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 Return Fund for the period 2007-2009 (report submitted in accordance with Article 50 (3) (b) of Council Decision 575/2007/EC of 23 May 2007)
Date: 2011-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, distribution of EU funding, fund (EU), illegal migration, repatriation grant, return migration, right of asylum

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 9.12.2011 
COM(2011) 858 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 Return Fund for the period 2007-2009 (report submitted in accordance 
with Article 50 (3) (b) of Council Decision 575/2007/EC of 23 May 2007) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
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 Return Fund for the period 2007-2009 (report submitted in accordance 
with Article 50 (3) (b) of Council Decision 575/2007/EC of 23 May 2007) 

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  4.032,23  million  Euros,  as 
currently  programmed.  It  consists  of  four  Funds  and  its  aim  is  a  fair  share  of  the 
responsibilities  between  Member  States  as  concerns  the  financial  burden  arising  from  the 
introduction  of  an  integrated  management  of  the  Union's  external  borders  and  from  the 
implementation of common policies on asylum and immigration1.  

One of the four Funds is the European Return Fund2, established for the period 2008 – 2013 
with a total envelope of 676 million Euros.  

The basic act establishing the Fund requires the Commission to submit an intermediate report 
on the results achieved and on qualitative and quantitative aspects  of the  implementation of 
the Fund3.  

The report presents results achieved by the annual programmes 2008-2009 as collected on the 
basis of reports from Member States in the second half of 20104, completed with information 
available  with  the  Commission  in  the  first  quarter  of  2011.  These  results  are  intermediate 
pending the approval of the final reports on the implementation of the programmes5.  

2. 

THE SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE FUND  

The  objective  of  the  Fund  is  to  support  the  efforts  made  by  Member  States  to  improve  the 
management  of  return  in  all  its  dimensions  ("integrated  return  management"),  including 
through cooperation between Member States for the purpose of economies of scale.  

The target groups under the Fund include third-country nationals having received a negative 
decision  in  asylum  or  immigration  procedures  and  irregular  migrants  apprehended  at  the 
border or in the territory of Member States. To enhance efficiency in return management at 
national  level,  the  Fund  also  covers  the  voluntary  return  of  those  who  are  not  under  an 

1 
2 
3 
4 

5 

EN 

COM(2005)123 final 
Decision No 575/2007/EC, OJ L144, 6.6.2007, p.45 
Article 50(3)(a) of the basic act 
the 
and 
A 
affairs/funding/return/funding_return_en.htm 
Article 51 of the basic act  

compilation 

country 

reports 

are 

available 

at 

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

2 

   EN 

                                                 
obligation  to  leave  the  territory,  such  as  applicants  for  asylum  who  have  not  yet  received  a 
negative decision or beneficiaries of international protection. Here the Fund has taken over a 
category of action which was supported by the European Refugee Fund till 20076.  

The Fund also aims to support the correct and harmonised application of the EU acquis on 
return, in particular the Directive 2008/115 on common standards and procedures in Member 
States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals ("Return directive")7.  

The Fund is mainly implemented by the Member States, in the shared management method. 
Through annual programmes from Member States, the EU budget seeks to support in Member 
States  a  structured  intervention  (capacity  building),  as  well  as  activities  specific  to  the 
national or local circumstances in the field of return. These actions are co-financed within an 
EU  strategic  framework  of  four  priorities  on  return8.  The  priorities  are  (1)  the 
development  of  a  strategic  approach;  (2)  co-operation  between  Member  States;  (3)  specific 
innovative tools and (4) EU standards and best practices. Member States have to implement at 
least three out of four priorities but many Member States have chosen to implement all four of 
them.  The  resources  are  distributed  among  26  Member  States  as,  in  accordance  with  its 
Protocol, Denmark is not participating in the Fund.  

The Fund's 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 specific priorities mentioned in the strategic guidelines.  

Besides  the  programmes,  annually  up  to  7%  of  the  EU  available  resources  can  be 
implemented directly by the Commission for transnational projects, studies or other types of 
action  of  EU  interest  through  the  "Community  actions"  concerning  return  policy  and 
measures applicable to the target groups.  

For the budget years 2005-2007 there were preparatory actions under the EU budget, namely 
the  "Return  Preparatory  Actions"  2005-2006  and,  the  "Preparatory  Action  –  Migration 
Management,  Solidarity  in  Action  2007  -  return  and  reintegration  of  returnees".  The 
instruments created first hand practical experience with transnational projects and thus helped 
Member States prepare for the launch of the Return Fund in 20089.  

3. 

THE INPUTS FROM THE UNION IN 2008 – 2009  

3.1. 

EU resources for Member States and matched national funding  

The  reporting  period  covers  18%  of  the  overall  reference  amount  of  the  Fund.  In  the 
period  2008-2009  122  M  €  in  EU  appropriations  was  committed  for  both  shared  and  direct 
management actions 

6 

7 
8 
9 

EN 

See  inter  alia  the  final  evaluation  of  the  European  Refugee  Fund  for  the  period  2005-2007, 
COM(2011)2 final  
OJ L348, 24.12.2008, p.98 
OJ L330, 15.12.2007, p.48 
The 
evaluation 
affairs/funding/2004_2007/solidarity/funding_solidarity_en.htm 

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

preparatory 

available 

actions 

the 

of 

at 

is 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 1 – EU budget Return Fund 2008-2013  

Euros 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 (*) 

2013 (*) 

Total 

MS totals 

55.500.000   61.845.000   81.725.000  

109.000.000  

151.125.000  

179.025.000   638.220.000  

Community  

Actions 

-  

4.655.000  

5.775.000  

4.500.000  

11.375.000  

13.475.000  

39.780.000  

TOTAL 

55.500.000   66.500.000   87.500.000  

113.500.000  

162.500.000  

192.500.000   678.000.000  

(*) The 2012 and 2013 are estimates.  

The  distribution  of  the  available  EU  resources  among  Member  States  is  based  on  two 
criteria  which  reflect  the  situation  of  the  Member  State  with  regard  to  the  obligations 
undertaken on behalf of - or for the overall benefit of the Union in this area: the number of 
removal decisions affecting third-country nationals and the number of returns effected to third 
countries.  For  the  first  two  years of  the  implementation  of  the  Fund,  52  programmes  were 
approved, committing a total of 107 M € .  

– 

– 

– 

The six main beneficiaries were the United Kingdom (16,9 M €), Greece (12,8 M 
€), France (12,3 M €), Italy (11,8 M €), Sp
They received 68% of the total amount in the reporting period. For the period 2008-
2011, they remain the main beneficiary Member States, although Greece is replacing 
the United Kingdom as the number 1 beneficiary as of the 2010 allocations.  

ain (10,7 M €) and Germany (7,8 M €). 

The three medium range beneficiaries are Belgium (6,1 M €), the Netherlands (5,8 
M €) and Poland (3,7 M €)

10.  

All other beneficiaries receive on average less than 3% of the annual total amount 
available. In the period 2008-2009 the allocations for these 18 Member States ranged 
from 318.475 € (Luxembourg, 2008) to 1.817.335 € (Austria, 2008).  

10 

For further information see COM (2011)448 and SEC (2011)0940 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 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
Graph 1: 2008-2009 total national and EU resources for programmes MS 

Distribution of RF funding 2008-2009 
among the participating states

Bulgaria
1,17%

Belgium
5,24%

Austria
3,04%

Cyprus
1,66%

Czech Republic
1,86%

Estonia
0,87%

Finland
1,13%

France
10,51%

Germany
6,72%

United Kingdom
14,41%

Sw eden
2,82%

Spain
9,14%

Slovenia
1,70%

Slovakia
1,45%

Romania
1,34%

Portugal
1,56%

Poland
3,15%

Netherlands
4,93%

Malta
1,13%

Luxembourg
0,56%

Lithuania
0,96%

Latvia
0,90%

Ireland
1,02%

Italy
10,14%

Greece
10,97%

Hungary
1,61%

For 2008 and 2009, Member States planned matched funding for respectively 50,4 and 65,2 
M €. The resources allocated to 
technical assistance for the management of the Fund  in the 
Member States amounted respectively to 3,9 and 4 M €.  

