REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the results achieved and on qualitative and quantitative aspects of implementation of the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2007
Date: 2011-01-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, administrative expenditure, aid to refugees, co-financing, fund (EU), refugee

EN

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 14.1.2011 
COM(2011) 2 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on the results achieved and on qualitative and quantitative aspects of implementation of 
the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2007 

(report submitted in accordance with Article 54 (5) of Decision No 573/2007/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
FINAL EVALUATION 

Final evaluation of the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2007 

Introduction 

The  European  Refugee  Fund,  which  was  established  in  2000  for  the  period  from  2000  to 
2004,  was  continued  thereafter  by  virtue  of  Council  Decision  2004/904/EC  of  2  December 
2004.  While  the  new  implementation  period  was  initially intended to cover the period from 
2005  to  2010,  it  was  subsequently  limited  to  2007  as  a  result  of  the  introduction  of  a  new 
legal and financial basis as part of the General Programme on “Solidarity and management of 
migration flows” which embraced the European Refugee Fund and three other Funds for the 
remaining part of the initial period and beyond. 

Building upon the first implementation period of the Fund from 2000 to 2004, the European 
Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2007 continues “to support and encourage the efforts made 
by  the  Member  States  in  receiving  and  bearing  the  consequences  of  receiving  refugees  and 
displaced  persons,  taking  account  of  Community  legislation  in  these  matters”.  The  Fund  is 
designed as an instrument to allocate resources fairly and in proportion to the burden on each 
Member State by reason of its efforts in receiving refugees and displaced persons. 

The target groups for the Fund's operations are: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

-  any  third-country  nationals  or  stateless  persons  having  the  status  defined  by  the 
Geneva Convention and permitted to reside as refugees in one of the Member States 

-  any  third-country  nationals  or  stateless  persons  enjoying  a  form  of  subsidiary 
protection  granted  by  a  Member  State  in  accordance  with  the  applicable  European 
legislation 

-  any  third-country  nationals  or  stateless  persons  who  have  applied  for  one  of  the 
forms of protection described above 

-  any  third-country  nationals  or  stateless  persons  benefiting  from  temporary 
protection  arrangements  in  a  Member  State,  in  accordance  with  the  applicable 
European legislation. 

Actions entitled to support from the Fund cover one or more of the three following areas:  

- reception conditions and asylum procedures 

- integration of target group persons whose stay in the Member State is of a lasting or stable 
nature 

- voluntary return of target group persons, provided they have not acquired a new nationality 
and have not left the territory of the Member State. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

Actions  supported  by  the  Fund  shall,  in  particular,  promote  the  implementation  of  the 
provisions of the relevant existing and future European legislation in the field of the common 
European  asylum  system.  Furthermore,  they  shall  take  account  of  the  specific  situation  of 
vulnerable  persons,  such  as  minors,  elderly  people,  persons  who  have  been  subjected  to 
torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, etc.  

Ninety  three  percent  of  the  budget  appropriations  were  allocated  to  the  Member  States  for 
carrying  out  national  programmes  co-financed  by  the  Union  and  implemented  under  shared 
management.  The  remainder,  i.e.  up  to  7%  of  appropriations,  was  available  for  Community 
actions implemented directly by the Commission to finance transnational actions or actions of 
interest to the European Union as a whole concerning asylum policy and measures applicable 
to refugees and displaced persons. 

All  the  Member  States  of  the  Union  participated  in  implementing  the  Fund,  with  the 
exception of Denmark in accordance with the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to 
the Treaty on European Union. Bulgaria and Romania, which joined the European Union on 
1 January 2007, participated only during the final year, 2007. 

After completion of the 2005-2007 programmes, each Member State submitted an evaluation 
report on the results and impact of the actions co-financed by the Fund. In all Member States 
the evaluation was carried out at the level of the projects funded; it covered all of them or – 
where there were a large number of projects - a representative  sample. Since  most Member 
States had recourse to external evaluation expertise, the national evaluation reports provide a 
fair and independent view of the programmes’ achievements and possible shortcomings. 

The present evaluation report is based on the Member States’ submissions with regard to the 
implementation  of  the  national  programmes.  It  also  builds  upon  additional  data  and 
information available to the Commission. It should be stressed that the figures collated in this 
evaluation  report  are  average  values  which  do  not  always  reflect  deviations  from  the  trend. 
Wherever possible, variations or divergences from average results have been flagged. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

1. 

BUDGETARY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FUND FROM 2005 TO 2007 

The  following  summary  description  of  the  budget  implementation  is  based  on  funds 
committed, since not all payment operations have been completed. 

1.1. 

National programmes 

1.1.1.  Budget overview 

The budget appropriations from the Fund for national programmes amounted to €43 200 593 
in  2005,  €46 288 323  in  2006  and  €63  302  688  in  2007.  The  amounts  committed  for 
programmes as approved by the Commission were €43 169 204 in 2005, €45 200 066 in 2006 
and €63 302 688 in 2007 (all figures are rounded) . Almost all the budget resources available 
to national programmes have been used. The slight difference between budget appropriations 
and the amounts used is due to the fact that, in 2005, the Slovak Republic did not use a small 
part of its allocation, and the same was true of Ireland and the United Kingdom in 2006. 

The  total  costs  of  all  operations  funded  through  the  national  programmes  during  the  period 
2005-2007 amounted to almost €300 million. The F und’s contribution accounted for slightly 
more than half of that amount.1. Additional resources were provided by the national budgets 
and by the beneficiaries. 

Table 1 – Total cost of ERF programmes and sources of funding, 2005-2007 
at EU level 

(Consolidation of all Member States’ national programme financial plans) 

Source of funding 

European Refugee Fund allocation 

State allocations 

Allocations from Regions 

Allocations from Local Authorities 

Amounts in € 

151 671 959.34 

88 331 906.23 

10 360 468.64 

16 295 722.46 

A 

B 

C 

D 

National public allocations 

B+C+D 

114 988 097.33 

Total public Allocations 

A+ B+C+D 

266 660 056.67 

Private Allocations 

E 

30 125 122.27 

Total Cost 

A+B+C+D+E 

296 785 178.94 

% 

51.1 % 

29.8 % 

3.5 % 

5.5 % 

38.7 % 

89.9 % 

10.1 % 

100 % 

1 

The  Fund’s  contribution  to  projects  supported  may  not  exceed  50%  of  the  total  cost,  except  for 
particularly innovative projects (up to 60 %) and for the Cohesion Countries, where this is increased to 
75%. As a result, the global figure for all EU Member States together was 51%. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Commitments of the European Refugee Fund for national programmes since 2000, per Member State

