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 Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals for the period 2007-2009 (report submitted in accordance with Article 48 (3) (b) of Council Decision 2007/435/EC of 25 June 2007)
Date: 2011-12-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU programme, admission of aliens, foreign national, fund (EU), integration of migrants

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 5.12.2011 
COM(2011) 847 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 Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals for the period 2007-
2009 (report submitted in accordance with Article 48 (3) (b) of Council Decision 
2007/435/EC of 25 June 2007) 

 
 
 
 
  
 
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 Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals for the period 2007-
2009 (report submitted in accordance with Article 48 (3) (b) of Council Decision 
2007/435/EC of 25 June 2007) 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

For the period 2007-2013 the European Union established the General Programme ‘Solidarity 
and Management of Migration Flows’ with a total allocation of €4 032 million, as currently 
programmed1. It consists of four Funds and its aim is a fair share of responsibilities between 
Member  States  as  regards  the  financial  burden  arising  from  the  introduction  of  integrated 
management of the EU’s external borders and from running common policies on asylum and 
immigration2. 

One  of  the  four  Funds  is  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  third-country  nationals,3 
(hereinafter referred to as the Fund), established for the period 2007 – 2013 with an indicative 
total budget of € 825 million. 

The ‘basic act’ establishing the Fund (i.e. the Council Decision referred to above) requires the 
Commission  to  submit  an  interim  report  on  the  results  achieved  and  on  qualitative  and 
quantitative aspects of implementation of the Fund4. 

The report presents results achieved by the annual programmes 2007, 2008 and 2009 based on 
reports from Member States in the first half of 2010,5 together with information available to 
the Commission in the first quarter of 2011. 

2. 

THE FUND’S OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, PURPOSE AND PRIORITIES 

The  general  objective  of  the  Fund  is  to  support  the  efforts  made  by  the  Member  States  in 
enabling  third-country  nationals  of  different  economic,  social,  cultural,  religious,  linguistic 
and ethnic backgrounds to meet the conditions of residence and to facilitate their integration 
into European societies. The Fund shall primarily focus on actions relating to the integration 
of newly arrived third-country nationals. 

In order to further this objective, the Fund contributes to the development and implementation 
of  national  integration  strategies  for  third-country  nationals  in  all  aspects  of  society,  taking 
particular  account  of  the  principle  that  integration  is  a  two-way  dynamic  process  of  mutual 
accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States. 

The Fund’s scope encompasses legally residing third-country nationals, i.e. any person who is 
not a citizen of the EU within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Treaty, but does not include 
the European Refugee Fund’s target group. 

The Fund shall contribute to the following specific objectives: 

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 

EN 

Unless  otherwise  specified,  all  budget  figures  in  the  report  are  based  on  the  actual  appropriations 
decided by the Budget Authority up to now. 
COM(2005) 123 final. 
Decision 2007/435/EC, OJ L168, 28.6.2007, p. 18. 
Article 48 (3) (b) of the basic act. 
A 
the 
affairs/funding/integration/funding_integration_en.htm. 

http://ec.europa.eu/home-

compilation 

available 

country 

reports 

and 

are 

at 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(a)  facilitate  the  development  and  implementation  of  admission  procedures  relevant  to  and 
supportive of the integration process of third-country nationals; 

(b) develop and implement the integration process of newly-arrived third-country nationals in 
Member States; 

(c)  increase  the  capacity  of  Member  States  to  develop,  implement,  monitor  and  evaluate 
policies and measures for the integration of third-country nationals; 

(d)  exchange  information,  best  practices  and  cooperation  in  and  between  Member  States  in 
developing,  implementing,  monitoring  and  evaluating  policies  and  measures  for  the 
integration of third-country nationals. 

The Fund is mainly run by the Member States, in the shared management method. By way 
of  annual  programmes  submitted  by  the  Member  States,  the  EU  budget  seeks  to  support 
activities in Member States in the field of integration of third-country nationals specific to the 
national or local circumstances, and capacity building in public and private services dealing 
with third-country nationals. 

The  actions  are  co-financed  in  compliance  with Strategic  Guidelines of  the  Commission,6 
which  provide  for  four  Priorities:  (1) Implementation  of  actions  designed  to  put  the 
‘Common  Basic  Principles  for  immigrant  integration  policy  in  the  European  Union’  into 
practice;  (2)  Development  of  indicators  and  evaluation  methodologies  to  assess  progress, 
adjust policies and measures and to facilitate coordination of comparative learning; (3) Policy 
capacity  building,  coordination  and  intercultural  competence  building  in  the  Member  States 
across the different levels and departments of government; and (4) Exchange of experience, 
good  practice  and  information  on  integration  between  the  Member  States.  Member  States 
have  to  implement  at  least  three  of  these  priorities,  among  which  priorities  1  and  2  are 
mandatory, but many Member States have chosen to implement all four of them. 

In addition, the Strategic Guidelines set out five Specific Priorities, applicable under any of 
the aforementioned Priorities. Any project implementing one or more of the Specific Priorities 
may receive an increased EU funding rate. The Specific Priorities are: 

-  Specific  Priority  1:  Participation  as  a  means  of  promoting  the  integration  of  third-country 
nationals  in  society  (actions  involving  the  participation  of  third-country  nationals  in  the 
formulation and implementation of integration policies and measures); 

- Specific Priority 2: Specific target groups (Actions, including introduction programmes and 
activities, whose main objective is to address the specific needs of particular groups, such as 
women, youth and children, the elderly, illiterate persons and persons with disabilities); 

- Specific Priority 3: Innovative introduction programmes and activities (Actions developing 
innovative introduction programmes and activities, such as enabling third-country nationals to 
work  and  study  at  the  same  time,  e.g.  part-time  courses,  fast-track  modules,  distance  or  e-
learning systems); 

- Specific Priority 4: Intercultural dialogue (Actions aimed at encouraging mutual interaction 
and exchange, such as developing intercultural dialogue, in an effort in particular to resolve 
any  potential  conflict  caused  by  differences  in  cultural  or  religious  practices,  and  thus  to 

6 

Commission Decision C(2007) 3926 final of 21.8.2007. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
improve  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals  in  societies,  values  and  ways  of  life  of 
Member States); 

- Specific Priority 5: Involving the host society in the integration process (Actions addressing 
effective ways of raising awareness and actively involving the host society in the integration 
process). 

Besides  the  national  programmes,  up  to  7 %  of  the  EU  resources  available  annually  can  be 
used directly by the Commission for transnational projects, studies or other types of action of 
EU interest through the ‘Community actions’. 

For the budget years 2003-2006, there were preparatory actions under the EU budget, namely 
the  ‘INTI  Preparatory  actions  promoting  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals’.  This 
instrument  generated  first-hand  practical  experience  with  transnational  projects  and  thus 
helped organisations of various types in Member States prepare for the launch of the Fund in 
2007.7 

3. 

BUDGET RESOURCES 

The budget resources of the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals over 
the period 2007-2013 are set out below. 

Table 1 — EU budget for the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals, 2007-2013 

Amounts in € 

Euros 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 (*) 

2013 (*) 

Total 

MS totals 

60.357.000  72.075.000  90.675.000  102.765.000  122.295.000  152.750.000  171.550.000  772.467.000 

Community 

Actions 

4.543.000 

5.425.000 

6.825.000 

7.735.000 

9.205.000 

9.750.000 

 10.950.000 

54.433.000 

TOTAL 

64.900.000  77.500.000  97.500.000  110.500.000  131.500.000  162.500.000  182.500.000  826.900.000 

 (*) Actual appropriations from 2007 to 2011 inclusive. Amounts for 2012 as in the draft budget. Amounts for 
2013 are provisional. 

All Member States participate 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. The  resources available for  national programmes are  distributed annually among the 
other  26  Member  States,  based  on  two  criteria:  (i)  the  average  number  of  legally  residing 
third-country  nationals  in  each  Member  State  over  the  previous  three  years  and  (ii)  the 
number of third-country nationals (excluding some specific categories) who have obtained an 
authorisation  issued  by  each  Member  State  to  reside  on  its  territory  over  the  previous  three 
years; with the applicable weighting coefficients. 

7 

An  evaluation  of 
INTI  preparatory  actions 
affairs/funding/integration/funding_integration_en.htm. 

the 

is  available  at  http://ec.europa.eu/home-

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The  Fund’s  maximum  contribution  to  projects  in  Member  States  is  set  at  50 %  of  the  total 
costs  of  an  action  and  at  75 %  for  Member  States  covered  by  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  for 
actions reflecting the Specific Priorities set out in the Strategic Guidelines. 

4. 

