 
are provided by EUROSTAT to DG JLS. According to Article 6(a) to (e) of the legal base, the 
data relevant for the distribution of the financial resources are related to the number of: 

-  Third-country nationals admitted over the previous three years and having the 
status defined by the Geneva Convention and permitted to reside as a refugee;  

-  Third-country nationals admitted over the previous three years and enjoying a 
form of subsidiary protection within the meaning of Directive 2004/83/EC; 

-  Third-country nationals who have applied for refugee or subsidiary protection 

status over the previous three years; 

-  Third-country  nationals  who  have  enjoyed  temporary  protection  within  the 

meaning of Directive 2001/55/EC over the previous three years and 

-  Third-country nationals resettled over the previous three years. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
According  to  Article  6(e)  of  the  legal  base,  one  of  the  categories  of  data  relevant  for  the 
allocation of resources concerns the number of third-country nationals resettled over the three 
previous years.  

Member States such as Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden or United Kingdom have their 
national  resettlement  programmes  which  implementation  is  supported  with  the  financial 
resources from the ERF. The resettlement actions are presented under the priority 3 of the MS' 
annual programmes and they aim at actions such as training of selection officers, development 
of specific integration programmes, raising awareness activities, etc. 

2.  Data on future resettlement of specific categories ("pledging exercise") 

According  to  Article  13(6)  of  legal  base  Member  States  are  requested  to  provide  additional 
data  on  future  resettlement  which  are  not  covered  by  the  Statistics  Regulation.  This  means 
that every year an ad hoc data request  is  sent by DG JLS to Member States to obtain these 
additional data  by completing  a reporting form on estimate of persons to be resettled in the 
course  of  the  calendar  year.  These  data  relates  to  four  specific  categories  of  persons  falling 
within Article 13(3) of legal base who are considered as particularly vulnerable groups: 

a)  persons  from  a  country  or  region  designated  for  the  implementation  of  a  regional 

protection Programme; 

b)  unaccompanied minors; 

c)  children  and  women  in  risk,  particularly  from  psychological,  physical  or  sexual 

violence or exploitation; 

d)  persons with serious medical needs that can only be addressed thought resettlement 

Member  States  are  requested  to  provide  in  the  reporting  form  the  number  of  persons  under 
each  of  the  four  specific  categories  which  they  intent  to  resettle  during  the  calendar  year. 
Following this pledging exercise, Member States are allocated additional financial resources 
based on the fixed amount of 4000 EUR for each resettled person falling into one of the four 
specific categories. 

Member State 

Pledging 2008 

Pledging 2009 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Estonia 

EN 

x 4000 € 

0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €

0
0
0
0
0
0

69 

0 
0 
0 
0 
16 
0 

x 4000 € 

0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
64.000,00 €
0,00 €

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

98
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
145
0
30
20
0
0
0
1.380
680

392.000,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
160.000,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
580.000,00 €
0,00 €
120.000,00 €
80.000,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
5.520.000,00 €
2.720.000,00 €

SUMS 

2.393

9.572.000,00 €

300 
170 
2.160 
0 
0 
170 
50 
0 
0 
0 
0 
145 
0 
30 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1.435 
500 

4.976 

1.200.000,00 €
680.000,00 €
8.640.000,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
680.000,00 €
200.000,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
580.000,00 €
0,00 €
120.000,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
0,00 €
5.740.000,00 €
2.000.000,00 €

19.904.000,00 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
€
 
ANNEX 11 

Resettlement activities under ERF national programmes 
Member States' answers to the question: Did you include resettlement activities in your ERF 
Multi-annual  programme?  If  so,  can  you  shortly  describe  what  sort  of  activities  and  the 
starting date of these activities? 
Yes some activities have been included in the ERF Annual programme of 2008 and 2009 to allow 
the preparation of a future national resettlement programme. 
Yes. In 2009 in the framework of ERF the actions planned are: 
-setting up an asylum integration centre intended for resettled persons 
-informing the host country on resettlement issues 
-creation of a methodology for managing pre-departure programmes and their pilot implementation 
-pre-departure and travel measures for resettlement projects. 
Finland has included resettlement activities in ERF Multi- annual Programme 2008-2013 and in the 
Annual Programmes 2008 and 2009. Finland has included in the Programmes the optional priority 3 
of the ERF strategic guidelines and aims to develop further cooperation with Member States in the 
field of resettlement as well as to develop further its own resettlement activities. 