Com m itm e nt 
pe r Mem be r 
State

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Estonia

Finland

France

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

TOTAL

TOTAL

2005-2007

2000 - 2007

912.382,09

1.454.753,68

1.938.106,21

2.007.650,38

2.230.280,21

2.742.218,08

3.846.031,28

5.043.250,98

11.631.500,34

20.174.672,91

1.223.201,55

1.869.724,55

2.729.082,53

2.381.191,60

2.131.527,03

1.708.787,99

1.776.562,59

2.603.893,57

6.089.244,15

16.423.971,41

168.058,60

647.118,56

908.577,92

1.500.569,01

3.056.265,49

3.224.324,09

0,00**

1.322.783,90

1.224.732,11

1.466.059,64

4.013.575,65

4.013.575,65

101.264,04

501.165,50

501.107,84

501.920,54

1.504.193,88

1.605.457,92

495.312,69

495.312,69

495.312,69

651.386,00

673.605,00

671.256,00

524.730,29

392.632,81

576.732,16

765.446,81

1.076.742,49

2.418.921,46

5.332.531,56

2.255.053,80

3.156.227,70

4.133.680,00

5.067.825,42

4.041.961,16

4.419.370,47

4.030.904,13

10.558.351,31

19.008.625,91

37.663.373,99

Germany

6.218.898,77

8.391.364,30

10.324.674,58

9.935.791,60

8.113.021,93

6.808.594,52

5.740.645,75

9.652.645,44

22.201.885,71

65.185.636,89

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

652.057,17

629.043,03

535.611,36

439.481,17

459.296,30

738.841,43

816.091,64

1.283.253,07

2.838.186,14

5.553.675,17

824.724,64

1.064.593,65

979.609,02

866.343,13

2.910.545,80

3.735.270,44

632.205,18

709.109,67

965.573,27

981.675,33

919.090,69

1.037.486,23

1.079.242,69

1.154.112,32

3.270.841,24

7.478.495,38

1.956.104,78

2.741.880,68

3.460.943,09

2.396.267,75

741.665,14

1.763.702,74

2.053.628,78

2.650.121,13

6.467.452,65

17.764.314,09

95.628,95

501.174,78

501.345,60

501.821,57

1.504.341,95

1.599.970,90

154.927,86

573.217,83

607.775,87

645.556,32

1.826.550,02

1.981.477,88

Luxembourg

528.971,74

480.528,81

411.194,85

299.703,18

171.647,79

398.036,69

456.620,40

568.733,03

1.423.390,12

3.315.436,49

Malta

111.840,01

536.748,47

613.261,96

711.494,88

1.861.505,31

1.973.345,32

Netherlands

2.984.948,74

3.642.649,54

4.175.006,40

3.239.737,01

2.972.102,53

2.481.878,07

2.471.049,17

3.187.495,09

8.140.422,33

25.154.866,55

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

534.238,01

518.815,68

457.005,68

304.394,29

123.369,56

317.204,29

316.952,82

318.324,52

952.481,63

2.890.304,85

440.490,02

890.515,65

1.162.043,64

1.680.799,75

3.733.359,04

4.173.849,06

745.290,55

837.462,10

933.063,85

786.229,10

665.287,27

828.501,41

859.539,41

1.141.075,16

2.829.115,98

6.796.448,85

372.374,00

1.068.062,00

1.360.927,53

1.630.673,76

4.059.663,29

4.432.037,29

343.443,67

573.652,24

584.197,32

675.421,09

1.833.270,65

2.176.714,32

405.310,82

405.310,82

405.310,82

Sw eden

1.808.616,60

2.555.669,69

3.326.823,31

2.869.672,23

2.691.651,76

2.929.516,46

3.904.398,26

4.861.458,49

11.695.373,21

24.947.806,80

United Kingdom

2.902.639,84

4.819.118,07

8.764.928,09

8.923.100,66

10.877.220,93

8.739.301,59

8.639.373,87

8.121.948,42

25.500.623,88

61.787.631,47

TOTAL EU

24.005.994,82

32.479.952,50

42.826.949,22

40.157.450,01

39.143.506,90

43.169.204,71

45.200.066,41

63.302.688,22

151.671.959,34

330.285.812,79

EN 

5 

EN 

 
  
1.1.2.  Distribution of ERF funding between the Member States and between actions  

The Commission allocated the funds available for national programmes to the Member States 
according  to  a  distribution  key  set  out  in  the  Council  Decision  establishing  the  European 
Refugee Fund. This key is based on the number of persons in the Fund’s target groups with 
the applicable weighting coefficients. It is a tangible expression of the principle of solidarity 
and burden-sharing that underpins the Fund.  

As  can  be  seen  from  Figure  1  below,  the  United  Kingdom,  Germany  and  France  were  the 
three main beneficiaries of the Fund during the period 2005-2007, with shares ranging from 
around 12% (France) to 17% (United Kingdom); they were followed by Sweden and Austria 
(7.7 % each) and the Netherlands (5.4%). The three largest beneficiary Member States were 
the same during the previous programming period (2000-2004) and in the same order, while 
the ranking of the other Member States may vary from one year to another, depending notably 
on asylum flows in a particular year. 

Figure 1 – Distribution of ERF funding between the Member States (EU26) 2005-2007 

Austria; 7.7 %

Belgium; 4.0 %

United Kingdom; 16.8 
%

Sw eden; 7.7 % 

Bulgaria; 0.3 %

Cyprus; 2.0 %

Czech Rep; 2.6 % 

Estonia; 1.0 %
Finland; 1.6 %

France; 12.5 %

Spain; 1.9 %

Slovenia; 1.2 %

Slovakia; 2.7 %

Romania; 0.3 %

Portugal; 0.6 %

Poland; 2.5 %

Netherlands; 5.4%
Malta; 1.2 %

Luxembourg; 0.9%

Germany; 14.6 %

Greece; 1.9 %

Latvia; 1.0 %

Hungary; 1.9 %

Lithuania; 1.2 %

Italy; 4.3 %

Ireland; 2.2 %

Of  the  Member  States  that  joined  the  EU  in  2004  and  2007,  the  main  beneficiary  Member 
States during the period 2005-2007 were the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia, followed 
by  Hungary.  In  2004,  the  first  year  of  implementation  in  the  new  Member  States,  Hungary 
was  the  biggest  beneficiary,  ahead  of  Poland  and  Slovakia.  However,  the  Czech  Republic 
decided not to participate in the implementation of the Fund in 2004. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
Compared  to  the  previous  programming  period  (2000-2004),  the  2005-2007  period  shows 
significant changes to the breakdown of ERF funding across the three Actions (Reception and 
asylum procedures, Integration and Voluntary return) as programmed by the Member States 
(see Figure 2). There was a decrease in the share of the first area (from 46 % to 41 %), a small 
decrease in the share of the second area and a relatively large increase in the share of the third 
area (from 22% to 28%). Although voluntary return was the smallest of the three areas, and 
even if its implementation was more difficult than the others , there was an increased focus of 
Member States’ strategies on that area. This trend relates to the share of each area, not to the 
amounts;  therefore,  the  Member  States  did  not  reduce  their  budgets  allocated  either  to 
reception  or  to  integration  –  instead  they  significantly  increased  the  amounts  allocated  to 
voluntary return. 

Figure 2 – Distribution of EU funding at EU level by Action (rounded figures) 

46%

41%

41%

41%

41%

32%

30%

29%

31%

28%

30%

29%

31%

28%

22%

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2000-2004

2005

2006

2007

2005-2007

Action A: Reception and Asylum Procedures

Action B: Integration

Action C: Voluntary Return

There were significant differences between Member States in the share for each area, which 
were  related  to  each  Member  State’s  situation  and  strategy,  as  can  be  seen  from  Table  2 
below. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
While  most  Member  States  earmarked  significant  amounts  of  funding  for  improving  the 
reception conditions of asylum seekers and for asylum procedures, in several Member States 
with comparatively large asylum flows (Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy and especially Malta) 
higher  than  average  shares  were  apparent.  Similarly,  in  many  of  the  Member  States  that 
joined  the  EU  in  2004,  comparatively  high  ERF  amounts  were  channelled  into  upgrading 
reception facilities for asylum seekers and asylum procedures to the standards required by the 
applicable  EU  legislation.  Although  amounts  allocated  to  actions  targeted  at  integration  of 
refugees  and  persons  enjoying  another  form  of international  protection  did  not  display  such 
large  differences  in  general,  they  were  clearly  emphasised  in  some  national  programmes 
(Finland and Ireland). 