PREPARING IMPLEMENTATION IN THE MEMBER STATES 

The Commission adopted implementing rules for the Fund,8 common to all four Funds with 
few  exceptions,  to  ensure  harmonised  application  and  to  establish  common  templates  for 
programming and reporting. The rules cover such things as selection procedures and criteria 
for  the  eligibility  of  expenditure  incurred  under  the  Fund.  Another  important  part  of  the 
guidance consisted in the preparation, in close cooperation with Member States, of a manual 
on eligibility, with practical examples and best practices on project management, which has 
been  regularly  updated.  Information  sessions  on  the  rules  on  eligibility of  expenditure  were 
organised.  Further  general  guidance  was  provided  at  meetings  of  the  ‘SOLID  Committee’ 
and in three conferences on the Funds (in 2008 on the Funds in general and in 2009 for audit 
authorities and on programming and evaluation). 

While Member States are in charge of managing the funds under the programmes in shared 
management, the Commission bears ultimate responsibility for the implementation of the EU 
budget. Therefore, Member States are responsible for setting up a national management and 
control  system  for  the  Fund  including  a  'Responsible  Authority',  responsible  for  the 
management  of  the  programme,  supported  where  appropriate  by  a  delegated  authority;  an 
Audit  Authority,  responsible  for  verifying  the  effective  functioning  of  the  management  and 
control system; and a Certifying Authority, to  certify the declarations of expenditure  before 
they  are  sent  to  the  Commission.  Jointly,  these  authorities  are  in  charge  of  the  sound 
financial management of the funds allocated to the Member State. 

Each  Member  State  submitted  a  description  of  its  management  and  control  system  to  the 
Commission  so  that  the  Commission  could  check  on  compliance  with  the  applicable 
provisions.  At  the  end  of  2010,  nearly  all  the  Member  States’  descriptions  of  their 
management and control systems for the Fund had received an ‘unqualified’ opinion from the 
Commission. In addition, on-the-spot audits of the Fund’s management and control systems 
(which may be common with other Funds of the General Programme) were completed in 17 
Member States by the end of 2010, with a further seven Member States to be audited in 2011. 
Most  systems  appeared  to  function  adequately,  but  in  some  cases  improvements  were 
necessary. At this stage of the audits, which will continue throughout the programming period 
2007-2013, this concerned, in particular, the selection procedures, staff resources available to 
the  Authorities  and  documentation  on  the  procedures  and  the  tasks  performed.  In  general, 
most of the Member States would seem to have robust systems in place. 

5. 

THE MULTIANNUAL PROGRAMMES 2007-2013 

Approval of the Fund’s multiannual programmes was completed by the end of 2008 for most 
Member  States,  and  for  the  rest  at  the  very  beginning  of  2009.  In  order  not  to  delay 
implementation, which is via annual programmes, the Commission arranged for approval, at 

8 

Decision No 2008/457/EC, OJ L167, 27.6.2008, p. 69. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  same  time,  of  the  multiannual  programme  and  of  the  two  first  annual  programmes,  for 
2007 and 2008 respectively. 

The  multiannual  programmes,  which  do  not  entail  any  financial  decision,  represent  the 
strategic framework agreed upon by the Commission and each Member  State for the  joint 
use of the national and the Fund’s resources during the full programming period, 2007-2013. 
At EU level, they will support a significant amount of actions in support of the integration of 
third-country nationals, totalling nearly € 1  400 m during the period 2007-2013.9 

Table 2: Total cost of all multiannual programmes and sources of funding 

2007 – 2013 

(Consolidation of all Member States’ multiannual programme financial plans over the seven-
year period) 

All amounts are in million euro and are indicative. 

Source of funding 

Indicative amounts 

% 

European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  third-
country nationals 

National public resources 

A 

B 

€ 769 m (*) 

55.6  % 

€ 456 m 

32.9  % 

Total public funding 

C = A +B 

€ 1  225 m 

88.5 % 

Private allocations 

D 

€ 159 m  

11.5 % 

Total  cost  of  all  multiannual  programmes, 
2007-2013 

E = C+ D 

€ 1  384 m  

100 % 

(*) 
The Fund’s allocations included in the Member States’ multiannual programmes, which were drafted in 
2008,  were  based  on  the  budget  appropriations  decided  by  the  Budget  Authority  for  2007  and  2008  and  on 
budget estimates for the remaining part of the programming period. This is why the overall amount of € 769 m 
differs slightly from the overall amount of € 772. 467 m in Table 1, which is based on the Fund’s actual budget 
appropriations from 2007 up to 2011 and estimates for 2012 and 2013. 

Based  on  information  concerning  the  introduction  of  national  legislation  in  the  field  of 
integration,  implementation  of  national  integration  programmes  and  Member  States’  own 
statements  in  the  multiannual  programmes,  it  is  apparent  that  some  Member  States  did  not 
have  any  great  experience  with  measures  intended  specifically  for  the  integration  of  third-
country nationals when the programmes were launched. These countries included e.g. Greece, 
Hungary,  Ireland,  Lithuania  and  Romania.  Conversely,  several  Member  States,  such  as 
France,  Austria,  the  Netherlands  or  Spain,  could  already  build  upon  their  own  national 
experience, including significant funding programmes. 

Priority  needs  for  the  effective  integration  of  third-country  nationals  differed  from  one 
Member State to another, depending on the respective immigration history, the share of third-
country nationals in the total population, the current migration flows, the economic and social 

9 

A synthesis of all multiannual programmes will be available at http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/index.cfm. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
situation  and  conditions,  the  availability  of  structures  and  services  in  support  of  integration 
and the institutional set-up. In spite of these differences, several intervention priorities were 
common  to  a  majority  of  Member  States.  First  comes  the  ‘two-way  approach’,  which 
reflects the principle that both newcomers and the receiving society should be involved in the 
integration  process  (21  Member  States  concerned),  including  improving  tolerance,  raising 
awareness about and combating discrimination against migrants and promoting inter-cultural 
dialogue.  The  second  key  challenge  (15  Member  States)  concerned  the  need  for  civic 
orientation  and  the  provision  of  information  to  third-country  nationals  on  the  history, 
institutions,  fundamental  norms  and  values  of  the  receiving  country.  The  third  major 
challenge  (13  Member  States)  was  to  adapt  public  and  private  services  to  a  multicultural 
society  and  capacity  building  for  organisations  interacting  with  third-country  nationals. 
Finally,  improving  language  proficiency  was  also  an  obvious  priority  need  (12  Member 
States). 

Priority 1 (see chapter 2) will receive by far the largest share of the Fund’s resources during 
the period 2007-2013 (a planned 75 % share at EU level, ranging from 94 % (Czech Republic) 
to 41 % (Finland)), well ahead of Priorities 2 (12 % at EU level), 3 (9 %) and 4 (4 %). Finland, 
which  has  put  comparatively  more  emphasis  on  Priority  2,  is  the  only  Member  State  where 
Priority 1 is expected to receive less than 50 % of the Fund’s resources. 

Graph 1: Distribution of EU resources between the four Priorities in the multiannual programmes 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
The  Fund’s  basic  act  requires  each  Member  State  to  organise,  in  accordance  with  current 
national  rules  and  practices,  a  partnership  with  the  authorities  and  bodies  involved  in 
running  the  multiannual  programme,  or  which  are  able  to  make  a  useful  contribution  to  its 
development. It is mandatory for the Fund’s partnership to include the authorities responsible 
for the management of the European Social Fund and the European Refugee Fund. 

The multiannual programmes provide a description of the partnership’s organisational set-up 
in  each  Member  State.  Partnership  committees  often  consist  of  several  ministries,  the 
aforementioned  implementing  authorities  of  the  European  Social  Fund  and  the  European 
Refugee  Fund  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  local  authorities  and  NGOs.  In  some  Member  States, 
partnership committees work on two levels, i.e. a general committee and specific task forces 
or  groups  of  experts.  In  addition  to  formal  committees,  most  Member  States  have  arranged 
regular meetings (e.g. yearly or twice yearly) with all project implementing organisations, to 
take  stock  of  achievements  and  shortcomings  and  to  discuss  funding  priorities  for  the  next 
annual programmes. 

Complementarity  of  Fund  with  other  EU  funding  instruments  is  ensured  in  Member 
States, firstly, through close cooperation between the managing authorities responsible for the 
different  funds  in  the  framework  of  the  partnership.  Typically,  this  involves  consulting  the 
authorities concerned at the planning and programming stage and on the list of actual projects 
selected for funding. This is simple when the same Authority is responsible for several Funds 
under the General Programme (e.g. the Responsible Authority for the Fund is the same as for 
the  European  Refugee  Fund  in  the  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Ireland,  Italy,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom).  Moreover,  in 
many Member States applicants for funding are required to declare possible further sources of 
EU  or  national  funding,  or  to  justify  the  Fund’s  relevance  in  relation  to  other  EU  funds 
available, or to commit themselves not to utilise any other EU funding for projects supported 
by the Fund. 