Yes,  it  is  planned  to  develop  resettlement  operations  under  the  MAP  2008-13.  Resettlement 
activities are included in the 2009 Annual programme. Flat rate assistance of 4000 euro per person 
under Article 13( 3) ERF Decision has been pledged in December 2008 for a total of 170 persons. 
Yes.  An  operational  objective  of  Hungary  in  the  ERF  Multi-annual  Programme  2008-2013  is 
"Preparation of a resettlement program", with special attention to : 
-awareness raising (campaigns, programmes, events, leaflets exhibitions etc…) 
-preparing the asylum system for a resettlement program 
-elaboration  of  information  material,  supporting  measures  aiming  to  provide  pre-departure 
information 
-securing participation in other Member State's selection mission(s) as observers 
-establishment of a resettlement programme in the future 
The  ERF  Annual  programme  2009  includes  the  action  "First  steps  in  the  preparation  of  a 
resettlement  programme".  According  to  the  Annual  Programme,  the  upcoming  call  for  proposals 
will enable the applicants to design programmes with the following scope of this action: preparation 
of audiovisual information brochures, raisings campaign, culture-orientation trainings etc… 
Yes a resettlement activity is included in the MAP. Not included in the AP 2008 but  planned for AP 
2009 . 

Belgium 

Czech 
Republic 

Finland 

France 

Hungary 

Italy 

Luxembourg  Yes a resettlement activity is included in the ERF Multi-annual programme 2008-2013 but doesn't 

provide more details. 

Netherlands  Yes. In the ERF Multi-annual Programme the Netherland included the following measures: 

-project for improving the resettlement programme and it's implementation fitting in with the policy 
framework and the policy as applied 
-project  for  improving  and  intensifying  the  information  issued  to  invited  refugees  both  in  the 
Netherlands and in the refugee camps 
-projects  aimed  at  assistance  to  traumatised  refugees  and  developing  programmes  for  promoting 
expertise to professionals at regular health care institutions 
-projects to improve the reception of invited refugees 
-projects for social integration and participation of invited refugees, particularly aimed at acquiring 
language  skills,  getting  refugees  on  educational  courses,  stimulating  employment,  health  and 
assistance courses and meeting with Dutch nationals and creating networks 
-projects to stimulate cooperation between European countries and sharing best practices. 

In  the  Annual  programmes  2008-2009  they  included  the  same  measures    as  for  the  Multi-annual 
programme plus for 2009: 
-a  project  for  the  development  of  a  methodology  for  the  integration  of  highly  educated  resettled 
refugees 
-a  project  for  the  development  of  a  methodology  for  the  support  of  resettled  refugees  aiming  to 
improve the social integration and participation. 
-a  project  that  evaluates  and  improves  the  reception  of  the  resettled  refugees,  the  pre-departure 
training and activities in the reception centre. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Portugal 