Actions on voluntary return, which were taken by only a few Member States during the first 
programming  period  of  the  European  Refugee  Fund,  2000-2004,  were  a  feature  common  to 
the programmes of all but three Member States during the second programming period. In the 
United Kingdom, one large and successful project in this area actually used up the majority of 
its appropriations. 

This provided for a more balanced approach encompassing the improved reception of asylum 
seekers,  the  integration  of  those  being  granted  protection  status  and,  lastly,  the  provision  of 
better  reintegration  prospects  in  the  country  of  origin  for  those  whose  application  had  been 
rejected.  

Further details are provided in the subsequent chapters of this report. 

Table 2 - Distribution of ERF funding at Member State level by Action (2005-2007) 

(See Figure 2 above for the definition of Actions A, B and C) 

Member 
States/
Actions

Action A
Action B
Action C

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

s
u
r
p
y
C

p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

i

a
a
v
t
t
o
a
T
L
36% 51% 66% 70% 32% 57% 27% 59% 43% 63% 49% 18% 79% 61% 39% 60% 76% 20% 73% 81% 46% 68% 45% 50% 43% 3% 41%
44% 24% 32% 30% 37% 35% 67% 30% 29% 30% 38% 67% 12% 35% 56% 38% 14% 40% 19% 6% 54% 21% 55% 35% 43% 17% 31%

20% 24% 2% 0% 32% 8% 6% 11% 28% 6% 13% 15% 9% 3% 5% 2% 10% 40% 8% 13% 0% 11% 0% 15% 14% 80% 28%  

n
a
p
S

a
t
l
a
M

y
a
t
I

l

l

i

i

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

i

a
k
a
v
o
S

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

n
e
d
e
w
S

U
E

1.1.3.  Community Actions 

Community  Actions  were  implemented  through  three  annual  work  programmes  of  the 
Commission,  which  referred  to  policy  documents  -  namely  the  Hague  Programme  and  the 
Communication  on  practical  cooperation  (COM(2006)67  final).  The  work  programmes 
provided  for  the  co-financing  of  measures  to  put  in  place  structures  that  brought  national 
asylum services together, with a view to facilitating practical cooperation towards three main 
objectives:  achieving  an  EU-wide  Single  Procedure;  the  joint  compilation,  assessment  and 
application of Country of Origin Information; and ways in which Member States could work 
more  closely  together  to  address  particular  pressures  on  asylum  systems  or  reception 
capacities resulting from factors such as geographical location. 

The  selected  projects  generally  focused  on  the  implementation  of  Community  legislation, 
good  practices  and  the  setting-up  of  transnational  cooperation  networks.  The  majority  of 
project  leaders  were  non-governmental  organisations  and  the  target  groups  were  young 
people,  vulnerable  people  and  persons  who  had  been  resettled.  The  projects  were 
characterised  by  their  innovative  aspects,  in  terms  of  content,  target  group  and  partnership. 
Table 3 below shows a summary of the projects selected and their budgetary implications. 

Table 3 - ERF Community Actions in 2005, 2006 and 2007 

Number of projects selected and budgetary implications 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Year 

Total 
available 
budget  

(for grants) 

€ 

ERF Community actions 

For selected projects 

No of 
proposals 
received 

No of 
proposals 
financed 

% of 
proposals 
selected 
out of total 
received 

Total 
eligible 
costs  

€ 

ERF 
contribution 

Co-
financing 

% of 
budgetary 
execution 

€ 

% 

2005 

2 250 000  

2006 

3 144 067  

2007 

4 204 996  

26 

18 

35 

8 

10 

17 

31% 

2 067 166 

1 576 038 

76% 

70% 

56% 

2 685 093 

1 820 310 

68% 

58% 

49% 

5 278 476 

4 150 101 

78% 

99% 

The  amounts  not  committed  were  due  to  the  insufficient  quality  of  the  proposals.  It  was 
decided  not  to  select  projects  below  a  certain  level  of  technical  quality;  therefore,  some 
appropriations were not used in time.  

There  is  still  some  scope  for  more  efficient  use  of  Community  Actions.  For  instance, 
mechanisms  for collecting and  disseminating information  on  Community Actions should be 
improved  both  within  the  Commission  departments  in  charge  of  the  Fund  and  in  the 
Responsible  Authorities  in  each  Member  State.  Also,  a  better  link  needs  to  be  established 
between Community Actions and national programmes. 

In  addition  to  the  grants  described  above,  the  Commission  used  some  resources  for  public 
procurement, such as a feasibility study on the European Asylum Support Office (€138 800) 
in 2007. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
2. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FROM 2005 TO 2007 

2.2 

Implementation of the Commission Strategic Guidelines 

The national programmes of the Member States had to comply with the Strategic Guidelines 
of the Commission. The Guidelines, which included five Priorities, provided a framework for 
implementation in line with certain objectives set at European level, but they did not restrict 
the eligibility of the measures envisaged by the Member States, provided that they complied 
with  the  legal  basis  of  the  European  Refugee  Fund.  The  following  is  an  assessment  of  the 
implementation of the Guidelines on programme closure. 

-  Priority  1:  implementation  of  the  principles  and  measures,  including  those  related  to 
integration objectives, set out in the Community acquis of the asylum policy 

The  purpose  of  Priority  1  was  to  support  implementation  of  the  Community  acquis  of  the 
asylum policy through measures and projects funded from the European Refugee Fund. It was 
implemented in all Member States without exception.  

- Priority 2: the preparation of the implementation of principles and measures provided for in 
the  Council  Directive  on  minimum  standards  on  procedures  in  Member  States  for  granting 
and withdrawing refugee status 

Priority 2 was implemented to a significant extent in all Member States except Luxembourg 
and the United Kingdom. An important topic for the implementation of Priority 2 was legal 
assistance  provided  to  asylum  seekers,  which  was  one  of  the  main  categories  of  operations 
funded as part of the Action “Reception conditions and asylum procedures”. 

- Priority 3: the implementation of actions aimed at improving the quality of procedures for 
the examination of claims for international protection in Member States 

Priority 3 was implemented in all Member States except France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, 
Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Malta  and  Portugal.  Projects  addressed  the  Priority  from  various 
angles: improving the procedures; changing the working methods of the authorities involved; 
conducting research to help identify pressures on the asylum system; purchasing equipment, 
such as computerised systems, to help improve the quality of procedures, etc.  

-  Priority  4:  the  implementation  of  measures  relating  to  asylum  seekers,  refugees  or 
beneficiaries of temporary or subsidiary protection and minors, respecting the principle of the 
best interest of the child 

Ten  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Luxembourg, 
Malta,  Slovenia  and  Spain)  had  projects  that  were  entirely  dedicated  to  minors,  and  four 
Member  States  (Belgium,  Hungary,  Poland  and  Slovakia)  had  various  projects  targeted  at 
asylum  seekers  or  refugees  in  which  particular  attention  was  paid  to  children.  Germany, 
Greece and Ireland placed some emphasis on this Priority.  

-  Priority  5:  for  Member  States  having  established  or  willing  to  establish  resettlement 
schemes,  actions  which  address,  in  particular,  the  reception  and  orientation  of  persons 
admitted to the Member States under such schemes and the management of such schemes. 