In  addition  to  avoiding  any  overlap  between  the  Fund  and  other  EU  funding  instruments, 
several  Member  States  have  arranged  for  the  Fund  to  complement  the  actions  of  under  the 
European Social Fund, for instance by using the Fund to raise third-country nationals’ skills to 
the  level  required  to  participate  in  labour  market  integration  measures,  funded  by  the 
European  Social  Fund.  Genuine  synergies  between  the  Fund  and  the  European  Social  Fund 
have  been  developed  in  several  Member  States,  notably  when  the  Fund’s  Responsible 
Authority is shared with the European Social Fund, for instance in Belgium, Spain or Sweden. 

Beside this situation, the Fund’s Responsible Authority is also a member of the partnership of 
the European Social Fund in several Member States. This is the case, for example, in Austria, 
Hungary and Ireland. 

6. 

BUDGET  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  FUND  FOR  THE 
INTEGRATION OF THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS IN THE PERIOD 2007 
– 2009 

The reporting period 2007-2009 covers 29 % of the overall reference amount of the Fund, 
with  a  total  of  €
  239.9  m  in  EU  appropriations  available  for  both  shared  and  direct 
management actions. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
6.1. 

National programmes run under shared management 

For  the  first  three  years  of  the  Fund’s  implementation,  78  annual  programmes  were 
approved,  committing  a  total  of  some  € 223.1  m .  The  distribution  of  the  Fund’s  resources 
among the Member States, in application of the distribution key set out in the legal basis, is 
set out in Graph 2 below. 

Graph 2: Distribution of EU resources committed on national programmes, 2007-2009 

Amounts in million € (rounded figures) 

United Kingdom
34,27

Austria
4,87

Belgium
4,67

Bulgaria
1,87

Cyprus
2,47

Czech Republic
5,39

Estonia
2,69

Sw eden
4,48

Spain
34,71

Slovenia
2,14

Slovak Republic
1,79

Romania
2,35

Portugal
5,05

Poland
5,10

Finland
2,55

France
18,21

Germany
33,59

Greece
6,24

Hungary
3,75

Ireland
2,65

Italy
29,97

Netherlands
5,55

Malta
1,59

Luxembourg
1,61

Lithuania
2,03

Latvia
3,54

For  the  period  2007-2009,  the  five  main  beneficiaries  were  Spain  (€ 34.7  m),  the  United 
 % to 15 % of the 
Kingdom (€ 34.3 m) Germany  (€ 33.6 m) and Italy (€ 30 m) (each from 13
total EU resources allocated to national programmes), followed by France (€ 18.2 m, or 8  % 
of  the  total).  Together,  they  received  about  68 %  of  the  total  amounts  allocated  to  national 
programmes in the reporting period. 

Next followed, at some distance, eight Member States, each with 2 % to 3 % of the Fund’s 
resources  allocated  during  the  period  2007-2009; that is, an allocation between € 4.5 m and 
€ 5.5 m  (Austria,  Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic,  Greece,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal 
and Sweden). 

All  other  Member  States  received  each  between  0.7 %  and  1.7 %  of  the  available  Fund’s 
resources. For the period 2007-2009, the allocations for these 13 Member States ranged from 
€ 1.59 m (Malta) to € 3.75 m (Hungary). 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
For the period from 2007 up to 2011, the five main beneficiary Member States have remained 
the same, but their ranking has changed slightly: first comes, as of 2011, Italy, then the United 
Kingdom, Spain, Germany and France in that order. This reflects the respective immigration 
flows and the population of legally staying third-country nationals during the reference period 
used for distributing the Fund’s resources among the Member States.10 

When  the  resources  provided  under  the  annual  programmes  by  the  national  budgets  and  by 
the beneficiaries are added to the contribution from the Fund, the total costs of all operations 
to be funded amounted to about € 371 m over the three- year period 2007-2009. The Fund’s 
contribution  accounted  for  60 %  of  that  amount,  Member  States’  national  public  funding 
provided  for  slightly  less  than  35 %  (€ 128.7  m)  and  finally  the  beneficiaries  themselves 
contributed some 5 % of the planned total costs (€ 19.5 m) . These percentages are broadly in 
line  with  those  set  in  the  multiannual  programmes  (see  Table  2  in  chapter  5),  taking  into 
account  the  fact  that,  by  definition,  the  expected  beneficiaries’  contribution  could  only  be 
‘planned’ at the beginning of the programming period 2007-2013. 

For each annual programme, Member States could use up to 7 % of their annual allocation + 
€ 30  000 to fund technical assistance for the management of the Fund. Resources earmarked 
for technical assistance in the Member States amounted in total to € 5 m; € 5.8 m and € 7.1 m 
in 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively. 

According to the spending rate as reported at the end of 2010, commitments in the Member 
States  have  been  fairly  high  for  2007  (82 %  of  the  appropriations)  and  for  2008  (83 %)  and 
reached nearly 100 % for 2009. For 2007, six Member States reported commitments close to 
100 %  and  in  four  additional  Member  States  the  rate  was  90 %  or  more.  For  2008,  four 
Member States attained a commitment rate of close to 100 % and seven others committed at 
least 90 % of their allocation. 

Commitments  during  the  period  2007-2009  reflect  the  overall  implementation  pattern  of 
national programmes. In most Member States, the programmes were significantly influenced 
by delays in the start-up phase, for 2007 and 2008 (see chapter 7.4), but many Member States 
managed to tackle these issues along the way, resulting in relatively smooth implementation 
of the 2009 annual programmes in the majority of Member States. 

6.2. 

Community actions 

For each of the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, the Commission adopted an annual 
Work Programme which set out the priorities and objectives of the Fund’s Community actions 
as well as the actions planned for support. Community actions always focus on transnational 
projects and on actions in the interest of the Union in the field of integration of third-country 
nationals. 

During the aforementioned period, grants were awarded following calls for proposals open to 
any type of organisation, with the requirement, for each project, of participants from at least 
three  to  five  Member  States.  The  priorities  laid  down  in  the  calls  for  proposals  included: 

10 

For further information see COM(2011) 448 and SEC(2011) 940 on the application of the criteria for 
distribution  of  resources  among  the  Member  States  under  the  External  Borders  Fund,  the  European 
Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals and the European Return Fund . 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
promoting  integration  strategies  and  measures  targeted  at  specific  groups,  such  as  migrant 
women  and  children;  integration  measures  at  local  level,  such  as  diversity  management  in 
neighbourhoods;  gathering  public  and  migrant  perceptions  on  the  integration  process; 
exploring  the  links  between  admission  policies  and  integration  processes  etc.  In  total,  from 
2007 to 2010, the Commission grant-funded 37 transnational projects, which were allocated 
€ 17.85 m. 

In addition to grants, which used up the majority of the available EU resources, Community 
actions funded several public procurements. Of particular interest in this context are: 

the  support  provided  to  the  European  Integration  Forum,11  an  exchange  and 
• 
discussion forum on integration set up by the Commission with civil society, which has met 
twice yearly since 2008; 

the European Web Site on Integration:12 this is an interactive website accessible to any 
• 
stakeholder  in  the  field  of  integration,  providing  extensive  documentation,  news,  good 
practices from all EU Member States, and allowing for exchange of information; 

the  Handbook  on  Integration  for  policy-makers  and  practitioners,13  three  successive 
• 
versions  of  which  have  been  published;  the  Handbook’s  purpose  is  to  compile  and 
disseminate  good  practices  on  various  integration  issues,  such  as  ‘the  mass  media  and 
integration’,  ‘awareness-raising  and  migrant  empowerment’,  ‘acquisition  of  nationality  and 
practice of active citizenship’, ‘immigrant youth, education and the labour market’. 

7. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2007, 2008 AND 2009 PROGRAMMES IN THE 
MEMBER STATES 

In compliance with the basic act,14 Member States had to submit to the Commission, by 30 
June 2010, an evaluation report on the implementation of actions co-financed by the Fund; all 
used a common template supplied by the Commission. At this early stage of the multiannual 
programmes’  implementation  (in  June  2010,  the  only  final  data  on  projects  completed 
available to the Member States were for the 2007 annual programme, while implementation 
of  the  2008  annual  programme  had  just  finished  and  the  2009  annual  programme  was  still 
running), the Member States’ reports necessarily focus on implementation aspects, more than 
on results and impacts. These will be reported in the national evaluation reports on the results 
and impact of actions co-financed by the Fund for the period 2007 to 2010, which Member 
States are required to submit to the Commission by 30 June 2012. 

This chapter presents and compares the facts and figures on the implementation of the 2007, 
2008 and 2009 annual programmes as reported by the Member States. It should be  stressed 
that the  collated figures  are average  values which do not always reflect deviations from  the 
trend. Wherever possible, variations or divergences from average results have been flagged. 

11 

12 
13 
14 

EN 

further 

information 

For 
http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/policy/legal.cfm. 
http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/index.cfm. 
http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/resources/detail.cfm?ID_ITEMS=12892. 
Article 48(2)(a) of Decision 2007/435/EC. 

European 

the 

on 

Integration 

Forum, 

see 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7.1. 