Spain 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

Cyprus 
Austria 
Bulgaria 

Denmark 

Estonia 
Germany 

Lithuania 
Poland 
Greece 

Ireland 

Latvia 
Malta 
Romania 

Yes.  Portugal  includes  resettlement  in  both  ERF  Multi-annual  Programme  2008-2013  and  ERF 
Annual programmes (2008 and 2009).  
Yes.  Spain  will  include  resettlement  activities  in  the  ERF  Multi-annual  programme  from  2011, 
having as an aim the amount of 500 persons to be resettled in Spain at the end of the ERF III period 
in 2014. 
There are no activities planned under the Annual programme of 2008 and 2009. 
Yes.  Sweden  has  included  resettlement  activities  in  the  ERF  multi-annual  programme  2008-2013 
and the ERF annual programme 2008. The activities include persons transferred to Sweden within 
the frame of the refugee quota (resettled persons). 
Actions concerning resettled persons for programmes year 2008 are mainly directed at integration 
for  this  group.  There  are  also  actions  aiming  at  developing  strategies  for  information  to  resettled 
persons  prior  to  moving  to  Sweden,  as  well  as  actions  aiming  at  creating  a  national  network  for 
resettlement,  the  purpose  being  deeper  cooperation  between  authorities,  municipalities  and  non-
governmental authorities. All actions began during 2008. 
Yes. The UK have included resettlement activities in both ERF III Multi-annual programme funding 
cycles.  The UK will utilise ERF funding to expend the current target of 500 persons to be settled 
per annum to 750. 
The  UK,  through  the  existing  Gateway  Protection  Programme  commenced  ERF  funding  on  1 
January 2008. The types of activities under ERF III are: 
-expansion of the existing Resettlement Programme the UK operate 
-invest  in  the  development  of  new  models,  exploring  how  we  can  make  cost  saving  and  increase 
efficiencies 
-develop new models of post-arrival support, particularly in relation to securing housing provision 
-pre-arrival: complete up to 4 mission per annum selecting suitable refugees for resettlement; review 
existing procedures; prepared refugees for the journey to the UK and their longer-term experience. 
-post-arrival: provide refugees for the journey to the UK and their longer-term experience; provide a 
12 month fully funded structured programme of resettlement needs. 
No, only intra EU reallocation is foreseen  
No 
For  Bulgaria,  including  resettlement  in  the  national  migration  and  integration  strategy  as  well  as 
partnerships with states that have best resettlement practices is an option. Developing pilot programs 
for  resettlement  in  Bulgaria  is  being  discussed  by  the  Government.    Nevertheless,  whether  or  not 
Bulgaria  will  become  a  country  of  resettlement  is  still  pending  and  is  to  be  decided  by  the 
Government.  Nothing included in AP 2008 nor AP 2009. 
No. Denmark doesn't include resettlement activities in ERF as a consequence of Articles 1 and 2 of 
the  protocol  on  the  position  of  Denmark,  annexed  to  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and  to  the 
Treaty establishing the European Community. 
No 
Resettlement  operations  are  planned  for  2009.  Flat  rate  assistance  of  4000  euro  per  person  under 
Article  13,  3  ERF  Decision  has  been  pledged  in  December  2008  for  a  total  of  2.160  persons.  For 
subsequent years this is subject to a political decision. 
No 
No 
No  resettlement  activities  in  the  ERF  Multi-annual  programme  2008-2013,  only  intra  EU 
reallocation of asylum seekers and other persons benefitting international protection. 
Ireland  has  included  resettlement  activities  in  the  MAP  .  The  objective  of  the  strategy  will  be  to 
enhance the resettlement programme at present being implemented in cooperation with the UNHCR. 
Actions will include projects which will improve supports in the communities in which persons are 
resettled,  for  example  by  providing  interpretation  and  translation  services.    Actions  will  in  some 
cases  concern  persons  from  a  region  designated  for  the  implementation  of  a  Regional  Protection 
Programme  and  so  will  address  specific  priority  1  of  the  Commission  Decision  on  the  strategic 
guidelines. In the AP 2008 there was one action consisting of  capacity building in the community 
receiving resettled persons, to develop a support network and to do other work which will enable the 
target group to live independently in a new and unfamiliar society.   

No, only intra EU reallocation is foreseen 
Yes, in the framework of the AP 2008 Romania envisages to enhance the knowledge and skills of 
the  staff  involved  in  resettlement  activities.  In  AP  2009,  Romania  envisages  to  implement 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
resettlement operations under priority 3 in accordance with the national legislation which establishes 
the  resettlement  quota  for  Romania  for  the  period  2008-2010  (120  selected  and  transferred),  the 
procedure and the institutions responsible for resettlement. 
No 
No 

Slovakia 
Slovenia 

Source: Responses to the COM questionnaire on resettlement to the Member States, Jan 2009 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
UNHCR Resettlement - Top 10 Arrivals to EU, by Country of EU vs. Country of Origin 