Only  three  Member  States  addressed  Priority  5:  Finland  (integration  of  persons  resettled 
under the UNHCR resettlement scheme), Portugal (relocation of twelve refugees transferred 
from Malta) and Spain (in-depth analyses of resettlement proceedings).  

2.2  Key data 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
In general, national programmes were implemented through open calls for proposals (in the 
majority of Member States one call was organised every year) which attracted an impressive 
total  of  2  492  proposals.  Of  these,  1  403  were  selected  and  funded.  The  total  number  of 
projects  funded  in  each  Member  State  ranged  from  one  in  Romania  and  six  in  Bulgaria 
(because they only participated in the Fund in 2007) to 441 in Germany. 

The  average  number  of  projects  funded  annually  (467  in  the  EU)  is  higher  than  under  the 
previous  programming  period  (410  during  the  2000-2004  period),  but  the  increase  in  the 
number of projects is less than the increase in budget appropriations. Thus, during the 2005-
2007  period  there  was  on  average  a  larger  number  of  comparatively  smaller  projects:  the 
average EU contribution amounted to about €108 000 per project. 

The  majority  of  project  beneficiaries  were  non-governmental  organisations  and  local 
authorities (82 % of all projects). State authorities were also important beneficiaries (9 % of 
all  projects),  especially  in  those  Member  States  where  the  Fund  supported  the  upgrade  of 
State-owned  facilities,  such  as  reception  centres  for  asylum  seekers.  Of  the  remaining 
beneficiary  categories  the  most  significant  is  the  International  Organization  for  Migration, 
which  received  funding  from  national  programmes  in  15  Member  States  for  a  total  of  31 
projects. 

The  legal  basis  of  the  European  Refugee  Fund  for  the  period  2005-2007  introduced  two 
important  changes  with  regard  to  the  features  of  projects  eligible  for  support,  namely  the 
possibility to support multiannual projects and the possibility to fund projects covering more 
than  one  Action.  Nine  Member  States  (Belgium,  Estonia,  Germany,  Hungary,  Ireland,  The 
Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom) supported multiannual projects, and 
ten (Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta and Poland) 
funded projects covering several actions. Italy, in particular, made full use of the possibility to 
fund projects covering several actions, with nearly all projects covering both the improvement 
of  reception  conditions  of  asylum  seekers  and  the  integration  of  refugees  at  municipality 
level. Germany stands out in both respects, with one third of all projects being multiannual, 
nearly  two  thirds  of  all  projects  covering  more  than  one  Action  and  45  %  of  all  German 
projects covering all three Actions eligible under the Fund.  

Rather  than  being  limited  to  one  activity  many  projects  often  embraced  several  activities 
(hereinafter  called  ‘operations’),  under  the  same  Action  or  under  more  than  one  Action. 
Therefore, the total number of operations funded (3 259) significantly exceeded the number of 
projects.  In  the  following  chapters,  the  analysis  of  the  implementation  of  each  of  the  three 
Actions is based on the detailed description of these operations as they were reported in the 
implementation reports submitted by the project beneficiaries on project closure. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
2.3 

Implementation of the Action “Reception conditions and asylum procedures” 

From  the  three  Actions  eligible  for  support,  the  Action  “Reception  conditions  and  asylum 
procedures” was the most important in terms of the number of operations funded. It covered a 
wide  range  of  topics  falling  into  eight  broad  categories:  accommodation  infrastructure  or 
services;  material  aid;  medical  and  psychological  care;  social  assistance,  assistance  with 
administrative  formalities  and  legal  aid;  other  assistance,  including  language  assistance, 
interpretation; education, language training, other initiatives consistent with the status of the 
person; information to local communities who will be interacting with those being received in 
the host country; improvement of the efficiency and quality of asylum procedures. 

The  Action  “Reception  conditions  and  asylum  procedures”  was  well-represented  in  all 
Member  States,  but  with  varying  emphasis.  The  Member  States  with  the  lowest  number  of 
operations  belonging  to  this  Action  were  the  United  Kingdom,  Romania,  Bulgaria  and 
Estonia. In the case of Bulgaria and Romania, the reason was that they took part in only one 
annual programme. The United Kingdom chose to focus its programme on the other Actions 
eligible  for  support,  “Integration”  and  especially  “Voluntary  Return”.  Germany,  Italy  and 
France, on the other hand, had a very clear focus on this Action. 

Social  assistance,  assistance  with  administrative  formalities  and  legal  aid  was  the  category 
included  in  most  of  the  projects  funded  in  the  period.  It  included  legal,  administrative  and 
social counselling of asylum seekers in the context of the asylum procedure, individually or in 
group or face-to-face meetings, as well as the dissemination of information material. The next 
category was medical and psychological care, which was implemented in twenty one Member 
States and has grown in importance with the increasing number of asylum seekers suffering 
from medical and psychological problems as a result of violence and torture. 

Of  the  remaining  categories,  accommodation  infrastructure  and  services  were  supported  in 
fifteen Member States. Especially in the Member States which joined in the Union from 2004 
the  European  Refugee  Fund  played  a  very  important  role  to  upgrade  State-owned  facilities 
where asylum seekers are accommodated to EU standards, supporting not only extension or 
refurbishment  but  also  the  enhancement  of  services  provided  to  asylum  seekers  (food, 
clothing, activities, administrative/legal assistance etc.). 

There  was  an  increasing  trend  in  the  majority  of  Member  States  for  project  implementing 
organisations to provide asylum seekers with a package of measures, encompassing different 
kinds  of  assistance  (social,  legal,  administrative,  medical,  material,  educational  etc.)  and 
possibly tailoring them to the situation of each person or group of persons. 

The least common operations were those related to improving the efficiency and quality of the 
asylum  procedures,  which  in  eleven  Member  States  were  funded  from  national  resources 
alone,  i.e.  outside  of  the  programmes.  Nevertheless,  in  the  Member  States  where  such 
operations  were  implemented,  they  were  carried  out  successfully:  examples  included  the 
development  of  country  of  origin  databases  and  of  information  systems  necessary  for  the 
asylum procedure, enhanced operation of the Dublin II Regulation and cooperation between 
Member States, as well as generally improving and shortening asylum procedures. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Reception Conditions and Asylum procedures - Number of operations completed, 2005-2007

Accomodation 
infrastructure 
or services

Material aid

Medical and
psychological 
care

Social 
assistance, 
assistance 
with 
administrative 
formalities 
and legal aid

Other 
assistance, 
including 
language 
assistance, 
interpretation

Education, 
language 
training, other 
initiatives 
consistent w ith 
the status of 
the person

Information to 
local communities 
w ho will be 
interacting with 
those being 
received in the 
host country

Improvement 
of the 
efficiency and 
quality of 
asylum 
procedures

TOTAL 
OPERATIONS 
COMPLETED

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Total EU

0
2
2
3
0
0
0
49
26
16
5
0
86
5
2
0
6
0
3
5
0
3
7
0
0
0
220

0
0
0
1
6
0
0
32
14
0
9
0
86
1
3
0
5
0
2
5
0
5
0
4
0
0
173

33
7
0
5
4
1
0
22
77
4
8
1
78
1
2
2
0
2
2
5
0
4
3
6
3
0
270

27
8
1
5
17
0
2
52
133
9
12
6
66
2
3
6
2
0
8
5
1
8
7
8
2
0
390

0
2
0
0
1
1
0
14
65
0
0
0
73
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
5
1
9
0
0
174