Overview 

By  30  June  2010,  a  total  of 1 949  projects had been funded by the Fund in Member States 
under  the  first  three  annual  programmes  2007,  2008  and  2009.  This  is  equivalent  to  an 
average,  at  EU  level,  of  75  funded  projects  in  each  Member  State  for  the  three  annual 
programmes, albeit with significant differences from one Member State to another (see Table 
4 below). 

Table 4: Projects funded under the three annual programmes 2007, 2008 and 2009 

Member State 

Programme 2007 

Programme 2008 

Programme 2009 * 

Total 2007-2009 

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 

34 

13 

13 

3 

2 

17 

10 

2 

162 

7 

19 

8 

54 

13 

16 

3 

0 

3 

35 

12 

1 

11 

3 

169 

9 

8 

627 

31 

14 

14 

10 

27 

76 

18 

3 

148 

11 

22 

0 

48 

17 

12 

12 

1 

9 

36 

10 

7 

5 

2 

241 

19 

11 

804 

39 

21 

0 

8 

17 

72 

12 

29 

59 

0 

20 

0 

59 

0 

12 

14 

3 

6 

0 

3 

4 

10 

0 

120 

0 

10 

518 

104 

48 

27 

21 

46 

165 

40 

34 

369 

18 

61 

8 

161 

30 

40 

29 

4 

18 

71 

25 

12 

26 

5 

530 

28 

29 

1949 

* Under the 2009 annual programme, project selection and funding was still ongoing at 30 June 2010. 

Although  the  Member  States  with  the  largest  allocations  are  generally  also  those  with  the 
largest  number  of  funded  projects  (Spain  530  projects,  Germany  369,  Italy  161)  and,  at  the 
other end of the scale, Member States with the smallest allocations are those with the smallest 
number of funded projects (Malta 4, Slovenia 5 and Ireland 8), the number of projects does 
not always follow the size of the allocation. For instance, Estonia, with a comparatively small 
allocation, funded broadly as many projects as Italy. Conversely, the United Kingdom, one of 
the  Fund’s  main  beneficiaries,  concentrated  its  resources  on  a  limited  number  of  larger 
projects (around 30). So the number of projects in Member States reflects a funding strategy 
(wide project support vs. concentration), which is also apparent in the average amount of EU 
funding per project. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Projects funded under the national programmes were generally small to medium-sized, 
with  an  average  amount  of  EU  funding  of  about  € 76  000  per  project.  In  16  Member 
States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, 
Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxemburg,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovakia,  Spain  and  Sweden),  it  was  even 
smaller,  i.e.  between  € 18  338  and  € 68  952.  Member  States  with  the  lowest  average  EU 
funding per project are Estonia, Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Poland (see Table 5 below). 

Conversely,  in  ten  Member  States,  the  average  EU  funding  per  project  was  higher  than  the 
overall EU average (Cyprus, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania, 
Slovenia and the United Kingdom). The Member State with the highest average EU funding 
per project was France, followed at some distance by the United Kingdom, Slovenia and the 
Netherlands. 

Table 5: Average amount of EIF funding per project for the two programming years 2007 and 2008* 

Number of projects 
funded by the MS  
(2007 and 2008) 

Average EIF funding 
per project 

EIF committed by 
the MS (2007 and 
2008) 
2 783 852,60 

1 339 531,31 

810 365,32 

1 264 842,72 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

1 449 221,39 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

1 705 466,37 

1 534 600,00 

10 937 000,00 

20 509 937,00 

3 313 557,43 

1 897 256,02 

722 187,00 

14 616 895,28 

1 767 214,93 

1 351 598,09 

530 569,73 

99 155,20 

2 425 961,57 

2 580 226,27 

1 068 431,68 

712 732,35 

Slovak Republic 

1 042 788,25 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

1 171 612,58 

19 947 890,57 

1 930 664,44 

United Kingdom 

11 341 023,28 

65 

27 

27 

13 

29 

93 

28 

5 

310 

18 

41 

8 

102 

30 

28 

15 

1 

12 

71 

22 

8 

16 

5 

410 

28 

19 

42 828,50 

49 612,27 

30 013,53 

97 295,59 

49 973,15 

18 338,35 

54 807,14 

2 187 400,00 

66 161,09 

184 086,52 

46 274,54 

90 273,38 

143 302,89 

58 907,16 

48 271,36 

35 371,32 

99 155,20 

202 163,46 

36 341,22 

48 565,08 

89 091,54 

65 174,27 

234 322,52 

48 653,39 

68 952,30 

596 895,96 

76 068,89 

European Union 

108 854 581,38 

1 431 

* At 30 June 2010, project selection and funding was not yet completed for 2009, so calculation of the 
average EU funding per project is based only on the first two annual programmes. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
  
 
7.2. 

Implementation methods, project selection and funding 

Under  the  General  Programme,  Member  States  may  choose  between  two  implementation 
methods: 

• the Responsible Authority acting as ‘awarding body’, where, as a general rule, projects are 
implemented on the basis of open calls for proposals (in duly justified cases, grants may be 
awarded without a call for proposals); or 

•  the  Responsible  Authority  acting  as  ‘executing  body’,  where  the  Responsible  Authority 
decides to implement the projects directly, alone or in association with any national authority 
competent  on  account  of  its  technical  expertise,  its  high  degree  of  specialisation  or  its 
administrative powers; this is because the characteristics of the projects leave no other choice 
for implementation, such as de jure monopoly situations or security reasons. 

As  expected  given  the  Fund’s  purpose  and  the  variety  of  stakeholders  in  this  area,  the 
‘awarding body’ method, with 95 % of all projects funded (1 852 projects in total), was 
by  far  the  most  important  implementation  method.  Indeed,  all  Member  States 
implemented their programmes, in totality or in part, in the ‘awarding body’ method. 

Only  nine  Member  States  (Cyprus,  Estonia,  France,  Italy,  Latvia,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain 
and  the  United  Kingdom)  used  the  ‘executing  body’  method,  for  a  total  of  97  projects. 
Moreover,  the  majority  of  projects  in  the  ‘executing  body’  method  were  funded  at  the 
beginning of the multiannual programming period and their number subsequently decreased. 

Under  the  ‘awarding  body’  method,  only  eight  Member  States  (Austria,  France,  Ireland, 
Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands  and  Slovenia)  organised  only  one  call  for 
proposals for each annual programme. In all the other Member States, at least for one of the 
annual programmes, several calls were necessary, because one call was not enough to use the 
allocation fully, or in order to cover separate programme intervention areas. 

Calls  for  proposals  attracted  an  impressive  total  of  5 234  proposals  over  the  three-year 
period.  Proposals  were  submitted  by  all  kinds  of  organisations:  national,  regional  or  local 
authorities;  NGOs  of  any  status;  education  and  research  institutions  etc.  Under  the  2009 
annual programme alone, close to 2 000 proposals were submitted (see Table 6). 

As a result of the very high response,  only 47 % of the proposals received  were  selected, 
73 % of which were funded. Some Member States mentioned available funding as a limiting 
factor (e.g. Bulgaria, Estonia, Italy and Lithuania), but it was not the only reason for rejecting 
proposals, or  for not funding all the proposals selected. For instance, further analysis of the 
selected proposals, carried out by the Responsible Authorities, might eventually lead to non-
funding  either  because  the  implementing  organisation’s  situation  had  deteriorated,  or  it  was 
no longer able to put up the expected matching funds, or important technical details could not 
be  provided  for  the  grant  agreement  etc.  Responsible  Authorities,  therefore,  took  seriously 
their task of funding projects with the Fund’s resources. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
Table 6: Projects received, selected and funded during 2007-2009 in the ‘awarding body’ method following calls for proposals 

Member State 

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 

Programme 2007 

Programme 2008 

Programme 2009 

Total 2007-2009 

Proposals 
received 
48 
14 
40 
2 
2 
31 
47 
0 
336 
56 
34 
41 
405 
14 
17 
7 
9 
5 
45 
13 
5 
14 
2 
437 
74 
34 
1732 

Projects 
selected 
34 
14 
22 
0 
2 
5 
10 
0 
162 
8 
19 
10 
171 
11 
16 
3 
0 
3 
37 
12 
3 
10 
2 
126 
9 
12 
701 

Projects 
funded 
34 
13 
13 
0 
2 
5 
10 
0 
162 
7 
19 
8 
41 
11 
16 
3 
0 
3 
35 
12 
1 
10 
2 
126 
9 
7 
549 

Proposals 
received 
70 
14 
56 
18 
48 
134 
23 
0 
236 
46 
45 
0 
373 
21 
14 
19 
1 
12 
57 
12 
15 
7 
1 
331 
0 
29 
1582 

Projects 
selected 
31 
14 
31 
7 
28 
72 
18 
0 
148 
11 
22 
0 
145 
15 
13 
12 
1 
9 
36 
12 
8 
5 
1 
233 
19 
11 
902 

Projects 
funded 
31 
14 
14 
7 
27 
71 
18 
0 
148 
11 
22 
0 
28 
15 
12 
12 
1 
9 
36 
10 
7 
5 
1 
233 
19 
11 
762 