According to the spending rate as reported at the end of 2010, the overall consumption of 
the appropriations by the Member States for these two first years has been fairly high (around 
85% for 2008 and 80% for 2009). Several main beneficiary Member States, such as Spain and 
the United Kingdom, have consistently committed the entire allocation.  

3.2. 

EU resources reserved for Community actions  

For 2008 no resources were allocated. During the budgetary procedure for 2008 the European 
Parliament  put  the  credits  for  the  Fund  for  2008  in  the  reserve  with  the  condition  that  the 
amount would be released when the Return Directive was adopted. Following its approval by 
the European Parliament  the reserve  on  the  Fund was lifted in November 2008. It was then 
considered  inappropriate  to  still  launch  a  call  for  proposals  and  the  2008  resources  were 
distributed in full to Member States, allowing them to concentrate solely on the preparation of 
their programmes.  

For 2009 4,6 M € was allocated for:  

– 

three transnational pilot projects: one on co-operation on methods for tracing and 
facilitating the return of unaccompanied minors, and two on structural co-operation 
between Member States and consular services of third countries on return (including 
exchange of best practice on forced return monitoring); and  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
– 

three comparative studies on best practices: on return of minors, the link between 
pre-departure reintegration measures and short- and long-term reintegration measures 
in  the  countries  of  return  (after  an  amendment  by  the  EP  to  the  EU  budget)  and 
forced-return monitoring.  

The  pilot  projects  should  reinforce  the  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States, 
while the studies will enhance the knowledge base of the Union as a whole on return practices 
and support an optimal preparation in Member States of the Return Directive.  

The 2010 call focuses on the creation of an EU network on voluntary return and co-operation 
in the field of pre-departure and post-arrival reintegration activities. For 2011, resources are 
being mobilised primarily to support emergency measures in the Southern Mediterranean.  

4. 

PREPARING IMPLEMENTATION IN THE MEMBER STATES  

4.1. 

Launching the Fund in Member States  

The Commission adopted implementing rules for the Fund11, common to all four Funds, in 
order to ensure  a harmonised application and establish common templates for  programming 
and reporting. The rules set out selection procedures and criteria for 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. Information sessions on the rules on eligibility of 
expenditure were organised and the manual was regularly updated. 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).  

Moreover,  the  Commission  provided  specific  guidance  on  how  the  Fund  can  support  the 
correct  and  harmonised  application  of  the  Return  Directive.  Its  application  can  be  fully 
supported by the Fund, provided that the main objective and scope of the Fund is respected: 
actions  must  clearly  be  linked  to  a  return  procedure  and  address  the  target  groups.  For 
instance, while emergency health care is eligible during the period for voluntary departure and 
in  periods  for  which  removal  is  postponed,  the  Fund  should  not  finance  general  or  routine 
health care or any kind of health care of third-country nationals which is already financed by 
national  health  care  systems.  Likewise,  actions  related  to  care  and  support  services  in 
detention  centres  for  such  persons  can  be  charged  to  the  Fund  if  directly  linked  with  an 
imminent return operation. In light of the specific requirements in the directive, more general 
measures  such  as  the  separation  of  returnees  from  ordinary  prisoners  and  separate 
accommodation for families are also eligible.  

4.2. 

Putting in place assurances on the regularity and legality of spending  

While Member States are in charge of the management of the funds under the programmes, 
the Commission bears ultimate responsibility for the implementation of the EU budget. This 
responsibility  is  exercised  by  delegating  certain  tasks  to  the  Member  States,  subject  to  the 

11 

Decision No 458/2008/EC, OJ L167, 27.06.2008, p.135 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
necessary supervision and reporting. To that end, Member States are responsible for setting up 
a national management and control system for the Fund.  

Member States have designated a (1) Responsible Authority, responsible for the management 
of  the  programme,  where  appropriate  supported  by  a  delegated  authority,  (2)  an  Audit 
Authority, responsible for verifying the effective functioning of the management and control 
system, and (3) a Certifying Authority, in charge of certifying the declarations of expenditure 
before  they  are  sent  to  the  Commission.  Jointly,  these  authorities  are  in  charge  of  assuring 
sound financial management of the funds allocated to the Member State.  

For  this  Fund,  the  26  Member  States  set  up  their  system  in  2008.  20  systems  are  common 
with  other  Funds.  The  descriptions  of  the  systems  were  examined  on  compliance  with  the 
basic  act  before  the  first  payments  were  made.  Moreover,  between  2008  and  2010,  system 
audits were carried out in 16 Member States. Most systems appeared to function adequately, 
but  for  some  improvements  were  necessary.  This  concerned  in  particular  the  selection 
procedures: the need for transparency and an appropriate justification for the choice on the 
method in compliance with the implementing rules of the Fund. The preferred option is the 
"awarding body method" (open competition and selection as a general rule through an open 
call for proposals), and the exception, the "executing body method" (when the characteristics 
of  an  action/project  leave  no  choice  as  to  who  will  implement  it,  i.e.  in  case  of  de  iure 
monopoly).  For  the  Return  Fund,  the  latter  method  is  in  principle  applicable  to  public 
authorities  responsible  for  forced  return  operations  or  state  to  state  co-operation  on 
identification and issuance of travel documents. In some cases, Member States were requested 
to  split  activities  by  method  to  safeguard  the  principle  of  competition  for  those  activities 
which can be implemented by other than specific public bodies.  

From  the  examination  of  the  descriptions,  the  system  audits  and  the  other  available 
information  on  the  implementation  of  the  Fund,  it  emerges  that  most  of  the  Member  States 
have robust systems in place. At the end of 2010, "unqualified opinions" were issued for 83% 
of the systems. For another 15%, weaknesses were identified, but with limited impact. Only 
one  system,  covering  one  annual  programme  in  one  Member  State  required  major 
improvements, which have been enacted for future annual programmes.  

4.3. 

Defining national strategies for using EU resources smartly  

In multiannual programmes Member States have presented the national situation in terms of 
institutional  set-up,  policy  and  national  resources  available  at  the  baseline  situation  (2007). 
On the basis of a gaps analysis, Member States invariably identified the following strategic 
objectives: (1) more effective removal proceedings, including through joint return flights; (2) 
more efficient co-operation with third countries on identification, including through concerted 
efforts among Member States, and (3) an increase in the number of voluntary returns.  

To achieve more voluntary returns in particular, Member States committed themselves to use 
the Fund to enhance outreach activities, improve individual and tailor-made counselling and 
case  management  and  introduce  and/or  extend  assisted  voluntary  schemes,  cash  incentives 
and reintegration measures.  

Besides these more general objectives, specific national targets were set, such as  

EN 

7 

   EN 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

creating  return  plans  for  particular  target  countries  and/or  categories  of  potential 
returnees (i.e. Latin-Americans for Spain, return schemes for prisoners in the United 
Kingdom and Austria);  

filling  organisational  gaps  in  the  national  set-up  (i.e.  improving  information 
exchange  and  coordination  on  voluntary  return  between  the  stakeholders  and 
competent  authorities  in  Germany,  setting  up  a  readmission  office  in  Greece, 
boosting  consular  coverage  and  establishing  a  roving  ambassador  to  enhance 
identification methods in Malta); 

acquiring  equipment  to  enhance  capabilities  specific  to  return  management  (i.e. 
buses  for  transporting  returnees  from  centres  to  the  airports  in  Spain;  air  craft  to 
expand flight capacity in France; measures for vulnerable people in detention centres 
in Sweden and Estonia);  

developing  ICT  tools  to  underpin  efficient  case  management  among  the  competent 
bodies  or  setting  up  on  line  services  and/or  country  data  bases  for  returnees  and 
organisations  working  with  them  (notably  in  Belgium,  Finland,  France,  Italy  and 
Spain);  

doing research on return possibilities (for instance mapping the target population and 
the most appropriate measures to reach them in Portugal and Italy); and  

increasing  the  active  involvement  of  non-governmental  organisations,  migrant 
communities and/or local authorities in return processes (notably in the Netherlands, 
Slovenia and Sweden).  