0
4
0
2
10
0
3
15
105
2
6
4
60
1
3
3
0
0
2
3
0
4
6
1
0
0
234

0
7
0
0
0
0
5
0
128
1
1
3
12
1
0
0
0
2
1
3
0
6
0
5
4
0
179

14
0
1
2
0
4
5
0
0
0
8
0
0
7
1
0
0
7
1
2
0
0
5
1
3
1
62

74
30
4
18
38
6
15
184
548
32
49
14
461
18
14
11
13
11
19
30
2
35
29
34
12
1
1702

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
2.4 

Implementation of the Action “Integration” 

Based on the number of operations funded, the Action “Integration” - which is targeted only 
at  persons  whose  stay  is  of  a  stable  or  lasting  nature  (recognised  refugees,  persons  being 
granted  other  forms  of  international  protection)  -  ranked  second  among  the  three  Actions 
eligible for support under the Fund. The topics covered by this Action can be grouped in the 
following  categories:  assistance  in  housing  and  the  provision  of  means  of  subsistence; 
medical and psychological care; social assistance, assistance with administrative formalities, 
legal  aid,  language  assistance;  education,  vocational  training,  acquisition  of  skills;  other 
actions aimed at access to employment; other actions designed to promote self-empowerment; 
actions  enabling  recipients  to  adapt  to  the  society  of  the  Member  State;  actions  to  promote 
participation in civil and cultural life and the promotion of equality of access and equality of 
outcomes in dealing with public institutions. 

Operations  under  this  Action  were  well  represented  in  all  Member  States.  Italy  was  the 
Member State with the most operations (more than 40 % of all Integration operations funded 
in  the  EU);  this  is  because  most  Italian  projects  at  local  level  combined  the  reception  of 
asylum seekers and the integration of those persons granted protection status. The number of 
operations  turned out  to be  comparatively low in some Member States because the national 
assistance  system,  which  did  not  involve  EU  funding,  was  already  providing  support  to 
people in need, such as refugees. 

Of  all  the  areas  of  support,  it  was  access  to  employment,  including  education,  vocational 
training,  acquisition  of  skills,  actions  designed  to  promote  self-empowerment  and  all 
necessary forms of assistance that stood out as the most important. In several Member States, 
significant assistance with housing was also provided through various types of support. It is 
acknowledged  that  having  a  job  and  accommodation  as  soon  as  possible  after  status 
recognition  are  essential  pre-requisites  for  refugees  and  persons  granted  international 
protection in order to speed up their integration into the society of the host country. Medical 
and  psychological  care,  which  is  an  essential  feature  of  measures  for  asylum  seekers, 
continued to be needed after the recognition of protection status. Lastly, operations targeted at 
participation in and communication with the host society and  involving the  latter were  well 
supported. 

There  was  increased  support  for  the  self-empowerment  of  refugees  and  persons  granted 
international  protection  as  an  efficient  way  to  promote  their  integration.  The  idea  was  to 
enable  refugees  to  realise  their  own  economic,  social,  cultural  or  even  political  potential  in 
order to integrate into the host society and to establish positive role models.  

Finally,  similar  to  the  operations  funded  under  the  Action  on  “Reception  conditions  and 
improvement  of  asylum  procedure”,  most  projects  funded  under  the  Action  ‘Integration’ 
included  a  number  of  topics  (accommodation,  work,  social,  medical  assistance  etc.).  They 
were combined into integration packages with varying focuses (employment; communication 
between  refugees  and  the  local  community;  direct  support  in  specific  situations  such  as 
housing, legal aid etc.), thereby tailoring integration support to the particular situation of the 
persons concerned and to their environment through a range of appropriate measures. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Integration - Number of operations completed, 2005-2007

Assistance in 
housing/
means of 
subsistence

Medical and
psychological 
care

Social 
assistance, 
assistance with 
administrative 
formalities, 
legal aid, 
language 
assistance

Education, 
vocational 
training, 
acquisition of 
skills

Other actions 
aimed at 
access to 
employment

Other actions 
designed to 
promote self-
empowerment

Actions 
enabling 
recipients to 
adapt to the 
society of 
the Member 
State

Actions to 
promote 
participation 
in civil and 
cultural life

Promotion of 
equality of 
access and 
equality of 
outcomes in 
dealing with 
public 
institutions

TOTAL 
OPERATIONS 
COMPLETED

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Total EU

0
0
0
0
8
0
3
34
4
3
6
0
50
1
3
0
5
0
3
0
0
2
10
0
0
1
133

0
11
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
2
0
0
75
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
2
7
9
0
126

0
5
0
3
4
1
8
16
9
8
9
8
80
1
7
1
1
0
2
1
0
2
3
6
6
0
181

24
3
0
3
9
0
23
6
16
5
9
7
69
0
10
3
0
11
6
2
0
1
10
9
3
2
231

EN 

0
1
0
0
3
0
0
22
7
4
7
3
45
2
6
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
3
4
9
2
124

15 

2
1
0
0
3
0
8
10
22
0
0
2
65
1
0
0
0
7
0
1
0
1
1
4
4
1
133

24
4
1
0
4
0
7
3
16
4
6
3
0
2
4
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
3
0
6
0
91

0
0
0
3
1
0
12
0
9
0
0
4
69
1
6
0
0
6
3
1
0
0
9
1
4
0
129

0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
4
0
3
4
86
5
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
1
3
3
124

50
25
1
9
33
11
61
91
96
26
40
31
539
15
38
4
6
34
17
6
0
11
43
32
44
9
1272

EN 

 
  
2.5 

Implementation of the Action “Voluntary return” 

With less than 10% of all operations funded by the Fund, the Action “Voluntary return” was 
the  least  represented  of  the  three  Actions.  Operations  funded  fell  into  the  following 
categories:  information  and  advice  on  voluntary  return;  information  on  the  situation  in  the 
country  of  origin  or  former  habitual  residence;  assistance  with  travel;  support  -  including 
financial support - for reintegration in the country of origin or former habitual residence; other 
actions  which  facilitate  the  organisation  and  implementation  of  national  voluntary  return 
programmes. 

Four  Member  States  did  not  implement  voluntary  return,  but  in  the  Member  States  where 
these operations were supported their number increased significantly compared to the initial 
implementation  period  (2000-2004).  When  the  programme  was  in  preparation,  the 
Commission  encouraged  the  Member  States  to  include  the  Voluntary  Return  Action. 
Importantly, there was an increased recognition by non-governmental organisations acting in 
support  of  asylum  seekers  that  it  would  be  useful  to  provide  asylum  seekers  whose 
applications were rejected with assistance to reintegrate in their country of origin, in addition 
to actions to assist asylum seekers during the asylum procedure and to facilitate integration of 
recognised refugees. 

Of  all  the  Member  States,  Germany  -  with  45  %  of  all  operations  in  the  area  of  voluntary 
return in the EU - was the Member State where this was most apparent, since the majority of 
operations in the area of voluntary return were implemented as part of projects covering two 
or all three of the Actions eligible under the Fund. Implementing organisations endeavoured 
to  provide  asylum  seekers  in  their  care  with  sound  prospects,  whatever  the  outcome  of  the 
asylum application: be it integration into German society if refugee status could be granted, or 
a  new  start  in  the  country  of  origin  and,  in  any  case,  assistance  until  departure  if  the 
conditions for recognition could not be met. 