Proposals 
received 
119 
25 
0 
17 
27 
110 
48 
135 
305 
0 
45 
29 
523 
0 
27 
20 
4 
16 
53 
3 
16 
18 
0 
258 
38 
84 
1920 

Projects 
selected 
40 
23 
0 
5 
19 
81 
12 
30 
59 
0 
20 
0 
350 
0 
16 
15 
3 
6 
0 
3 
4 
10 
0 
115 
0 
36 
847 

Projects 
funded 
39 
21 
0 
5 
17 
69 
12 
27 
59 
0 
20 
0 
38 
0 
12 
14 
3 
6 
0 
3 
4 
10 
0 
115 
0 
10 
484 

Proposals 
received 
237 
53 
96 
37 
77 
275 
118 
135 
877 
102 
124 
70 
1301 
35 
58 
46 
14 
33 
155 
28 
36 
39 
3 
1026 
112 
147 
5234 

Projects 
selected 
105 
51 
53 
12 
49 
158 
40 
30 
369 
19 
61 
10 
666 
26 
45 
30 
4 
18 
73 
27 
15 
25 
3 
474 
28 
59 
2450 

Projects 
funded 
104 
48 
27 
12 
46 
145 
40 
27 
369 
18 
61 
8 
107 
26 
40 
29 
4 
18 
71 
25 
12 
25 
3 
474 
28 
28 
1795 

NB Only proposals/projects submitted, selected and funded in by the ‘awarding body’ method following calls for proposals are included (not projects funded without a call for 
proposals, by way of exception, or projects funded in the ‘executing body’ method). Where more than one call for proposals was organised for an annual programme, the 
figures aggregate the total number of proposals received, projects selected and projects funded for all calls under this particular annual programme. 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
  
7.3. 

Project areas — implementation of Priorities and Specific Priorities 

Given the very high number of funded projects and the variety of organisations running them, 
a wide range  of issues was covered during  the period  under review. Projects funded can  be 
broadly classified in three categories according to their main ‘target’, i.e. projects targeted at: 
third-country  nationals  primarily;  public  and  private  services  dealing  with  third-country 
nationals;  the  receiving  society  (see  Table  7).  A  detailed  description  of  the  types  of  actions 
funded is provided in the following pages. 

The  most  common  topics  supported  by  the  Fund  in  Member  States  are  measures  where 
primarily  third-country  nationals  were  targeted,  more  particularly  projects  on 
information  and  training,  including  language  proficiency,  practical  information  and 
civic orientation. The ‘two-way’ approach was nearly as important. 

While ranking only second, capacity building measures in the broader sense (adaptation and 
coordination  of  public  and  private  services),  cooperation  between  Member  States  and 
measures targeted at the receiving society to promote intercultural dialogue were funded in 
the  majority  of  Member  States,  and  are  of  equal  importance.  Interestingly,  cooperation 
between  Member  States,  along  with  research,  studies,  monitoring  and  evaluation,  have 
developed more than foreseen at the beginning of the programming period. 

Projects  implementing  Priority  1  accounted  for  about  80 %  of  all  projects,  well  ahead  of 
projects  under  Priority  3  (10 %),  Priority  2  (6 %)  and  Priority  4  (4 %).  Priority  shares  are 
consistent  with  the  overall  amounts  planned  at  the  beginning  of  the  programming 
period.  Of  all  four  ‘Specific  Objectives’  of  the  Fund  (see  chapter  2),  ‘development  and 
implementation of the integration process of newly-arrived third-country nationals in Member 
States’ is clearly predominant, with nearly 70 % of all projects funded. This is in line with 
the provision in the basic act that ‘the Fund shall primarily focus on actions relating to the 
integration of newly arrived third-country nationals’. 

Member States made extensive use of the possibility of a higher EU co-financing rate for 
projects  implementing  one  or  several  Specific  Priorities,  with  62 %  of  all  projects 
concerned.  The  largest  share  is  for  projects  implementing  more  than  one  Specific  Priority, 
followed by  those  implementing  Specific Priorities 2 and 5. There are, however, significant 
differences  between  Member  States.  For  instance,  Italy,  Latvia  and  Spain  implemented 
projects  under  each  of  the  five  Specific  Priorities.  Conversely,  only  one  of  the  Specific 
Priorities was implemented in Austria, Cyprus and Slovenia (Specific Priority 4), as well as in 
France  and  the  United  Kingdom  (Specific  Priority  2).  In  Malta,  Spain  and  Sweden,  all 
projects funded in the ‘awarding body’ method implemented one or more Specific Priorities. 

Overall,  the  priority  needs  identified  at  the  planning  stage  in  the  multiannual 
programmes have been broadly confirmed, with the main changes resulting from the actual 
proposals submitted by implementing organisations in response to calls for proposals. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
Table 7: Summary of operations funded by the Member States under the annual programmes 2007-2009 

‘Target 
group’ 

Type of operation 

Priority 1 

Priority 2 

Priority 3 

Priority 4 

Total Member States 

Improvement of language proficiency (and capacity-building 
in this respect) 

20: AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, 
EE, FR, EL, HU, IE, IT, 
LV, LT, LU, PL, RO, SK, 
SI, ES, UK 

Dissemination of general and practical information (rights 
and obligations, services available, etc.) as well as civic 
orientation (culture, history, institutions of the host Member 
State)  

22: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, 
EE, FI, EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, 
LT, LU, PL, PT, RO, SK, 
SI, ES, SE, UK 

2: BE, CY 

1: MT 

1: IT 

6: BE, EE, FI, HU, 
IT, LV 

2: BE, MT 

Access to other forms of education 

6: BE, EE, EL, LV, SE, UK 

1: CZ 

Third-
country 
nationals 

Preliminary actions to facilitate subsequently access to 
labour market, participation in employment, economic life 
and self-sufficiency 

Social and legal guidance and counselling 

Two-way approach: facilitation or promotion of 
participation of third-country nationals in civic life, services 
and exchanges with the host society 
Health 

Operations specific to vulnerable groups 

Upgrading reception services, including facilities and 
legislation 
Housing 
Pre-departure measures (measures targeted at third-country 
nationals before they arrive in the host Member State) 

12: AT, BG, DE, EL, LT, 
MT, PL, PT, RO, SK, ES, 
SE 

11: BE, CZ, FI, FR, HU, 
LV, PL, PT, RO, SK, ES 

14: AT, CY, DE, EE, EL, 
HU, IE, IT, LU, MT, NL, 
SK, ES, SE 

3: CZ, ES, SE 

10: AT, BE, DE, CZ, FI, 
FR, IT, ES, SE, UK 

1: CZ 

3: FI, LV, LT 

3: CZ, FI, LV 

3: FI, LV, SK 

1: MT 

2: CZ, PL 

1: IT 

5: BE, CZ, IE, LV, UK 

1: BE 

2: PL, ES 

3: BE, FI, EL 

21: AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, 
EE, FR, EL, HU, IE, IT, 
LV, LT, LU, MT, PL, RO, 
SK, SI, ES, UK 

23: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, 
EE, FI, EL, HU, IE, IT, 
LV, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, 
RO, SK, SI, ES, SE, UK 

7: BE, CZ, EE, EL, LV, 
SE, UK 

15: AT, BG, CZ, DE, FI, 
EL, LV, LT, MT, PL, PT, 
RO, SK, ES, SE 

11: BE, CZ, FI, FR, HU, 
LV, PL, PT, RO, SK, ES 

15: AT, CY, DE, EE, FI, 
EL, HU, IE, IT, LU, MT, 
NL, SK, ES, SE 

4: CZ, PL, ES, SE 

10: AT, BE, CZ, DE, FI, 
FR, IT, ES, SE, UK 

5: BE, CZ, IE, LV, UK 

2: PL, ES 

3: BE, FI, EL 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7: Summary of operations funded by the Member States under the annual programmes 2007-2009 (continued) 

‘Target 
group’ 

Type of operation 

Priority 1 

Priority 2 

Priority 3 

Priority 4 

Total Member States 

Adaptation of public and private services to a multicultural 
society through training, capacity-building and awareness 
raising 

Research on the situation of third-country nationals in the 
Member State in particular, including on the attitude of 
society towards thirdcountry nationals, in order to better tailor 
integration measures and processes to their needs 
Analysis and evaluation of integration measures and 
processes in general and in the Member State in particular, 
past and present, in order to increase efficiency 

Development of monitoring and evaluation methodologies 
and tools, including indicators 

Policy-
makers, staff 
of public and 
private 
bodies 
dealing with 
integration, 
and other 
people in 
contact with 
third-
country 
nationals or 
integration 
issues 