All but four Member States programmed actions under priority 3 (specific innovative tools). 
Generally,  under  this  priority  the  following  objectives  were  set:  (1)  improving  co-operation 
with third countries on identification (nearly all Member States); (2) improving information to 
and counselling of returnees, including through on line websites for the returnees themselves 
(notably Austria, Cyprus, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands and Portugal) and 
(3) developing post-return reintegration measures beyond existing target groups, countries of 
return  and/or  kinds  of  assistance  (notably  Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  France,  Germany, 
Hungary,  Spain  and  Sweden).  While  these  objectives  correspond  more  or  less  to  the  three 
specific priorities enabling higher co-financing from the EU, in the implementation individual 
Member States have genuinely sought to develop new practices.  

On  the  basis  of  the  programmes  approved  by  the  Commission  to  date,  the  following  trends 
can be observed in the breakdown of EU resources among the priorities in 2008-201112:  

12 

2011 figures based on draft programmes in the process of being approved  

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
Table 2: EU contributions in programmes broken down by priority 2008-2011  

allocations  

year 

PRIORITY 1 

PRIORITY 2 

PRIORITY 3 

PRIORITY 4 

2008 

55.500.000 

71,5%  39.700.000 

10,6%  5.900.000 

13,3%  7.400.000 

4,5% 

2.500.000 

2009 

61.845.000 

80,7%  49.908.468 

3,7% 

2.303.791 

12,5%  7.710.554 

3,1% 

1.922.186 

2010 

81.725.000 

79,2%  64.726.200 

5,4% 

4.413.150 

11,5%  9.398.375 

3,9% 

3.187.275 

2011 

109.000.000  88,9%  96.868.300 

1,9% 

2.038.300 

6,92%  7.542.800 

2,34%  2.550.600 

TOTAL  308.070.000  81,5%  251.202.968  4,8% 

14.655.241  10,4%  32.051.729  3,3% 

10.160.061 

5. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF 2008 AND 2009 PROGRAMMES 

This chapter presents and compares the facts and figures on the implementation of the 2008 
and 2009 annual programmes as reported by the Member States in 2010. The overview is not 
based on results of projects completed and accounted for financially, as the 2008 final reports 
are under examination and the 2009 annual programme is still ongoing, with final reports only 
due by 31 March 2012. Moreover, as the deadline for requests for revision of the actions in 
the  2009  annual  programme  was  31  March  2011,  the  overview  figures  on  programmed 
actions  may  not  correspond  exactly  with  the  actions  actually  implemented  in  the  Member 
States.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
5.1. 

Quantitative aspects of the implementation by Member States  

5.1.1.  The breakdown of resources over the four EU priorities 

Graph 2: 2008-2009 total national and EU resources by priority and number of actions 

Priority 4 
€ 6.389.911,00
3%
52 actions
21 MS

Priority 3 
€ 28.787.502
13%
100 actions
22 MS

Priority 2 
€ 7.453.801
3%
33 actions
17 MS

Priority 1 
€ 175.802.804 
81%
154 actions
26 MS

For 2008-2009 the bulk of EU and national resources under the Fund went to support for 
national  individual  return  operations:  actions  under  priority  1  (assisted  voluntary  return 
programmes,  reintegration  measures,  identification  and  removals),  priority  2  (basically  joint 
return flights) and priority 3 (i.e. new working methods to speed up the return process, new 
ways of counselling potential returnees, tailor-made measures to reinforce reintegration and a 
sustainable return).  

– 

– 

– 

All  Member  States  have  chosen  priority  1  in  the  multiannual  programme  and 
budgetted for it both in 2008 and 2009, except for Ireland. Malta budgetted its entire 
resources in this period for priority 1.  

Seventeen  Member  States  implemented  priority  2,  focusing  mainly  on  joint  return 
flights. Several Member States, however, chose not to budget in the period concerned 
(Austria, Germany, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal). In general, such actions 
are  perceived  as  complicated  to  carry  out;  emphasis  was  put  on  launching  national 
actions first and securing consumption of the resources.  

While nearly all  Member  States have chosen to implement priority 3, in the period 
2008-2009  three  Member  States  in  particular  devoted  a  significant  part  of  their 
budget  for  actions  to  this  priority:  Germany  (43%),  Sweden  (60%)  and  Belgium 
(62%)  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
– 

Twenty-three Member States programmed actions for priority 4. By their nature the 
actions  have  a  relatively  low  financial  impact,  although  four  Member  States 
budgetted  a  relatively  large  share  of  their  allocation  to  this  priority  (about  30%  or 
more  in  Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania  and  Slovakia  under  one  or  two  of  the 
programmes).  As  they  are  not  taking  part  in  the  Return  Directive,  the  United 
Kingdom  and  Ireland  have  not  chosen  to  implement  this  priority;  like  the  Czech 
Republic they may programme training and research activities under other priorities.  

Table 3: Number of Member States by priority  

Priority  

2008-2013 period  

2008 programme 

2009 programme  

Strategic 

1. 
management  

return 

26 Member States  

25 except Ireland 

 26 

2.  Co-operation  with 
other Member States  

23 except Lithuania,  

Slovakia, Sweden 

3. Specific innovative 

25 except Estonia 

tools  

4. EU standards and 

best practices  

23  except  Czech  Republic, 
Ireland 
the  United 
Kingdom 

and 

13  except  Austria,  Estonia, 
Germany,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, 
Malta, 
the  Netherlands, 
Portugal,  Slovakia,  Spain 
and, Sweden  

15  except  Austria,  Finland,, 
Hungary, 
Germany, 
the 
Lithuania,  Malta, 
Netherlands, 
Portugal, 
Slovakia, Spain and Sweden 

20  except  Cyprus,  Estonia, 
Ireland,  Latvia,  Luxembourg 
and Malta 

22  except  Cyprus,  Estonia, 
Latvia and Malta 

15  except  Austria,  Bulgaria, 
Czech  Republic,  Estonia, 
Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Malta, 
the  Netherlands,  Poland, 
the  United 
Spain 
Kingdom 

and 

17  except  Czech  Republic, 
France,  Finland, 
Ireland, 
Luxembourg,  Malta,  Spain, 
Sweden  and 
the  United 
Kingdom  

5.1.2.  The number of actions  

In terms of the number of actions implemented, priority 1 is less dominating. This means 
that  the  budgeted  expenditure  per  action  under  priorities  2,  3  and  4  is  on  average  much 
smaller than under priority 1. 

Table 4: Number of actions by priority  

Total 

Percentage 

Priorities  

2008

2009

2008-2009 

2008-2009 

1. Strategic return management  

2. Co-operation with other MS  

3. Specific innovative tools  

4. EU standards and best practices  

75

14

46

19

79

19

54

33

Total 

154

185

154

33

100

52

339

45,4%

9,7%

29,5%

15,3%

100,0%

EN 

11 

   EN 

5.1.3.  Co-financing rates  

Cohesion  Fund  countries  have  all  used  to  the  full  extent  the  possibility  to  have  a  75%  co-
financing rate from the EU. There is one important exception: Spain, where the cofinancing 
percentage  for  the  annual  programmes  2008  and  2009  is  less  than  25%,  actions  being 
presented against the backdrop of the total national budget on return.  

For  the  other  Member  States  the  cofinancing  rate  varies  yearly.  It  ranges  between  38%  to 
73%.  In  Germany,  Belgium,  Finland  and  Sweden  co-financing  rates  are  invariably  above 
60%,  due  to  the  high  number  of  actions  responding  to  specific  priorities  (notably  under 
priority 3).  

For 2008 and 2009 the average rate came at 50%. If Spain were excluded though, the overall 
rate amounted to over 68%.  

Graph 3: 2008-2009 breakdown of total resources by origin of resource 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Priority 1

Priority 2

Priority 3

Priority 4

N° of countries

EU (M€)

Public (M€)

Private (M€)

26

81,76

92,06

1,98

17

4,79

2,65

0,12

22

17,58

9,28

1,92

21

4,23

1,83

0,33

5.1.4.  The selection processes used in 2008 and 2009  

Programmed actions are implemented through (one or more) projects, chosen either under the 
awarding body method or the executing body method.  

Under the awarding body method, nearly all Member States organised at least one open call 
for  proposals  for  each  annual  programme.  In  Cyprus,  France,  Ireland  and  Luxembourg, 
however, there was no such call for the 2008 programme. On the other hand, several Member 
States  had  to  launch  more  than  one  call  due  to  a  lack  of  interest  or  a  need  for  new  project 
applications.  