Voluntary  return  operations  were  the  most  difficult  to  implement  as  they  depend  on  the 
asylum  seekers’  willingness  to  return  to  their  country  of  origin  and  to  forego  what  they 
considered  as  a  better  life  in  a  prosperous  host  country.  However,  the  difficulty  of 
implementing  voluntary  return  may  be  the  reason  why  some  successful  operations  funded 
were  assessed  as  well  thought-out  and  even  innovative.  This  was  the  case  for  the  United 
Kingdom’s  most  successful  project  of  the  programming  period  2005-2007,  which  was 
implemented  under  this  Action.  In  several  Member  States,  a  further  success  factor  was  the 
involvement  of  the  International  Organization  for  Migration,  either  as  an  implementing 
organisation or as a partner.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
Voluntary Return - Number of operations completed, 2005-2007

Information and 
advic e on 
voluntary return

Training in 
support of 
reintegration

Assistanc e with 
travel

Support, inc luding 
financ ial support, 
to reintegration in 
the c ountry of 
origin or former 
habitual 
residenc e

Information on the 
situation in the 
c ountry of origin 
or former habitual 
residence, not 
inc luded in 
information and 
advic e on 
voluntary return

Ac tions whic h 
fac ilitate the 
organisation and 
implementation of 
national voluntary 
return 
programmes

TOTAL 
OPERATIONS 
COMPLETED

24
3
1
0
1
2
1
1
40
3
1
2
3
0
3
0
2
3
0
1
0
2
0
6
0
1
100

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czec h Republic
Estonia
Finland
Franc e
Germany
Greec e
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Total EU

EN 

0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
23
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
34

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
9
3
1
1
3
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
4
0
1
33

0
1
0
0
6
1
0
2
27
0
1
1
3
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
6
2
1
57

17 

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
35

3
0
1
0
0
2
0
7
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
1
26

27
6
2
0
7
6
1
16
127
6
4
5
15
0
5
1
6
6
4
1
0
9
0
21
5
5
285

EN 

 
  
EFFECTIVENESS,  EFFICIENCY  AND  VALUE  ADDED  OF  THE  NATIONAL  PROGRAMMES 

3. 
FROM 2005 TO 2007 

3.1 

Effectiveness 

In most of the Member States the results achieved at the level of operations were satisfactory 
compared  to  what  was  planned.  However,  Integration  operations  proved  to  be  the  most 
successful,  followed  by  those  targeting  the  reception  of  asylum  seekers,  whereas  operations 
on voluntary return produced the least satisfying results.  

The main reasons why certain operations achieved results in excess of those planned, or did 
not achieve them, were connected not to the type of activity concerned (with the exception of 
voluntary  return),  but  rather  to  external  factors,  especially  the  unpredictability  of  asylum 
flows. As a result, during a particular year with large asylum flows, projects for the reception 
of  asylum  seekers  could  reach  a  higher  number  than  predicted  and  in  another  year  where 
asylum flows were less that expected, they might fall short of expectations. 

Further  explanations  for  overachievement  or  underachievement  were  to  be  found  in  the 
following:  the  quality  of  project  preparation,  management  and  organisation;  the  clear 
understanding by the implementing organisation of the specificities of the particular asylum 
seeker  group;  the  level  of  partnership  with  other  organisations  and,  finally,  the  personal 
commitment of project organisers. In addition, the extent to which asylum seekers, refugees 
and persons who had been granted other forms of protection were involved in the design and 
implementation of the projects proved to be a significant factor in their success or failure.  

Voluntary  return  operations  were  confronted  with  different  problems.  Many  asylum  seekers 
and persons granted international protection, who had invested considerable efforts in order to 
arrive  in  the  host  country,  were  not  interested  in  returning,  in  spite  of  the  dissemination  of 
information  on  the  possibilities  of  return  and  of  support.  Adverse  situations  in  certain 
countries of origin could also deter them from applying for assistance to return. 

At  the  level  of  the  national  programmes,  the  extent  to  which  planned  results  were  achieved 
was  more  varied:  objectives  set  at  the  beginning  of  the  programmes  were  not  fully  met  in 
some Member States, but were exceeded in others. Implementation of the national strategies 
proved fairly successful in terms of the reception conditions of asylum seekers, but less so for 
the integration of refugees. As far as voluntary return was concerned, implementation of the 
strategies was below expectations, with the exception of the United Kingdom.  

increase 

Although the assessment was that other actions or measures than those funded could not have 
been more effective, it is widely recognized that the projects could have been made even more 
effective.  An 
in  cooperation,  knowledge  and  experience  sharing  between 
implementing organisations would have allowed synergies and the pooling of resources, and 
would  have  helped  avoid  possible  duplication.  Voluntary  return  operations  could  have  been 
made  more  effective  by  developing  contacts  with  partners  from  the  countries  of  origin,  by 
staff training or through exchange of best practices across Member States. 

With regard to project planning and management, supporting longer-term projects or building 
on previous projects could be more effective than starting new initiatives. The administrative 
workload of project implementing organisations was identified as an obstacle to the effective 
implementation of projects, and should therefore be examined. 

3.2 

Efficiency 

Resources needed to implement the projects were assessed as sufficient in general. During the 
selection process carried out in the Member States, the relevant expertise was used to assess 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
the budget to fund the proposals, thereby ensuring that the expected costs were realistic and 
that the resources allocated were sufficient for the chosen projects. However, in a number of 
Member  States,  co-funding  of  projects  from  the  national  budget,  which  came  on  top  of  EU 
funding,  became  difficult  or  even  disappeared  completely  as  a  result  of  budget  constraints; 
this created very difficult situations for small and medium-sized organisations. 

The timeliness of fund availability was less satisfactory. It was felt that funds were available 
to  implementing  organisations  later  than  expected;  this  was  due  to  the  fact  that  not  all  EU 
provisions  were  in  place  until  one  year  after  the  beginning  of  the  programming  period,  but 
national delays were also a factor. As a result, signing of contracts and the initial payments 
following  the  signature  of  contracts  with  implementing  organisations  were  delayed  and  this 
had an adverse impact in several Member States. In some cases, the delays resulted in projects 
or parts of projects being cancelled, while in other cases organisations were obliged to borrow 
funds  in  order  to  initiate  activities.  Similarly,  during  project  implementation,  the  time  lag 
between  the  first  payment  and  subsequent  payments  was  considered  too  long  by 
implementing  organisations  and  their  resources  were  too  limited  to  carry  out  all  activities 
during this period. 

The costs incurred to achieve the projects’ outputs seemed reasonable. Where that assessment 
was based on comparisons with other financial instruments or sources of funding, or based on 
known unit prices, it was found that the projects were as efficient as or even more efficient 
than  similar  projects  funded  with  other  resources.  For  instance,  in  the  United  Kingdom,  the 
National  Audit  Office  concluded  that  the  average  cost  of  a  large  scale  project  on  voluntary 
return  was  significantly  cheaper  than  that  of  enforced  removal,  and  yielded  better  results, 
since it provided for reintegration in the country of origin on a needs basis. 

However, there was room for improvement. At project level, some expenditure on technical 
assistance, management costs, workshops, seminars, round tables etc. were those costs where 
possible savings could have been made. While in some cases it was considered that staff costs 
should  be  kept  to  a  minimum,  it  was  questioned  whether  these  costs  could  be  kept  low  by 
using  volunteers.  In  spite  of  their  high  level  of  commitment,  staff  working  on  a  voluntary 
basis might not always have the time and opportunity to fully dedicate themselves to project 
implementation, which is necessary in order to make projects a success. 