10: AT, CZ, EE, FR, HU, 
IT, LV, LT, PT, RO 

1: EE 

6: BG, HU, IT, LV, RO, SE 

4: MT, NL, SK, SE 

15: AT, BE, BG, 
CY, CZ, FI, EL, HU, 
IT, LT, LU, PL, RO, 
SK, UK 

12: BG, CY, CZ, 
EE, FI, EL, IT, LV, 
LU, PL, PT, ES 

13: AT, BG, CY, 
DE, EE, FI, EL, HU, 
IT, LU, PL, SK, UK 

6: LV, LT, PT, RO, 
SK, ES 

16: AT, BG, CY, 
CZ, EE, FI, EL, HU, 
LV, LT, LU, MT, 
PT, RO, SK, ES 

1: HU 

4: AT, IT, PT, RO 

1: IT 

2: IT, RO 

1: IT 

1: IT 

1: SK 

11: AT, BG, CY, 
DE, EL, HU, LT, 
LU, PL, PT, ES 

6: HU, LV, LU, NL, 
SK, ES 

11: AT, CY, CZ, 
EE, EL, HU, IT, LU, 
MT, NL, SE 

Coordination of services and policies and exchanges 
between the different actors within the Member State 

3: EL, IT, PT 

Coordination and cooperation between Member States 

1: LT 

2: LT, SK 

Involvement of the media 

Receiving 
society 

Improve tolerance, awareness-raising and intercultural 
dialogue 

5: CZ, EL, HU, LT, SK 

12: AT, CZ, DE, EE, EL, 
HU, IT, LT, LU, MT, PT, 
SK 

1: CY 

2: BG, PT 

6: AT, BG, CY, DE, 
LU, MT 

1: MT 

18: AT, BG, CY, CZ, EE, 
FI, FR, EL, HU, IT, LV, 
LT, LU, MT, PT, RO, SK, 
ES 

18: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, 
FI, EL, HU, IT, LV, LT, 
LU, PL, PT, RO, SK, SE, 
UK 

17: BG, CY, CZ, EE, FI, 
EL, IT, LV, LU, MT, NL, 
PL, PT, RO, SK, ES, SE 

13: AT, BG, CY, DE, EE, 
FI, EL, HU, IT, LU, PL, 
SK, UK 

16: AT, BG, CY, DE, EL, 
HU, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, 
PL, PT, RO, SK, ES 
13: AT, CY, CZ, EE, EL, 
HU, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, 
SK, SE 
6: CY, CZ, EL, HU, LT, 
SK 
14: AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, 
EE, EL, HU, IT, LT, LU, 
MT, PT, SK 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
The  main  area  where  projects  were  funded  under  Priority  1  (‘Actions  designed  to  put  the 
‘Common  Basic  Principles  for  immigrant  integration  policy  in  the  European  Union’  into 
practice'),  related  to  the  provision  of  general  and  practical  information  and  civic 
orientation  to  third-country  nationals,  which  was  implemented  in  most  Member  States. 
Projects included: 

the  dissemination  of  information  material  on  paper,  in  electronic  form  (web  portals, 

- 
etc.) or through e-learning; 

- 

- 

orientation through introductory training courses, workshops, seminars, etc.; 

the development of networks of information centres or reception services; 

the  organisation  of  study  visits  for  third-country  nationals,  to  State  institutions, 

- 
historical sites, museums; 

mentoring  or  coaching  by  the  local  population,  with  a  view  to  guiding  third-country 

- 
nationals through their integration in the receiving society. 

Second  came  the  area  of  language  training,  either  as  training  courses  and  other  learning 
material  for  third-country  nationals,  including  e-learning,  or  as  the  development  of  specific 
language teaching techniques adapted to third-country nationals. 

The promotion of the ‘two-way approach to integration' was funded through a large range 
of activities, often of an innovative nature, such as festivals, art contests and exhibitions, the 
introduction  of  third-country  nationals’  parents  to  schools  or  summer  camps  for  both  third-
country  national  children  and  locals.  Projects  to  improve  tolerance,  raise  awareness  and 
promote intercultural dialogue involved such activities as sports and cultural events, a TV 
series intended for the receiving society, etc. 

Preliminary  actions  to  facilitate  access  to  the  labour  market  and  participation  in 
economic life included access to education other than language or vocational training, or the 
provision of skill assessment and re-training courses. 

Adaptation of public and private services to a multicultural society, through awareness-
raising  and  capacity  building,  involved  the  organisation  of  specific  training  sessions, 
workshops and seminars and the dissemination of information material. 

Operations  specific  to  vulnerable  groups  focused  on  women  and  children.  Projects 
provided special support upon leaving reception centres, arranged for housing, supplied first-
level assistance with jobseeking, helped with access to health and social services etc. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Examples of projects under Priority 1 

Greece, in cooperation with the IOM, set up a pre-departure education and information 
programme in Moldova, targeted at candidate migrants. For four months, the programme 
offered formal and informal information on the language, institutions and values of Greek 
society,  Practical  information  on  migrants’  rights  and  obligations  and  the  necessary 
procedures  to  legally  enter  and  stay  in  the  Greek  territory,  and  vocational  guidance  in 
order  to  obtain  a  better  match  between  the  third-country  nationals’  skills  and  the  actual 
demand on the Greek labour market. 

The project targeted a group that is usually difficult to reach. It is also expected to have a 
positive  impact  on  migration  by  facilitating  regular  —  and  therefore  discouraging 
irregular migration to Greece. 

In  Italy,  a  project  carried  out  by  the  Venice  municipality  focused  on  language  and  civic 
training  targeted  at  vulnerable  categories  such  as  illiterate  third-country  nationals, 
women  and  newly  arrived  youngsters.  The  project  provided  the  participants  with  flexible 
and tailored activities, as well as innovative training techniques and support (intercultural 
mediation and babysitting, use of new technologies etc). A network of public and private 
partners made it possible to constantly monitor the activities against planning. The closing 
event  of  the  project  was  a  convention  during  which  the  participants  were  given  their 
certificates of attendance related to the various project’s activities. 

In  Portugal,  a  project  developed  intercultural  mediation  in  public  services  through  a 
partnership involving public services, mediators and higher education. It is now possible to 
see preliminary results: training initiatives, integration of mediators in institutions and the 
practice of intercultural mediation. Mediation offered by public services will be maintained 
and  consolidated.  A  level  III  profile  in  the  Catalogue  of  National  Qualifications  and  a 
training  reference  system  will  emerge,  and  they  could  be  adopted  at  a  higher  level  by 
universities. 

In a project run in the Czech Republic, third-country nationals’ families are paired with 
local families residing in the same region. The project covers the whole territory. This may 
be seen as a complementary operation to the establishment of integration centres in every 
region  of  the  country;  putting  families  in  pairs,  so  that  locals  can  help  third-country 
nationals, fills the gap between the needs of third-country nationals and the services that 
the integration system in the Czech Republic is progressively able to provide. The project is 
backed by an extensive media campaign. 

Hungary supported a project aimed at raising the awareness of people in Budapest of the 
presence  of  migrant  communities  living  in  the  capital  and  of  their  contribution  to 
multiculturalism  in  Budapest.  Four  festivals  were  organised  in  a  popular  cultural 
institution situated in the heart of Budapest. Each festival showed a wide range of cultural 
aspects (such as handicraft, music, dance, films, photo exhibitions) from different groups of 
third-country nationals. The events were backed by a number of communication activities. 
The  project  was  successful  in  raising  awareness  among  residents  of  Budapest  of  the 
presence of third-country nationals in the city and in promoting intercultural dialogue. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
Projects under Priority 2 ‘Development of indicators and evaluation methodologies to assess 
progress, adjust policies and measures and to facilitate coordination of comparative learning’ 
funded research activities on the situation of third-country nationals in Member States and 
on  the  attitude  of  society  towards  third-country  nationals,  in  order  to  adapt  integration 
measures  to  needs.  They  included  data  collection  on  third-country  nationals  in  the  Member 
State, qualitative research such as discussion groups with representatives of NGOs and of the 
educational system, interviews with third-country nationals and experts. More specific studies 
were  also  funded,  for  example  on  the  integration  of  third-country  national  children  in  the 
educational system. 

In  addition  to  the  above,  analyses  and  evaluations  of  integration  policies  and  measures 
were  supported,  including  analysis  of  the  legal  framework  and  administrative  practices, 
developing  indicators  or  evaluation  methodologies,  coordination  of  services  and  players  to 
share information, statistical data and news on integration. 

Examples of projects under Priority 2 

In  Poland,  a  research  project  surveyed  discrimination  against  third-country  nationals, 
mainly through advocacy activities and information campaigns targeted at decision-makers. 
The project took account of a recent and important survey  on the situation  of third-country 
nationals  in  Poland  —  in  particular  with  regard  to  employment.  Activities  included:  a 
sociological survey involving 360 third-country nationals and 30 officials and experts on the 
issues  of  integration  and  discrimination  against  foreigners  in  Poland;  an  analysis  of  the 
social  and  legal  aspects  of  discrimination,  encompassing  30  legal  acts;  a  survey  of  the 
willingness  of  employers  to  hire  different  categories  of  third-country  nationals,  publication 
and  distribution  of  two  essays  on  issues  in  this  area  with  recommendations  addressed  to 
decision-makers  and  to  third-country  nationals  in  Poland;  and  seminars  to  promote  the 
results. 