Most of the Member States received less than 10 proposals for each call. Only in Spain and 
Germany  there  was  much  more  interest  (for  2008  respectively  26  and  60,  for  2009 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
respectively  36  and  33).  For  2008,  in  15  Member  States  all  proposals  were  selected  for 
funding. For 2009, in 4 Member States all proposals were selected and in three others more 
than  2/3  of  the  proposals  were  selected.  No  Member  State  indicated  to  have  funded  any 
project without a call for proposals.  

Table 5: Selection under the awarding body method 

Annual programme  

project proposals received  projects selected for funding 

success rate  

2008 

2009 

185 

134 

146 

97 

80% 

72%  

Under  the  executing  body  method,  at  least  one  call  for  interest  to  the  public  authorities 
competent  in  the  area  of  return  was  common  among  nearly  all  Member  States,  although 
some  Member  States,  following  consultation  of  the  main  stakeholders  on  the  draft  annual 
programme,  either  had  no  separate  call  (notably  Greece  and  Italy)  or  generally  selected 
projects outside the framework of a call (Spain). Some Member States launched a number of 
consecutive calls for interest (notably France and Cyprus).  

For 2008, in 10 out of the 16 Member States which organised calls, all projects were selected. 
This was the case in 12 out of the 14 Member States for 2009.  

Table 6: Selection under the executing body method  

Annual programme  

project proposals received  projects selected for funding 

success rate  

2008 

2009 

72 

43 

55 

39 

76% 

91%  

In  addition,  in  9  Member  States  (Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Malta, 
Luxembourg, Romania and Spain) projects were funded without a call for interest for a total 
of 81 projects, with the highest number of such projects in Greece (47).  

As  for  the  importance  of  the  executing  body  method  in  programmes  as  a  whole, 
according  to  (incomplete)  information  provided  by  Member  States,  for  2008,  49%  of  the 
actions were under the executing body method. For 2009 this decreased to slightly less than 
40 %.  

The  share  for  such  government-run  projects  as  part  of  the  Member  State's  EU 
contribution varies significantly from country to country: 

– 

– 

In two main beneficiary States there is a very low percentage of such projects: in the 
United  Kingdom,  where  on  average  93%  of  the  allocations  were  channelled  to 
assisted voluntary return and reintegration measures, selected on a wide, open basis, 
and Germany, where more than 95% of the allocations were devoted to projects run 
by  non-governmental  organisations  on  counselling,  reintegration  and  voluntary 
return plans. 

In  most  other  Member  States  the  share  is  between  10  –  50%,  while  in  a  limited 
number  of  Member  States  the  average  is  higher  (above  70%  in  Bulgaria,  Italy, 

EN 

13 

   EN 

Poland,  Slovenia  and  Spain  and  even  above  90%  in  France  and  Greece),  given  in 
particular the focus on forced returns and the high expenses of such projects.  

– 

In  some  cases,  it  varies  significantly  from  one  year  to  the  other.  For  example,  in 
Romania  in  2008  there  were  only  such  projects  whereas  in  2009  nearly  37%  were 
awarding body method projects.  

Other factors than a preference for forced return projects may come into play as the share of 
the number of projects funded in the awarding body method usually depends on the number of 
applications received each year. In case the response rate is low or few applications qualify, 
the responsible authority may choose to do another call but could also be inclined, to accept a 
larger  share  of  executing  body  projects  (from  the  reserve)  instead,  to  secure  a  feasible  time 
table for effective implementation.  

Lastly,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  some  Member  States  the  executing  body  method 
was not only used for forced return projects but also for governmental projects of particular 
strategic value for the national return system such as studies, co-operation, network building 
or training schemes.  

5.2. 

Qualitative aspects of the implementation by Member States  

5.2.1.  The categories of actions identified under the Fund  

To  have  a  comprehensive  picture  of  the  nature  of  the  actions  under  the  Return  Fund,  the 
Commission  developed  a  analytical  model  to  classify  the  interventions.  It  has  a  two-tier 
structure:  

1. 

2. 

It  establishes  first  whether  the  interventions  target  primarily  either  voluntary  or 
forced  return.  Where  necessary,  a  category  of  "mixed"  is  used,  in  case  an  action 
cannot be classified predominantly as one or the other (for instance certain training 
activities). Projects relating to identification and travel documents are considered to 
be targeting forced return.  

It  then  classifies  the  action  according  to  its  nature:  from  research  and/or  strategy 
development to operations, capacity building, co-operation etc. Where it appears that 
an  action  was  multifunctional,  up  to  three  categories  were  indicated,  including  an 
estimated weighting attached to the action concerned.  

Having applied this model to the financial data available on the actions under the 2008-2009 
annual  programmes  as  reported  by  2010,  the  following  conclusions  were  drawn  about  the 
qualitative aspects of the implementation of the Fund under these programmes, regardless of 
the 2009 revisions that remained to be approved by the end of the eligibility period on 30 June 
2011:  

– 

– 

Based on the first level of analysis: nearly 53% of the resources were budgetted for 
the  implementation  of  forced  return  measures,  43  %  were  taken  up  for  supporting 
voluntary return activities and 4% consisted of activities conducive to either type of 
departure;  

Based  on  the  second  level  of  analysis:  about  77%  of  the  resources  were  put  into 
concrete  and  individual  return  operations  and  assistance  to  the  target  groups 

EN 

14 

   EN 

(voluntary  return  operations,  forced  return  operations,  counselling  and  information, 
assistance to vulnerable persons); co-operation with third countries, aiming at setting 
the  pre-conditions  for  removals  and/or  repatriation  (identification  and  obtaining 
travel documents), amounted to 3 %, co-operation between Member States to 2% and 
general  capacity  building  measures  (strategy  development,  staff,  infrastructure  and 
tools, research/best practices) accounted for the remainder (18%).  

Table 7: 2008-2009 first level analysis (by resources)  

Typology level 1  

 2008  

percentage 
2008 

2009 

percentage 
2009 

average 2008-2009 

voluntary return  

44.156.100  

42,6 % 

47.333.822 

41,2 %  41,9% (91.489.922) 

forced return  

55.685.887  

53,7 % 

59.236.649 

51,6 %  52,6% (114.922.536) 

mixed category  

3.770.382  

3,6 % 

8.251.176 

7,2 %  5,5% (12.021.558) 

total  

103.612.369 

114.821.647 

218.434.016 

Table 8: 2008-2009 second level analysis (by number of actions)  

Typology level 2  

2008  

2009  

2008+2009  

Number  of 
actions 

percentual 
share 

number  of 
actions 

percentual 
share 

overall 
average 

1. return management (strategy) 

2. voluntary return (operations) 

3. forced return (operations) 

4. counselling and information 

23 

41 

32 

38 

5. assistance to vulnerable persons  24 

6. capacity building of staff  

42 

7. 
capacity 
infrastructure and tools  

building 

– 

18 

8.  capacity  building  –  research  / 
best practices  

9.  co-operation  between  Member 
States  

31 

25 

co-operation  with 

10 
countries  

third 

33 

4 

24 

42 

12 

3 

3 

3 

4 

2 

2 

22 

51 

36 

43 

25 

45 

19 

47 

32 

38 

1 

26 

33 

12 

4 

3 

11 

4 

2 

3 

45 

92 

68 

81 

49 

87 

37 

78 

57 

71 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Graph 4: 2008-2009 second level analysis – breakdown of actions by four main categories  

RF 2008 and 2009 - type and number of actions

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

133

114

155

135

32
25

Capacity building

Operations and assistance

Cooperation between MS

2008

2009

38

33

Cooperation with third
countries

5.2.2.  Types of beneficiaries of the EU contribution  

Respectively 54,5% and 53,2 % of the 2008 and 2009 EU contributions under the Fund were 
allocated  to  actions  implemented  by  public  authorities,  19,8%  and  19,2%  to  non-
governmental organisations and 25,7% and 27,6% to international organisations (in particular 
the International Organisation for Migration, hereafter IOM).  

5.2.3.  Examples of projects carried out under priority 1 

A. 

Assisted voluntary return programmes  

The  Stockholm  programme  calls  upon  Member  States  to  encourage  voluntary  return, 
including through the development of incentive systems, training, reintegration and subsidies 
and by using the possibilities offered by EU financial instruments.  