In the context of the programmes as a whole, further savings could be achieved by reducing 
the  administrative  tasks  placed  on  the  national  authorities  responsible  for  programme 
implementation  and  the  reporting  requirements  for  implementing  organisations,  which  most 
considered  to  be  particularly  heavy.  In  some  cases,  public  procurement  rather  than  project 
subsidy might have been a possible alternative way to reduce programme costs. Finally, more 
cooperation between projects, projects with a longer duration and, where appropriate, larger 
projects  (in  budgetary  terms)  might  have  allowed  a  more  efficient  use  of  the  available 
resources. 

3.3 

Additionality and European value added 

The use of the European Refugee Fund during the period 2005-2007 proved to be additional 
to  national  funding.  There  were  only  very  few  instances  where  projects  could  have  been 
funded through national support. Moreover, in no single case did the Fund replace financing 
from other European funds, such as the European Social Fund or the EQUAL programme. As 
a  result,  few,  if  any,  of  the  1  403  projects  funded  would  have  been  implemented  in  the 
absence of the European Refugee Fund. 

In their calls for proposals, Member States made provision to the effect that projects already 
funded  from  national  or  from  other  European  resources  could  not  be  funded  from  the 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
European  Refugee  Fund.  In  practice,  Member  States  implemented  different  strategies  to 
ensure  additionality  of  the  Fund.  The  Fund  was  used  either  as  a  supplement  to  national 
resources,  in  order  to  increase  the  volume  of  existing  projects  and  activities;  or,  as  a 
complement to finance activities linked with existing projects, but of a different nature, which 
does  not  necessarily  increase  the  number  of  projects;  or,  completely  separate  from  other 
funding  instruments,  to  fund  projects  of  a  new  type,  content  or  size,  including  innovative 
projects which have not been taken into account in other subsidy schemes.  

4. 

EFFECTS AND IMPACTS OF THE NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FROM 2005 TO 2007 

It is estimated that the 1 403 projects funded provided direct benefit to a total target group of 
more than 350 000 persons. Of these, 26 200 persons returned to their country of origin under 
voluntary  return  schemes.  In  addition  to  those  in  the  target  group,  more  than  6 500  persons 
belonging to the project implementing organisations received support from the Fund, e.g. for 
training  or  as  a  result  of  recruiting  additional  staff.  These  are  remarkable  achievements 
considering the Fund’s relatively limited resources (some €50 million per annum). 

Beyond the direct project outputs, significant impacts at national level were identified in the 
following areas. 

4.1 Improvement of reception conditions and asylum procedures in the Member States 

In most of the Member States which joined the European Union from 2004, as well as in other 
Member  States,  projects  contributed  specifically  to  the  renovation  or  extension  of  reception 
centres for asylum seekers or to the quality of the services they provide to asylum seekers. As 
these centres in general accommodate all asylum seekers in these Member States, the result 
has  been  a  general  improvement  of  reception  conditions  at  national  level.  In  addition,  in 
Latvia,  temporary  reception  conditions  were  set  up  in  case  of  a  sudden  inflow  of  asylum 
seekers. 

In  the  Netherlands,  where  one  single  organisation  is  responsible  for  reception  of  asylum 
seekers,  awareness  of  social  safety  was  raised  via  a  large-scale  project  in  all  reception 
locations. In many locations this resulted in those living there being given resilience training 
and all locations received information material. 

Similarly,  in  France,  “reception  platforms”  managed  by  non-governmental  organisations  in 
most regions provided asylum seekers throughout the country with a range of quality services 
which were maintained in spite of large asylum flows during the 2005-2007 implementation 
period.  In  Spain,  almost  half  of  all  asylum  seekers  benefited  from  services  ranging  from 
improved  reception  conditions  to  medical/psychological  assistance,  legal  support  and 
coverage of basic needs. 

Particular  emphasis  was  placed  on  vulnerable  groups  in  several  Member  States,  with 
significant  results  at  national  level.  In  Italy,  dedicated  reception  procedures  were  set  up.  In 
Austria  and  Belgium,  psychological  assistance  was  provided  country-wide.  Cyprus  set  up  a 
Torture  Care  Unit.  In  Belgium,  France  and  Portugal,  implementing  organisations  started  to 
tackle the specific needs of unaccompanied minors who, according to reports, were not being 
properly taken care of by existing schemes. 

In several Member States, such as Bulgaria, Germany, Slovakia and Spain, legal assistance to 
asylum  seekers  improved  at  national  level  as  a  result  of  the  implementation  of  the 
programmes.  In  Germany,  for  instance,  projects  in  this  field  benefited  approximately  one-
third of all asylum seekers. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Given the comparatively lower number of operations involving asylum procedures, impacts in 
this  area  were  more  limited.  Several  operations  were  carried  out  in  Cyprus.  In  Austria,  a 
quality management system for the asylum procedures was introduced nation-wide. In Poland, 
a  database  with  information  on  the  countries  of  origin  was  set  up.  In  Slovenia,  the 
establishment  of  the  EURODAC  system  and  of  a  system  establishing  identification  cards 
were funded, as well as a registry of applicants for asylum. The United Kingdom appointed an 
Asylum Liaison Officer in Italy, who effectively managed relations between the two Member 
States under the Dublin Regulation. 

4.2 Improved integration of refugees in the society of the Member States 

Impacts on the integration of refugees at national level were less pronounced and appear to be 
specific to some Member States. In France, for instance, integration projects gained growing 
importance  and  benefited  around  9%  of  all  refugees  with  an  emphasis  on  access  to 
independent  accommodation  together  with  social  assistance,  as  a  first  step  to  accessing  the 
labour  market.  In  Finland,  where  integration  of  refugees  has  become  an  important  topic  of 
political debate, models developed for integration at local level, and involving the mainstream 
population,  peer-support  by  earlier  immigrants  and  services  jointly  produced  by  non-
governmental organisations and municipalities, have the potential to achieve national impacts 
provided they are implemented on a large scale. In Cyprus, projects raised awareness among 
the  general  public  on  the  issues  of  refugees,  promoting  multiculturalism  and  diversity. 
Significant impacts of integration projects were also reported in Ireland and Latvia. 

4.3 Increased voluntary return of persons belonging to the target groups 

As  the  least  represented  of  the  three  Actions,  voluntary  return  is  the  area  where  impacts  at 
national  level  were  lowest.  In  the  United  Kingdom  a  large  voluntary  return  programme 
benefited  11 262  persons,  which  is  a  significant  figure  at  national  level.  In  Luxembourg, 
voluntary  return  measures,  implemented  for  the  first  time  with  the  support  of  the  European 
Refugee Fund, led to a 10 % increase in voluntary return after several years of decrease; this 
was due to individually orientated interviews, which was an innovative feature. In Hungary, 
the very existence of voluntary return was seen as a result of the programme and in Malta an 
assisted voluntary return system was able to be set up for the first time. In Slovakia, the Fund 
made it possible to start cooperating with the countries of origin in assistance with voluntary 
return and for the first time provided returning asylum seekers with a financial contribution. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
4.4  Development  of  policy  measures  in  the  field  of  asylum  policy,  including  a 
contribution to the development of the Common European Asylum System 

Although  no  single  project  involved  the  development  of  policy  measures  in  the  field  of 
asylum policy directly, there was evidence of some specific, often indirect, impacts in these 
areas in some Member States.  