In  Lithuania,  a  feasibility  study  was  carried  out  on  third-country  nationals'  access  to  the 
labour  market,  to  improve  knowledge  about  their  needs.  Now  that  the  most  important 
problems and difficulties third-country nationals are facing have been identified, the project’s 
results are being used extensively by many social groups and by Lithuanian institutions. 

In  Slovakia,  a  study  project  focused  on  the  integration  of  migrant  children  into  the 
educational  system  at  elementary  school.  Beyond  the  assessment  of  needs,  challenges  and 
constraints,  it  generated  teaching  modules  and  materials  relevant  to  migrant  children, 
something which did not exist previously. 

In  France  a  large-scale  statistical  survey  investigated,  for  the  first  time,  the  integration 
process of several thousand third-country nationals over several years, i.e. in the few months 
following arrival, one year later and three years on. Questions address the situation prior to 
and the administrative process after arrival and, later on, the acquisition of language skills, 
access to employment, housing and further on, access to education, health services, social life 
etc.  The  survey  should  provide  decision-makers  and  integration  services  with  an  in-depth 
knowledge of the integration process and suggest ways of improving integration policy. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
Under  Priority  3  (‘Policy  capacity  building,  coordination  and  intercultural  competence 
building  in  the  Member  States  across  the  different  levels  and  departments  of  government’), 
Member States funded operations regarding the adaptation of public and private services to 
a  multicultural  society  by  way  of  training,  capacity-building  and  awareness  raising,  in 
particular for staff of governmental or non-governmental bodies and other people in contact 
with  third-country  nationals.  This  included  training  courses  and  seminars  for  public  and 
private institutions to raise awareness and tolerance of diversity, the coordination of services 
and  policies  within  the  Member  States,  dissemination  of  handbooks,  setting  up  partnerships 
with local authorities etc. 

Examples of projects under Priority 3 

In  Austria,  a  project  based  on  an  Integration  and  Monitoring  Centre  collects  data  on 
migration  and  integration.  The  Centre  has  set  up  a  website  and  a  specialised  library  and 
produces a quarterly newsletter. It provides integration stakeholders with data and tools for 
integration purposes, information on integration projects and also supports networking. The 
monitoring aspect will make it possible to gauge the effects of integration activities and will, 
in the long term, feed into the social and political debate on integration matters. 

In  Cyprus,  seminars  were  specifically  organised  for  teachers,  including  special  training 
seminars  on  intercultural  education  and  the  teaching  of  Greek  as  a  second  or  foreign 
language. The purpose was to make teachers better at dealing with integration problems. In 
particular, the seminars provided teachers with the necessary knowledge and information on 
new teaching methods and best practices to be used in teaching third-country nationals. The 
teachers were enthusiastic about these seminars, as they considered them to be very useful in 
understanding  the  viewpoint  of  third-country  nationals’  children  and  gave  them  essential 
information and practices on handling this target group. 

A project in Finland was geared to raising awareness among authorities in a regional area 
about nationals of the Thai community, one which is in an especially vulnerable position as it 
easily falls outside the scope of official measures. The project highlighted problems from the 
third-country national’s point of view and generated cooperation networks, as well as mutual 
awareness and knowledge. A lot of information has been gathered about the target group, and 
this can be utilised in the planning of public services and in organising cooperation with the 
third sector. The project results are used for training the Police Force and for the design and 
implementation  of  municipal  integration  policy  and  measures.  They  can  also  be  used  in 
relation to other target groups. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
Finally,  under  Priority  4  (‘Exchange  of  experiences,  good  practices  and  information  on 
integration  between  the  Member  States’),  projects  were  concerned  not  only  with  the 
coordination and cooperation of public authorities between Member States, but also supported 
non-governmental organisations of Member States exchanging information and practices. 

Examples of projects under Priority 4 

Estonia’s administration organised study visits to and seminars with other Member States, to 
share  information  and  exchange  experience  and  good  practices  on  the  integration  of  third-
country  nationals.  In  Italy,  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior  started  a  cooperation  project  with 
other  Member  States’  administrations  on  various  integration  issues.  Among  the  topics 
covered  are:  integration  statistics;  good  practices  in  dealing  with  vulnerable  groups;  a 
Convention on Integration; comparative analysis of the Italian and other Member States’ law 
on citizenship. 

Several  Member  States  (Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Greece,  Hungary,  Malta,  the 
Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, Spain and Sweden) funded seminars, conferences, networks 
and study visits proposed by governmental and non-governmental to exchange experience and 
good practices with organisations from other Member States. 

Luxembourg  funded  several  projects  involving  cooperation  with  organisations  from  the 
neighbouring  Member  States:  Belgium,  France  and  Germany.  One  of  the  projects  started 
by  collecting  exhaustive  information  on  third-country  nationals’  organisations  in  these 
Member  States.  This  led  to  cooperation  between  them  on  various  integration  topics.  In 
another  project,  a  Luxembourg-based  organisation  built  upon  the  expertise  of  a  French 
organisation to set up, and improve, intercultural interpretation services (interpreters trained 
in the cultural values of third-country nationals of different origins). 
7.4. 

Assessment of implementation and preliminary results 

The majority of Member States encountered implementation problems for the two first annual 
programmes,  2007  and  2008:  either  delays,  or  difficulties  in  implementing  the  programmes 
fully. The delay in approving the programmes (a not unusual situation at the start of any new 
EU  financial  instrument)  was  the  most  frequent  reason,  as  it  was  often  a  prerequisite  for 
launching calls for proposals, or for funding selected projects. Other frequent reasons were the 
need  to  finalise  organisational  and  administrative  arrangements  within  the  Member  State 
before  the  programmes  could  actually  be  implemented;  lack  of  experience  amongst 
Responsible  Authorities  and  beneficiaries;  the  need  to  organise  more  than  one  call  for 
proposals where eligible projects were not sufficient to make full use of the Fund’s allocation; 
and, importantly, the difficulty for implementing organisations in securing matched funding in 
a very difficult economic context. In a bid to catch up, a number of Member States initiated 
the  2007  and  2008  annual  programmes  simultaneously,  for  example  by  launching  calls  for 
proposals covering the two together. Nevertheless, implementation was rushed. This resulted 
in  a  tight  timeframe  for  implementing  organisations  and  an  administrative  burden  for 
Responsible  Authorities,  and  it  prevented  some  Member  States  from  reshaping  their  annual 
programmes if their calls for proposals were unsuccessful. 

However, the situation improved markedly with the 2009 annual programme, where only nine 
Member States reported implementation delays. 

In spite of these problems, the majority of Member States still expect to complete the planned 
actions  and  meet  the  objectives  set  out  in  the  annual  programmes.  At  this  stage,  the 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
assessment  in  Member  States  is  based  on  the  types  and  number  of  projects  funded,  judged 
against the indicative targets set in the programmes for each Action, and on the actual outputs 
available at the time of reporting to the Commission. Detailed information on the results and 
impacts will be available in the ex-post evaluation in 2012. 

In fifteen Member States (Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, 
Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovakia,  Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom),  both  annual 
programmes  2007  and  2008  have,  by  and  large,  been  fully  implemented  (in  some  cases 
following  revision  by  the  Commission).  In  Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic,  Hungary, 
Luxembourg  and  Slovenia  only  the  2008  programme  has  been  fully  implemented,  while  in 
Bulgaria  only  the  2007  annual  programme  was  fully  implemented.  In  19  Member  States, 
(Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland, 
Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Spain  and  the  United 
Kingdom),  the  projects’  targeted  results  have  been  or  will  probably  be  achieved  upon 
completion.  Two  Member  States  (the  Czech  Republic  and  Luxembourg)  specified  that  only 
the 2008 programme was expected to achieve its expected results. 

Generally  speaking,  the  Fund  enabled  several  Member  States  (e.g.  Hungary,  Slovakia)  to 
design,  for  the  first  time,  a  comprehensive  policy  framework  for  the  integration  of  third-
country nationals, encompassing all of the Common Basic Principles. In other Member States, 
such as Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia or Greece, where a national framework for integration was 
already in place, the Fund provided financial resources for its implementation. Finally, in 
more  experienced  Member  States,  the  Fund,  which  often  complements  existing  funding 
resources, has targeted specific measures or specific groups not normally within the scope 
of mainstream funding instruments. In this context, it brought about substantial effects in 
such  areas  as  language  skills,  promoting  meaningful  contact  and  constructive  dialogue 
between  third-country  nationals  and  the  receiving  society,  and  tackling  third-country 
nationals’ health problems. 