Country of Resettlement 

ANNEX 12 

Belgium  Czech Rep  Denmar

k 
213 
12 
142 

15 
4 
5 

26 
4 
421 

8 

1 

9 

8 

8 

Finlan
d 
347 
19 
73 
62 

4 

46 
64 
10 
9 
634 

Franc
e 

German
y 

Irelan
d 
97 

1 

7 

1 

2 
107 

1 

Country of Resettlement 

5 

5 

Netherland
s 

Portugal 

Spain 

55 
120 
54 

4 
6 
9 
19 
53 
6 
326 

3 

3 

10 

10 

Swede
n 
343 
650 
61 
196 

106 
122 
52 
8 
9 
60 
1.607 

UK 

 Total 

111 
25 
141 

6 

283 

1.166 
830 
486 
258 

137 
132 
118 
108 
98 
82 
3.415

Czech Rep  Denmark 

Finland  Franc

UK 

Greece 

46 

46 

33 
156 
125 
10 

3 

21 

10 
24 
9 
391 

99 
281 
128 
5 

103 

3 
17 
636 

e 
250 
1 
1 

304 
63 
123 
2 

2 
181 

Irelan
d 

6 

2 

6 

23 
275 

675 

2 

2 
14 

Italy 

Netherland
s 

Portug
al 

Spain 

Sweden 

Total 

107 
135 
82 

17 
37 
36 

16 
41 
7 
478 

5 

1 

2 
5 

5 

8 

247 
270 
87 
301 

128 
16 
123 

103 
19 
27 
1.321 

1.052 
952 
549 
323 

261 
236 
180 

129 
95 
85 
3.862

2 

2 

74 

EN 

2007 
Country 
of Origin 
Myanmar 
Iraq 
Congo, DR 
Afghanista
n 
Uzbekistan 
Columbia 
Iran 
Somalia 
Burundi 
Russia 
Total 

2008 
Country 
of Origin 
Iraq 
Myanmar 
Congo DR 
Afghanista
n 
Iran 
Ethiopia 
Occ.  Pal. 
Terr. 
Uzbekistan 
Burundi 
Russia 
Total 

Austr
ia 

1 
1 

Austr
ia 

1 

8 

9 

    Source: UNHCR 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

UNHCR Resettlement Departures - RPP Countries of Asylum by Country of Origin - 2004 - 2008

ANNEX 13 

Country of Asylum

Regional 
Protection 
Program

Tanzania

Belarus

Origin
Burundi
Congo, DR

Ethiopia
Rwanda
Somalia
Uganda
Sub-total RPP
Afghanistan
Iran
Turkmenistan

Moldova Eritrea

Regional 
Protection 
Program

Ukraine

Afghanistan
Angola
Armenia
Burundi
Congo, DR
Cuba
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Cote d'Ivoire
Iran
Iraq
Mauritania
Niger
Occ. Pal. Terr.
Russia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Sub-total - RPP WNIS
Grand Total of two RPP programs

BEL FIN GBR IRE NET SWE
8

17

EU 
Total
25

All 

Others FIN GBR NET SWE
7

405
341

EU 
Total
7

1

1

2

2

1
2
1
11

7

3

7

1
1

4

4

4

4

29

1
39

1
787

17

0

8

0

0

8

14
3

22
3

15
5

1

5

4

1

1

1

1

10

13

8
8

27
31

39
68

30
817

4
5

0
2

1
2

3
10

8
19

3

3
3

0
17

1
1

0
8

1
12

1

2

1
1
13

3
1
11

2
1
6
70
1.254

All 

Others BEL DEN FIN GBR NET SWE

934
216

34

84
7

2

EU 
Total
84
7

All 

Others DEN FIN NET SWE

1.205
226

6

53
39

EU 
Total
59
39

2

43

1.184
15

0

0

0

0

1

93

0

93

1.474

0

6

92

0

98

All 

Others DEN FIN NET SWE
18

5.806
163

23
84

29
46

EU 
Total
70
130

All 
Others
2.883
119

3

3

107

0

78

18

203

3.002
1

55

6.024
23

1

2
3

1

1
5
15
4

1

1

1

1

10

10

4

5

4

5

1
6

1
1

3

1

1

1

3

5

3

11
1

17

1

1

1
3

8

4

4
8

3

1

2
1

4

5

1

31

41

1

2

21

24

2

2

3
3

1
1

0
0

1
1

3
96

40
48
48

40
56
149

47
1.521

4
8
5
8 11

1
93

1
34
34

5
48
146

55
6.079

0
107

1
1

2
80

8
50
68

8
53
256

6
21
3.023

EN 

75 

EN