About 55,5 M € was budgetted to this purpos e according to the programmes.  

Member  States  are  at  different  levels  of  the  development  of  assisted  voluntary  return,  as 
evidenced  by  a  recent  study  of  EMN13  and  the  baseline  description  in  the  multi-annual 
programmes. Accordingly, the efforts in this area could be classified as follows:  

1. In the absence of any (permanent) schemes, the development of pilot projects and/or the 
introduction  of  an  assisted  voluntary  return  programme  (i.e.  in  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Finland, 
Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Slovenia);  

2. The consolidation of recently established (basic) services or programmes by extending the 
duration and/or gradually increasing the number of persons who can avail themselves of the 
assistance (i.e. in Slovakia);  

13 

http://emn.intrasoft-intl.com/Downloads/prepareShowFiles.do?entryTitle=3%2E%20EMN%20Studies 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.  The  (systematic)  extension  of  well-established  programmes  by  including  a  higher  target 
population,  new  (specific)  target  groups  such  as  vulnerable  persons  and/or  broadening  the 
nature of the assistance provided (in particular in four of the main beneficiary Member States, 
namely France, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom); 

4. The introduction of specific and innovative tailor made measures, in particular with a 
view  to  more  sustainable  return  and  the  development  of  a  distinct  reintegration  component 
(i.e. in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany).  

In  Latvia,  within  the  context  of  developing  a  long  term  strategy  on  return  management, 
several  research  projects  were  funded  under  the  2008  programme  to  develop  models  for 
voluntary  return  and  reintegration  best  suited  to  Latvia,  taking  into  account  the  size  of  the 
target  population,  EU  legislation  and  best  practices  in  other  countries.  In  the  same  vein,  in 
Estonia, thanks to a number of projects in the 2008 and 2009 programmes the first steps were 
set towards the introduction of an assisted voluntary return programme and a consultation and 
support structure for returnees. In Malta two projects under the 2008 and 2009 programmes 
served  to  boost  activities  on  assisted  voluntary  return.  Another  project  sought  to  strengthen 
Malta's long term management capabilities on return. In all three countries, IOM was among 
the project beneficiaries.  

In  Finland  one  multi-annual  project,  having  started  in  2009,  aimed  to  establish  a 
comprehensive  voluntary  return  system.  There  is  no  national  assisted  voluntary  return 
programme to date in this country and the project's purpose is to provide travel assistance and 
financial  aid  for  reintegration,  to  enhance  co-operation  between  operators  dealing  with 
voluntary return and boost the availability of information for potential returnees. 

Many countries benefited from the experiences of IOM to provide a more general package of 
return measures. For instance, in Slovakia, as part of an action on assisted voluntary return 
and reintegration, IOM organised a campaign to reach the non-registered migrants, targeting 
areas  where  they  were  expected  to  live.  As  a  result  of  the  campaign,  47  such  persons  were 
returned, whereas the year before none were. In the Netherlands, IOM ran a project to inform 
and  counsel  detainees,  whilst  also  enhancing  the  capacity  for  assisted  voluntary  return  in 
detention  centres  in  general.  In  Portugal,  under  the  2008  programme,  IOM  helped  set  up  a 
network  of  national  and  international  partners,  essentially  NGO's  in  Latin-America,  to 
develop  further  the  structure  for  assisted  voluntary  return.  In  a  successor  project,  besides 
maintaining  basic  services  and  providing  support  packages  for  about  550  persons,  IOM 
further  enhanced  the  network,  developed  a  clear  communication  strategy  and  reinforced  the 
services for reintegration and post-arrival monitoring and support. In Poland IOM provided a 
full  array  of  services  with  2008  and  2009  funding:  promotion,  travel  and  reintegration 
assistance, trainings for staff of reception centres, support to vulnerable persons, registration 
and the maintenance of a database, and the organisation of a conference to promote the idea of 
voluntary return among non-governmental organisations and authorities.  

In many other countries, in parallel to actions to consolidate or extend the existing schemes, 
the Fund was used to test or introduce new specific elements. In Slovakia, actions consisted 
in expanding  the existing schemes by including, besides the usual cost, also support for the 
preparation of reintegration plans, and assistance with reintegration in the country of return. In 
Italy,  following  an  action  supporting  the  regular  scheme  in  2008,  focus  was  put  on 
reintegration measures in 2009.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

Moreover, in several Member States (for instance Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, Italy, Spain 
and  Poland)  projects  were  financed  on  specific  assistance  to  vulnerable  persons,  such  as 
families,  minors  or  victims  of  trafficking.  In  France,  support  is  provided  for  emergency 
medical  care,  appropriate  accommodation  within  the  meaning  of  the  Directive  and  return 
arrangements for unaccompanied minors who have remained in the transit zone at the airport 
Roissy.  In  Hungary  there  was  the  "Home  again"  project,  in  which  a  small  number  of 
Bosnians  with  health  problems  were  repatriated  in  close  co-operation  with  appropriate 
Bosnian counterparts, with all due diligence and care.  

In the Netherlands, a small non-governmental organisation assisted migrants with developing 
an economic activity in the country of return. Volunteers developed toolkits and supported the 
return of 23 third country nationals with a budget of 120.000 €.  

France  used  its  EU  contributions  in  a  strategic  manner  to  undertake  a  series  of 
complementary  actions  in  this  area,  ranging  from  counselling  and  information  to  financial 
incentives to specific information and reintegration measures. One action extended financial 
allowances  to  encourage  return  to  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals,  beyond  the 
framework of its existing programme (3,5 M €, 39% of the 2008 progr amme). Another action 
assisted persons in the Calaisis region to return to their country of origin, inter alia by raising 
awareness of the risks of attempted passage to the United Kingdom, the precarious conditions 
they may find there and the risks inherent in maintaining their illegal residence in France (0,9 
M €). In general, the Fund enabled France to in crease the uptake of financial incentives (in 
2008 2227 migrants benefited from the scheme, a 9% increase compared to 2007) as well as 
to increase the size of the incentives per capita.  

In the reporting period the United Kingdom allocated the highest EU contribution from the 
Fund,  14  M  €,  to  assisted  voluntary  return  me asures.  The  Fund  supported  the  Voluntary 
Assisted  Return  &  Reintegration  Programme  (VARRP),  the  Voluntary  Return  and 
Reintegration  of  Detained  Migrants  (VRRDM)  and  the  Facilitated  Return  Scheme  (FRS) 
(cash payments). The VARRP, as implemented under the 2008 programme, has already been 
evaluated as successful: monitoring data indicated important increases, compared to previous 
years,  in  the  number  of  applications,  actual  departures  and  the  use  made  of  reintegration 
assistance.  In  particular,  the  development  of  individual  return  plans  and  the  delivery  and 
contents of reintegration assistance was positively assessed by respondents.  

B. 

Counselling and information  

About 25,8 M € was budgetted to this purpose acco rding to the programmes. Many Member 
States  developed  actions  on  information  and  counselling  (e.g.  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria, 
Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Greece,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Malta,  the  Netherlands, 
Poland, Slovakia and Spain)14.  

Some  examples  of  actions  in  this  area  impacting  on  a  significant  proportion  of  the  target 
population are the following:  

– 

14 

EN 

The  2009  programme  of  Greece  paid  for  the  deployment  of  interpreters,  social 
workers and psychologists to provide services to returnees, including in Athens and 
Crete, for an EU contribution of 1 M €. 

Some of these projects, however, are innovative projects under priority 3.  

18 

   EN 

                                                 
– 

– 

– 

In  the  Netherlands,  2009  support  was  provided  for  extending  the  geographical 
coverage of the "native counsellors" network beyond the major cities and reinforcing 
co-operation with local authorities, with an EU contribution of about 1 M €.  

In Austria, four  non-governmental  organisations counselled third-country nationals 
both in and outside detention facilities, reaching, in detention, more than 6.000 third 
country nationals of whom about 19% decided to return voluntarily, and, outside the 
facilities,  more  than  6.000  third  country  nationals  of  whom  about  58%  decided  to 
return  voluntarily.  The  EU  contribution  for  the  2008  and  2009  projects  combined 
came to 1,8 M €.  