7.5.  Member States’ overall assessments and suggestions for improvements 

In  all  Member  States  (except  the  Netherlands  and  Poland),  the  programme  priorities  and 
the  actions  set  in  the  programmes  were  considered  relevant  to  national  needs  and 
objectives  in  the  field  of  integration.  In  some  of  the  new  Member  States  (e.g.  Bulgaria, 
Cyprus  and  the  Czech  Republic),  the  programmes  have  been  particularly  relevant  as  the 
number  of  migrants  from  third-countries  has  increased  recently.  In  a  few  Member  States, 
some  actions  had  to  be  modified  due  to  the  economic  crisis  (Romania,  Spain)  or  due  to 
changed migrations flows (United Kingdom); nevertheless, overall the priorities and actions 
continued to be relevant. 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  Fund’s  allocation  represented  a  relatively  small  proportion  of  the 
national budget for integration and was not seen as adding real value to national strategies. In 
Poland, it was observed during implementation that a wider range of actions would have been 
more effective in supporting national strategies; the original measures had to be reshaped and 
merged in order to address domestic needs better. 

Although seven Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Malta, the Netherlands 
and Sweden) were not yet in a position to evaluate whether their respective programmes had 
met  their  targets,  all  the  19  other  Member  States  judged  the  programmes  to  be  effective: 
projects were successfully implemented and to a large extent the results were consistent with 
their objectives. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
Opinions on efficiency were mixed. While most Member States were satisfied that projects 
had achieved their objectives at a reasonable cost, a requirement for selection, it was felt that 
administration  costs  were  high  and  the  management  of  projects  required  more 
personnel and financial resources than expected. 

Complementarity  between  the  Fund  and  other  EU  financial  instruments  was  achieved 
through  the  procedures  set  out  at  the  beginning  of  the  programmes,  albeit  with  some 
difficulties,  the  most  significant  being  the  need  to  avoid  overlap  with  the  European 
Refugee Fund’s target group. 

Finally,  in  nearly  all  Member  States,  the  Fund  was  perceived  as  having  a  genuine  added 
value. It yielded results in the area of integration that could not have been obtained through 
existing  national  programmes,  policies,  budgets  and  other  EU  financial  instruments.  These 
results  included  placing  projects  in  the  framework  of  a  consistent,  specific  strategy  and 
policy;  complementing,  and  coordinating  with,  other  Funds,  both  national  and  EU 
instruments,  and  adding  new,  important  integration  aspects  to  existing  programmes; 
strengthening activities pursued by NGOs and local authorities; and promoting dialogue and 
exchange of ideas among stakeholders involved in the integration process. 

Whereas  the  range  of  eligible  actions  was  considered  appropriate,  Member  States' 
recommendations  focused  on  simplifying  the  existing  system,  which,  in  several  respects, 
was considered too complex: 

- The administrative workload associated with annual programmes should be reduced, 
by  replacing  the  current  system  —  of  a  multiannual  programme  followed  by  annual 
programmes — by just one multiannual programme. More flexibility should also be provided 
during programme implementation, without the need for a revision by the Commission. The 
eligibility period of annual programmes, if they are continued, could be extended. Reporting 
requirements should be reduced. 

- Eligibility rules for expenditure should be clarified, simplified and made more flexible 
in  order  to  improve  effectiveness  and  reduce  the  administrative  burden,  with  the  option  of 
letting Member States define and apply their own eligibility rules. 

-  The  Fund’s  scope  should  be  extended  to  people  belonging  to  the  European  Refugee 
Fund’s target group. 

-  The  EU  co-financing  rate  should  be  raised  to  up  to  75 %  for  any  project  and  the 
percentage of the EU contribution paid as first pre-financing should increase in order to 
give more support to projects at launch time and to facilitate programme implementation. The 
second pre-financing could then be removed. The budget for Technical Assistance should 
also increase to meet actual administrative costs. 

-  The  Commission  could  do  more  to  support  implementation  in  the  Member  States,  in 
particular by increasing knowledge sharing and promoting cooperation between Member 
States,  making  available  quickly  any  information  of  use  to  all  Member  States,  etc.  In 
addition to information supplied in the SOLID  committee,  online  databases  or  a  specialised 
website  with  all  documentation  would  be  useful.  Finally,  in  future,  the  legal  framework 
should be finalised before the programming period starts, and the programmes should 
be approved as early as possible. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
8. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The following assessment can be made in the light of the Fund’s implementation during the 
three first years of the 2007-2013 multiannual programmes: 

-  Once  the  implementation  problems  for  the  2007  and  2008  annual  programmes  were 
cleared up, the majority of Member States have been able to catch up and have implemented 
annual  programmes  from  2009  with  no  major  delays.  This  does  not  exclude  some  residual 
difficulties,  which  the  Commission  is  looking  into  with  the  Member  States  concerned. 
Projects  completed  so  far  generally  meet  their  planned  targets  and,  at  least  from  the  2009 
annual programme, most Member States expect to achieve the programmes’ objectives. 

-  The  Fund  has  gained  acceptance  in  most  Member  States,  and  among  project 
implementing  organisations  especially.  This  is  evidenced,  in  particular,  by  the  very  high 
response  rate  to  calls  for  proposals  from  the  2009  annual  programme  and  the  range  of 
organisations involved in the Member States. 

- The Fund has filled a gap; it is perceived in most Member States as bringing genuine value 
added, whether Member States had previous experience with the integration of third-country 
nationals or not. 

- On the other hand, the Fund’s programming and implementation framework seems to 
be too complex given the types of actions funded, the beneficiary organisations involved and 
the high number of projects. 

In order to meet Member States’ concerns, the Commission undertook in 2011 a significant 
revision of the implementing rules for all four Funds in the General Programme. The largest 
part  consists  of  a  substantial  simplification  of  the  eligibility  rules,  with  the  new  rules 
applicable from the implementation of the 2011 annual programmes (at the latest) and, subject 
to  full  compliance  with  the  principles  of  equal  treatment,  transparency  and  non-
discrimination,  even  to  projects  funded  under  the  2009  and  2010  annual  programmes.15 
Member  States  have  welcomed  the  revision.  Further  suggestions  for  improvement  from  the 
Member States will be considered in the context of the proposals which the Commission will 
make this year on the future financial instruments in the area of Home Affairs, as part of the 
next Multi-Annual Financial Framework applicable from 2014. 

In  the  two  remaining  years  of  the  current  programming  period,  the  Fund’s  budget 
appropriations are expected to increase hugely, to reach € 162.5 m fo r 2012 and € 182.5 m for 
2013  (that  is,  in  total  for  the  two  years,  42 %  of  the  Fund’s  allocation  for  the  whole  period 
in  2011  and  €  110.5  m  in  2010. 16  Against  this 
2007-2013),  compared  to  €  131.5  m 
background, the Commission intends to discuss with Member States the best possible use of 
the resources available, in the light of policy and implementation needs in the coming years. 
In the Commission’s view, there are four main areas which would merit further action and 
focus: 

15 

16 

The  revision  of  the  Implementing  Rules  of  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  third-country 
nationals was approved by Commission Decision C(2011) 1289 of 3.3.2011. 
Figures include annual programmes and Community actions. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
- Boosting the active participation of third-country nationals and the receiving society in 
the integration process, in the context of the ‘two-way process’: promoting comprehensive 
integration  programmes,  and  third-country  nationals’  involvement  in  relevant  consultative 
bodies  and  networks;  enhancing  third-country  nationals’  participation  in  collective  life; 
enhancing the public's perception of migration, including knowledge of the contribution made 
by migration to the receiving society itself etc. 

- Increasing the effectiveness of integration measures which address the specific needs of 
vulnerable groups (women, young people and children, unaccompanied minors with a legal 
status,  the  elderly,  victims  of  trafficking  etc.):  enhancing  educational  opportunities  for 
children;  promoting  women’s  role  in  integration,  fostering  their  autonomy  in  society  and 
improving  their  knowledge  of  rights  and  their  participation  in  public  life;  promoting 
integration of unaccompanied minors who have been granted a legal status etc. 

- Fostering integration at local level and a bottom-up approach to integration, as well as 
multilevel  cooperation  between  the  different  levels  of  governance  involved  in  devising 
integration  strategies  and  measures:  supporting  integration  processes  at  local  level, 
including  partnerships  involving  all  stakeholders  concerned;  improving  local  integration  of 
third-country  nationals  in  housing,  schools,  social  assistance,  health,  education;  supporting 
inclusive neighbourhoods and bottom-up initiatives for local integration etc. 

-  Developing,  in  countries  of  origin,  pre-departure  measures  supportive  of  integration, 
without  making  third-country  nationals’  admission  conditional  on  participation:  information 
on, for example, visas and work permits, and on the language, institutions and values of the 
receiving  country;  vocational  training  to  match  skills  with  the  actual  needs  of  the  receiving 
country’s labour market etc. 

The  Commission  will  examine  with  Member  States  how  the  aforementioned  priority  areas 
could  be  given  more  support  in  the  remaining  annual  programmes,  starting  with  the  2012 
annual programmes, which Member States have to submit by 1 November 2011. 

--------------- 

EN 

28 

   EN