In  Portugal,  projects  for  the  improvement  of  reception  conditions  for  asylum  seekers  were 
taken  into  account  in  the  design  of  the  changes  required  to  adapt  the  national  law  to  the 
European Directive on minimum reception standards. In Belgium, where three major laws on 
the asylum procedure and on the reception of asylum seekers were adopted, the Fund played 
an  important  role  in  providing  information  about  the  new  legal  provisions  and  in  training 
stakeholders in their correct implementation. In Luxembourg, continued support for projects 
implemented  by  a  non-governmental  organisation  enhanced  its  lobbying  action  and  thereby 
facilitated the approval by Parliament of a new law on asylum and subsidiary protection.  

In Finland, projects for improving the quality of the reception system and for the integration 
of  refugees  yielded  new  models  which  attracted  the  attention  and  interest  of  other  EU 
Member  States.  Similarly,  the  Italian  Asylum  Liaison  Officer  appointed  by  the  United 
Kingdom  generated  interest  from  other  Member  States.  Lastly,  in  Estonia,  as  a  result  of 
projects for the integration of refugees, the Ministry of Social Affairs introduced changes to 
the law on Social Care. 

4.5 Other impacts linked at least partly to the implementation of the programmes 

Implementing  projects  funded  by  the  European  Refugee  Fund  produced  tangible,  lasting 
effects for the organisations implementing projects in the form of an increase in experience, 
qualification and institutional capacity, as well as in relation to fund and project management; 
cooperation  and  networking  with  other  organisations,  both  domestically  and  with  other 
Member  States;  and  recognition  from  national  authorities  as  partners  in  matters  related  to 
asylum seekers and refugees. 

Not  only  did  non-governmental  organisations  develop  cooperation  among  themselves; 
cooperation  between  governmental  and  non-governmental  organisations  in  asylum  and 
refugee matters also developed as a result of the implementation of the programmes.  

At  the  level  of  governmental  organisations,  work  quality  improved,  there  was  a  growing 
awareness of the needs of asylum seekers and refugees, and institutions in charge of asylum 
policy improved their working method and were able to have access to first hand information 
concerning asylum seekers and refugees, as well on pitfalls and critical points of the asylum 
policy. Better inter-institutional coordination was achieved in several Member States (Poland, 
Spain  and  Slovakia).  In  Italy,  implementation  of  the  projects  at  the  level  of  municipalities 
optimised the implementation of the asylum provisions set at national level. In Belgium, by 
concentrating support on areas that were relevant at EU level, there was an improvement in 
the consistency and focus of actions carried out at various levels of government. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
ASSESSMENT  OF  THE  PROGRAMMES  AND  SUGGESTIONS  FOR  IMPROVEMENT  BY  THE 

5. 
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES AND THE IMPLEMENTING ORGANISATIONS 

As part of the national evaluation reports, the Responsible Authorities in the Member States 
on the one hand, and the project implementing organisations on the other hand, were asked to 
provide  their  assessment  of  the  programme  of  the  European  Refugee  Fund  and  to  suggest 
improvements. 

Both the Responsible Authorities and the implementing organisations were generally satisfied 
with  the  European  Refugee  Fund,  which  they  regarded  as  a  genuinely  useful  instrument  to 
improve reception conditions for asylum seekers and integration of persons granted protection 
status, and to support the efforts made in the Member States to comply with the Community 
acquis in the field of asylum policy. They also considered that the range of measures eligible 
for assistance was adequate and that, after programme closure, they had been able to achieve 
meaningful results in relation to the objectives set for the Fund.  

The  Responsible  Authorities  and  the  implementing  organisations  made  a  number  of 
suggestions  for  improvement.  The  most  important  recommendation  concerned  the  reduction 
of  the  administrative  requirements  placed  on  them.  Proposals  were  made  to  intervene  in  a 
number  of  areas  relating  to  the  management  of  the  programme:  reducing  the  request  for 
documentation  during  the  project  selection  phase;  simplifying  eligibility  rules,  control  and 
oversight  mechanisms;  relaxing  the  financial  accountability  requirements;  and  reducing 
reporting  requirements.  In  this  context,  the  project  implementing  organisations  felt  that 
excessive paperwork and the recurrent writing of progress reports hampered the organisations 
in the implementation of their project and required a disproportionate amount of work, to the 
detriment  of  the  content  and  activities  of  the  project.  However,  this  concerned  national 
provisions which may go beyond European requirements. 

The second recommendation concerned the timeliness of programme approval during the first 
year  of  implementation  and  timeliness  of  payments.  In  the  event  of  late  approval,  Member 
States  were  unable  to  keep  to  their  own  timetable,  and  implementing  organisations  lacked 
funds in the project start-up phase, when they are most needed. Also, financial flows should 
not be delayed during implementation and on closure. 

It  was  also  possible  to  provide  greater  flexibility  during  programme  and  project 
implementation.  The  Responsible  Authorities  could  be  allowed  to  alter  the  budget  and 
possibly the content of the measures to a reasonable extent, while still adhering strictly to the 
principle of additionality, thereby having more discretion in the day-to-day management. At 
project level, implementing organisations could be given more flexibility to transfer resources 
between project items or between project implementation years. 

Finally, both the Responsible Authorities and the project implementing organisations stressed 
that  more  integrated  and  effective  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  between 
implementing  organisations  could  have  positive  effects,  both  for  them  and  for  the  target 
groups.  In  particular,  the  establishment  of  cooperation  schemes  where  knowledge  and  best 
practices would flow freely between Member States would be of great benefit in the planning 
and implementation of asylum and refugee activities. 

They would favour arrangements  to facilitate the exchange of experience  and  best  practices 
with practitioners from public and civil society organisations from all over Europe.  

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
6. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The  overall  picture  of  the  implementation  of  the  European  Refugee  Fund  during  the  period 
2005-2007 is satisfactory. The project implementing organisations and the national authorities 
responsible for implementing the national programmes were able to build upon the experience 
gained from the first implementation period of the Fund, from 2000 to 2004, and to achieve 
even better results. Beyond the achievements of all projects funded, significant impacts were 
identified at national level against the main policy objectives set for the Fund. Although there 
is still room for improvement, the European Refugee Fund, after two implementation periods, 
is now firmly established, as part of the General Programme “Solidarity and management of 
migration  flows”,  as  a  useful  European  funding  instrument  in  support  of  implementation  of 
the European acquis in the field of asylum policy. 

Among  the  many  recommendations  that  emerge  from  the  evaluation  with  regard  to  the 
activities  funded  and  the  implementation  mechanisms,  a  number  have  already  been 
implemented  in  the  third  phase  of  the  Fund,  from  2008  to  2013,  which  is  currently  taking 
place  in  the  broader  context  of  the  General  Programme  “Solidarity  and  management  of 
migration flows”. For example, the Commission has issued a number of guidance documents 
to  clarify  the  legal  requirements  in  various  areas  (eligibility  rules,  programming,  reporting, 
programme  closure  etc.)  with  a  view  to  finding  practical  solutions,  and  it  has  had  regular 
exchanges  with  the  Member  States  on  a  range  of  implementation  issues  since  the  new 
programmes  began;  this  is  greatly  appreciated  by  the  Member  States.  Further  consideration 
will  be  given  to  all  recommendations  in  the  context  of  a  Commission-wide  debate  on  all 
proposals to be made for the period post-2013.  

EN 

24 

   EN