In  Germany  the  2008  and  2009  programmes  enabled  various  non-governmental 
organisations to provide counselling and information in different Länder in about 25 
projects  to  the  tune  of  2,2  M  €  (EU  c ontribution).  Thanks  to  the  2008  projects, 
10.402  counsel  sessions  took  place  and  1382  persons  repatriated  voluntarily. 
Certainly as far as the 2008 programme was concerned, the activities have reinforced 
the structures for counselling and the co-operation and networks between the various 
actors  for  that  purpose.  Moreover,  due  to  the  complementarity  with  the  services 
available under the REAG /GARP programme, those activities under the Fund have 
increased  the  success  of  this  assisted  voluntary  programme  for  refugees  and 
(rejected) asylum seekers.  

C. 

Forced returns  

About 81 M € was budgetted to this purpose accor ding to the programmes. All Member States 
co-financed forced returns (i.e. flight management, travel and subsistence costs of escorts and 
travel  expenses  for  the  returnees)  except  Austria,  Finland,  Germany,  Portugal,  Sweden  and 
the Netherlands. In the United Kingdom there was only a small project aiming to encourage 
greater working with other Member States in the field of enforced returns the model of which 
is  being  capitalised  on,  inter  alia  through  joint  return  flights;  the  bulk  of  the  programme 
concerned voluntary return.  

In most Member States the share for forced return expenditure in relation to the total budget is 
between 10-30%. Certainly in absolute terms, a considerable part of the EU contribution was 
spent  for  such  operations  under  the  two  programmes  in  four  main  beneficiaries,  namely 
France (2,8 M €),  Greece (7,8 M €),  Italy (6,9 M €) and  Spain (6,3 M €). In relative terms, 
the share of expenditure budgetted was also high in countries with lower allocations such as 
Cyprus, Luxembourg and Poland.  

Besides  regular  return  operations,  a  few  innovative  projects  were  funded,  among  which  the 
following:  

– 

In  Belgium  two  projects  ("Return  of  families"  and  "Return  of  persons  with  special 
needs") were carried out by the authorities to develop alternatives to detention. Both 
projects consisted of the adaptation of the family houses / reception facilities so that 
the families / persons with special needs would be cared for separately from the other 
residents of closed centres. In order to prepare the return and a possible reintegration 
in  the  countries  of  origin,  trained  coaches  were  employed  who  guided  the  persons 
through the return procedure and assisted them on a daily basis. At an early stage, the 
possibility  of  voluntary  return  is  still  offered.  The  second  project  also  comprised 

EN 

19 

   EN 

provision  of  tailored  medical  and  psychological  assistance.  The  first  project  was 
already positively evaluated by some non-governmental organisations.  

– 

In Spain, first aid courses were given for police escorts involved in return operations 
on  charter  flights,  regular  shipping  lines  and  commercial  flights  where  they  travel 
alone.  

5.2.4.  Examples of projects carried out under priority 2  

The  share  of  expenditure  regarding  this  priority  was  usually  very  small,  except  in  Ireland. 
This  Member  State  used  70%  of  its  resources  to  pay  for  joint  return  flights,  including  the 
entire allocation in 2008.  

Member  States  either  financed  exclusively  joint  return  flights  (Belgium,  Cyprus,  France, 
Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Romania),  a  mixture  of  joint  flights  with  co-operation  and 
capacity building measures (Bulgaria, Poland, Slovenia) or primarily focused on exchange 
of  best  practices  with  other  Member  States,  including  preparatory  measures  for  better  co-
operation with third countries (Czech Republic, Latvia and United Kingdom).  

A. 

Joint return flights  

Generally Member States financed one or a handful of flights only. The total EU contribution 
for joint flights budgetted amounted to about 3,6 M €. These flights  were complementary to 
the flights coordinated by Frontex.  

B. 

Other forms of co-operation  

In Estonia a project was financed to increase the operational co-operation on obtaining travel 
documents  between  the  consular  services  in  Latvia,  Lithuania  and  Estonia  on  the  one  hand, 
and immigration services in third countries on the other.  

5.2.5.  Examples of projects carried out under priority 3  

A. 

Innovative ways and means of counselling and informing potential returnees  

Thanks  to  two  2008  projects  Bulgaria  carried  out  an  information  campaign  to  promote 
voluntary return (video clips, a documentary, 53.000 information material (flyers, bill boards, 
and brochures) and improved the co-operation between non-governmental organisations, IOM 
and the authorities in this area. Similarly, in the Czech Republic a nationwide campaign took 
place, using 2008 and 2009 resources. 

Having  acknowledged  that  the  possibilities  of  information  and  counselling  on  return  was 
never systematically shared throughout Italy, the Fund was used to set up a "referral network" 
of  local  authorities  and  non-governmental  organisations  throughout  its  territory,  to  organise 
information and awareness raising sessions and to develop and distribute widely information 
material  in  many  languages.  Moreover,  in  a  successor  project  in  the  2009  programme, 
trainings of staff in the referral network were undertaken and seminars with representatives of 
third countries organised. Together with a mapping exercise of the migrant communities to set 
up  more  effective  dissemination  methods  to  the  target  population  and  sessions  to  exchange 
practices and experiences on return between all different actors under priority 4, these projects 
helped lay the foundations for the development of assisted voluntary return in Italy.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

In Greece, further to study visits to other Member States, the 2009 programme supported the 
strategic  development  of  assisted  voluntary  return  by  cofinancing  an  information  campaign 
and providing travel assistance to 300-400 persons. Following the positive results of this pilot 
project, resources freed under the revised programme were redirected to provide an additional 
few  hundred  people  with  similar  support  as  well  as  with  some  post-return  assistance  in  the 
form  of  pocket  money.  The  intentions  of  the  Greek  authorities  are  to  increase  significantly, 
with the help of the Fund, the public support for such voluntary return operations in the years 
to come.  

Innovative  incentives  for  increasing  voluntary  return  based  on  the  dignity  of  the 

B. 
persons involved (in particular reintegration)  

Under priority 3, projects on reintegration assistance (including training, setting up business 
projects, start-up support and follow-up assessment in the country of return etc) were funded 
in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania and Spain.  

In  France  reintegration  measures  were  supported  under  each  programme  to  enhance  the 
sustainability  of  returns  to  some  African  countries.  Following  individual  intakes  and  return 
plans,  returnees  had  the  opportunity  to  develop  economic  activities  and  receive  support  in 
setting up businesses in situ.  

In  Sweden  9  out  13  projects  under  the  two  programmes  supported  priority  3.  They  have  in 
common a focus on new ways of co-operation between different entities. In one project, co-
operation  was  set  up  between  a  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  an  immigration  authority  in  an 
African  country.  Information  and  training  sessions  were  organised  for  200  nationals  of  the 
country concerned; individual business plans were developed, and a visit was organised for 15 
persons to prepare themselves in situ. As part of the project support was given to educational 
facilities in the country concerned. 

In  Belgium  22  out  of  35  projects  under  the  two  programmes  supported  priority  3.  Some 
projects sought to improve the return strategies and boost capacity building in general in the 
country, for example a learning programme for individual return counsellors. Across the two 
programmes,  under  this  priority  specific  reintegration  measures  were  supported  for  a  total 
budget of 2,5 M € consisting of:  

– 

– 

the  context  of 

Capacity  building  measures  (in 
the  development  of  new 
methodologies,  a  research  project  on  best  practices  in  return  and  reintegration  of 
persons with mental and physical disabilities in six Member States, on the one hand, 
and  projects  to  remedy  weaknesses  in  the  capabilities  of  non-governmental 
reintegration partners playing a role in the national assisted voluntary return strategy, 
on the other); and  

to 

individual 

Support 
return  operations  extending  current  approaches  on 
reintegration,  combined  with  the  development  of  new  methodologies  (four  IOM 
projects to develop tailor made assistance packages as an innovative addition to the 
existing, generic reintegration programme and two Caritas projects for specific target 
groups/  countries  on  a  more  comprehensive  assisted  voluntary  return  programme, 
including reintegration support and follow-up in the destination country).  

In Germany 44 out of 99 projects under the two programmes supported priority 3 for a total 
of  5,6  M  €  (about  41  %  of  the  total  budget  assigne d  to  the  Fund).  With  the  except  of  two 

EN 

21 

   EN 

projects  on  travel  documents,  innovative  return  plans  and  other  measures  to  increase 
voluntary  return  were  co-financed.  For  some  projects  emphasis  was  put  on  particular  target 
groups and/or countries of return, for others on new forms of reintegration assistance.  

C. 

Testing new working methods to speed up the process of documenting returnees  

About  5,5  M  €  was  budgetted  for  co-operation  with  third  countries  according  to  the 
programmes, but this amount relates also to projects under the other priorities. Under priority 
3, many Member States undertook projects to build an effective, stable and lasting operational 
co-operation with authorities in third countries, with a view to obtaining travel documents and 
ensuring speedy and successful removals. By way of illustration some examples of the extent 
to which the financial support was used in an innovative way and brought direct results:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

In  Romania  a  new  mechanism  of  co-operation  with  diplomatic  missions  of  third 
countries  which  have  no  embassy  in  the  country  was  developed.  In  about  15 
missions, for the first time, staff of the authorities could discuss concrete cases with 
the  immigration  authorities  of  the  third  countries.  The  discussions  led  to  faster 
procedures and improved work relations. 

In Poland  resources under the 2008 and 2009 programmes were used to develop a 
special  programme  for  facilitating  work  relationships  with  the  immigration 
authorities  from  one  key  third  country,  based  on  regular  visits  from  experts  from 
those  authorities  to  Poland  and  visits  back  by  Polish  authorities.  Travel  cost  and 
allowances  were  covered,  as  well  as  the  transport  of  potential  returnees  from 
detention  facilities  to  the  venues  used  for  identification.  By  establishing  direct  and 
regular contacts, the readmission process  was greatly facilitated and the foundation 
was laid for an effective, stable and long-term co-operation.  

In  Slovenia,  as  part  of  an  action  to  improve  co-operation  with  third  countries  on 
identification,  co-operation  with  non-governmental  organisations  and  a  network  of 
translators were established to provide assistance to the authorities in communicating 
with potential returnees.  

In Spain, the Fund was used to systematically support a series of training seminars 
for immigration authorities from about ten different African countries of origin, both 
in  their  countries  and  in  Spain.  As  a  result  of  the  mutual  trust  created  in  an  easy 
operational setting, communication and co-operation has improved.  

In  Sweden  one  project  aimed  to  increase  the  ways  of  identifying  third-country 
nationals  through  meetings  between  the  authorities  and  the  immigration  authority 
based  at  the  international  airport  of  a  key  country  of  origin  for  Sweden  for  which 
readmission had been difficult so far. 

D. 

Other innovative measures  

The authorities in Greece undertook, with 2009 funding, study visits to other Member States 
to inspire a national approach to promote voluntary return.  

In  Hungary  two  fact  finding  missions  were  carried  out  to  a  third  country  of  particular 
importance to establish a comprehensive and topical country report to improve quality of the 

EN 

22 

   EN 

counselling. The missions were prepared together with experts from other Member States and 
IOM.  

In some countries actions focused on information management under this priority. In Belgium 
IT  tools  were  developed  for  case  management  in  closed  centres,  to  speed  the  co-operation 
between immigration and police authorities and for the central collection and analysis of data 
on  irregular  stay.  In  Spain  it  concerned  an  integrated  IT  system  to  manage  the  voluntary 
return programme.  

5.2.6.  Examples of projects carried out under priority 4  

A. 

Evaluation and research 

Under this priority quite some Member States undertook studies: 

– 

– 

– 

Austria funded a project to compare the national existing voluntary return activities 
in  terms  of  target  population,  costs,  co-operation  mechanisms  and  to  develop 
synergies and economies of scale.  

Bulgaria  developed  an  integrated  strategy,  serving  as  the  basis  for  its  national 
strategic  programme  for  integrated  return  management  2011-2013.  An  action  plan 
was  developed  to  implement  it  and  further  research  on  best  practices  in  other 
Member  States  was  undertaken  through  a  working  group  involving  also  non-
governmental organisations.  

Portugal  mapped  the  immigrant  communities  and  their  means  of  acquiring 
information,  on  the  basis  of  interviews  with  stakeholders,  in  order  to  better 
disseminate the possibilities of its return programme among migrant communities.  

B. 

Training and exchange activities 

Training  projects  generally  paid  either  for  training  of  police  officers  (escorts)  on  standards 
and  best  practices  regarding  forced  return  (Cyprus,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Romania,  Slovakia), 
staff  of  various  national  authorities  on  return  management  in  general  (Poland,  Latvia, 
Lithuania,  Slovakia);  language  training  (Latvia,  Slovenia,  Slovakia)  or  concerned  human 
rights  standards  and/or  standards  on  return  (Bulgaria,  Hungary).  In  Greece  a  series  of 
training  seminars  took  place  for  police  officers  on  various  aspects  of  return  management, 
including escort practices, readmission procedures, human rights standards and the treatment 
of  vulnerable  persons.  While  it  concerned  a  relatively  small  amount,  the  systematic  and 
comprehensive approach was innovative. In Poland a foundation organised staff trainings to 
improve the service in small centres in a specific region bordering Ukraine and published a 
guide of good practices.  

Member  States  used  the  Fund  to  enable  staff  to  learn  from  experiences  in  other  Member 
States. Hungary funded study visits to several Member States for staff of both executive and 
judicial bodies working on return, whereas Lithuania funded such visits for escorts and staff 
of  return  authorities.  Latvia  spent  53  %  of  its  2008  resources  to  three  projects  under  this 
priority: one on seminars on best practices and visits to other Member States, another one on 
training on return management for border guards and immigration authorities and a third one 
on  language  training  for  employees  involved  in  return  management.  In  addition,  various 
training projects included participation or input by experts from other Member States.  

EN 

23 

   EN 

So  far  the  Fund  was  not  used  to  organise  specific  national  trainings  for  practitioners  on  the 
application  of  the  Return  directive,  although  Hungary  organised  a  conference  between 
Member States on the directive. It was probably too early, given the deadline of transposition 
of 24 December 2010.  

6. 

OVERALL PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION  

6.1. 

Observations made by the Member States  

6.1.1.  As concerns the results achieved  

Member States gave a (partly) positive overall assessment on the implementation of the Fund. 
They  report  that  at  least  for  the  2008  programme,  completed  in  the  reporting  period,  the 
desired results, as defined in the multiannual strategy, were generally achieved.  

Several Member States highlight in this context particular achievements regarding voluntary 
return: the development of a holistic approach in national policies supporting voluntary return 
(Italy); the increased capacity to carry out assisted voluntary return activities (Estonia, Malta 
and  Romania);  the  implementation  of  assisted  voluntary  return  programmes,  including  the 
introduction of new tools, a website and a free telephone service, as well the evaluation of the 
programmes  (Hungary);  the  enhancement  of  the  counselling  structures,  rendering  more 
effective the existing assisted voluntary return programme (Germany); the fact that the Fund 
simply made it possible for a greater number of migrants to return voluntarily (Spain) or for 
many  third-country  nationals  to  make  a  dignified,  orderly  and  sustainable  return  and  to 
receive reintegration assistance once there (United Kingdom).  

Moreover, quite a few Member States referred to the usefulness of the Fund in assisting civil 
society  to  contribute  to  voluntary  return.  Poland  underlined  that  without  the  Fund  non-
governmental  organisations  would  not  have  had  sufficient  resources  to  undertake  voluntary 
return  activities,  while  Romania  referred  to  the  first  steps  in  developing  partnerships  with 
non-governmental organisations under the Fund and Portugal to the possibility to continue to 
improve the voluntary return network in its country thanks to the Fund.  

6.1.2.  As concerns the challenges encountered during the implementation  

At  the  same  time,  many  Member  States  emphasized  the  challenges  encountered  during  the 
implementation of the first two programmes.  

– 

– 

Firstly,  certainly  for  the  2008  programme,  the  delays  in  the  approval  of  the  annual 
programmes affected the implementation period and in some Member States, the size 
of  the  allocation  actually  committed  and  spent.  Activities  for  the  first  two 
programmes often ran in parallel and in a condensed implementation period. Member 
States  which  planned  well  and/or  ahead  managed  to  spend  the  entire  EU 
contribution.  

Secondly,  the  implementing  rules  and  in  particular  the  rules  for  the  eligibility  of 
expenditure,  were  perceived  as  too  complicated.  For  many  Member  States  the 
resulting  administrative  work  load,  in  terms  of  guidance,  management  verifications 
and audits, was deemed not proportionate to the aim of running an efficient funding 
programme, in the light of the size of their allocations.  

EN 

24 

   EN 

– 

Thirdly, open and wide selection procedures did not always lead to pertinent project 
applications. This may have been due to national factors such as a limited number of 
potential  entities  qualified  and/or  willing  to  run  projects  for  the  Fund,  specific 
administrative and reporting constraints imposed under national rules, the time frame 
for effective implementation of projects etc. However, EU rules may also have been 
perceived  by  potential  applicant  organisations  as  cumbersome,  in  particular  the 
requirements  on  audit  trail  and  documentation  or  the  limitations  on  eligibility.  For 
instance, the cost incurred for post-return reintegration assistance was limited to six 
months and this occasionally impeded tailor-made solutions.  

Accordingly,  Member  States  felt  constraint  to  revise  the  annual  programmes  to  secure  the 
optimal  use  of  the  EU  contribution.  For  the  2008  annual  programme,  the  Commission 
approved  10  revised  programmes  of  which  at  least  five  were  primarily  meant  to  adjust  the 
programme  taking  into  account  the  result  of  the  open  call  for  proposals,  while  three  others 
resulted from revisions in the national budget planning.  

To  mitigate  these  challenges  and  upon  feedback  from  the  Member  States,  the  Commission 
considerably  simplified  the overall framework  for  eligibility rules for  expenditure, extended 
the duration for financing of post-return reintegration assistance to one year and extended the 
eligibility period from 2 to 2½ years and allowing for more time for submitting revisions of 
the programmes, thus allowing for a better absorption of the EU contribution. Moreover, the 
Fund  being  a  new  EU  financial  instrument,  those  individual  Member  States  with  starting 
difficulties  have  consistently  received  more  guidance  from  the  Commission.  The  effects  of 
these  changes  will  surely  be  more  visible  for  the  implementation  of  2010  programmes  and 
onwards.  

6.2. 

Assessment by the Commission  

Having reviewed the reports from Member States, and taking into account other information, 
including  from  monitoring  missions,  the  Commission  finds  that,  despite  starting  difficulties 
and  some  specific  issues  with  the  rules  and  implementation,  the  Fund  is  living  up  to  its 
promise to boost the implementation of integrated return management in Member States.  

– 

– 

In  a  number  of  Member  States  thanks  to  specific  information  campaigns,  further 
information  on  return  possibilities  was  made  available  and  disseminated  widely  to 
migrant communities in Member States. In some cases, these outreach efforts were 
based on the practical experiences of persons who have returned and are enjoying a 
successful reintegration in their countries of origin.  

The  Fund  supported  the  introduction  or  consolidation  of  return  management 
practices  which  had  been  almost  non-existent  in  many  Member  States  beforehand. 
Projects  successfully  enhanced  the  capabilities  of  government  services,  in  co-
operation  with  non-governmental  organisations  and/or  the  IOM,  to  encourage  the 
voluntary  return  of  migrants  and  asylum  seekers.  Assisted  voluntary  return 
programmes were consolidated or extended to cater for aid to more third-country 
nationals.  Several  projects  on  counselling  and  reintegration  supported 
the 
development  of  innovative and more tailor-made  tools for return management 
that can be rolled out more comprehensively in the coming years. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

– 

– 

– 

– 

In  addition,  thanks  to  the  Fund,  Member  States  were  able  to  offer  more  or  higher 
financial  incentives  and/or  support  to  returnees  for  setting  up  income-
generating activities, thus resulting in sustainable returns.  

In  the  area  of  forced  return,  the  Fund  was  consistent  with  the  activities  of  the 
Frontex  Agency  on  the  coordination  of  joint  return  operations.  Member  States 
have  successfully  used  the  resources  under  the  Fund  for  national  and  joint  return 
flights which complemented the efforts made by the Agency.  

Moreover,  the cooperation projects  between Member  States and countries  of  return 
have  resulted  in  an  increase  in  the  number  of  removals  by  improving  working 
arrangements  with  third  countries  on  the  identification  and  issuing  of  travel 
documents.  

Finally,  the  Fund  has  also  generated  opportunities  for  further  exchange  of 
experience between Member States. Less experienced Member States are making 
use  of  this  funding  to  learn  from  the  Member  States  that  have  long  standing 
experience.  

In terms of results, the Fund has therefore already undoubtedly led to the optimisation of the 
measures  for  assisted  voluntary  return,  a  reduction  in  the  length  of  stay  in  reception  and/or 
detention  centres,  improved  dissemination  of  information  to  the  target  population  on  return 
options and an increase in the number of third-country nationals actually taking advantage of 
the  opportunity  of  voluntary  return,  benefiting  from  more  dignity  and  better  prospects  than 
they would have encountered, if they had been subject to a forced removal.  

7. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  

7.1. 

Possible improvements for the remainder of the multiannual period  

The above assessment was based only on the first two programming years of the Fund, with 
no closure reports available. The submission of this report was timed to assist the European 
Parliament and the Council with the preparation for the next multiannual financial framework 
and not yet to provide a comprehensive and final evaluation.  

The results are not necessarily representative. The first two annual programmes were drafted 
and  implemented  under  considerable  time  pressure  and  with  limited  experience  in  shared 
management,  with  voluntary  return  projects  for  specific  target  groups  under  the  ERF 
programmes  (2000-2007),  as  well  as  some  experiences  with  transnational  projects  under 
direct management (2005-2007).  

The 2010 programming exercise went much faster. With the experiences gained in this first 
phase, and capitalising on the changes in the implementing rules, Member States are in a good 
starting position to optimise further the use of funds.  

In  the  future,  programmes  could  promote  a  more strategic focus on EU standards and more 
systematically  seek  to  enhance  co-operation  between  Member  States.  Implementation  of 
actions  would  benefit  from  a  more  stable  financial  and  long  term  planning  and  efforts  to 
communicate more effectively results among stakeholders and to the outside world.  

EN 

26 

   EN 

– 

– 

– 

– 

With  the  deadline  for  transposition  of  the  Return  Directive  expired,  the  two  main 
building  blocks  of  the  EU  return  policy,  the  Fund  and  the  Directive,  are  in  place. 
Thanks  to  the  increase  in  allocations  in  the  coming  period,  the  Fund  will  endow 
Member States with the means to make compliance with the key requirements 
under the Directive and the twin principles of the primacy of voluntary return 
and the humane and dignified treatment of potential returnees as cornerstones 
of  return  management  a  concrete  reality  throughout  the  EU.  Thus,  Member 
States  can  step  up  efforts  on  voluntary  return,  refurbish  and  modernise  detention 
facilities  for  minors  and  families,  develop  training  programmes  on  EU  standards, 
new monitoring and evaluation tools and accompany better the period for voluntary 
departure set by the Directive and, where appropriate, beyond, with the best possible 
services on counselling and assisted voluntary return.  

Using  the  Fund,  Member  States  could  do  far  more  to  promote  practical  co-
operation and reduce duplication of efforts in co-operation with third countries, 
training activities, and the gathering of information on the situation in countries 
in return. In general terms, time and again Member States are insisting on more co-
operation  regarding  travel  documents,  contacts  with  third  countries,  readmission 
processes etc. The relatively small size of the allocations devoted to priority 2 does 
not do justice to the challenge. So far no Member States have implemented projects 
which  jointly  set  up  tailor-made  return  plans,  reintegration  policies,  monitoring 
missions  or  co-operation  with  consular  services  for  specific  countries  of  return. 
While such projects may require some more coordination and/or balancing different 
national  funding  schemes,  co-operation  needs  cannot  be  addressed  exclusively 
through  the  Community  actions  and  the  budget  of  Frontex  on  joint  return  flights. 
Member  States  are  invited  to  explore  better  all  the  possibilities  of  the  Fund  to  co-
operate  more  actively.  Thus,  economies  of  scale  will  ensue  and  justify  further  the 
added value of EU resources in this area.  

It is acknowledged that the delivery mechanism of the Fund, annual programmes to 
be  approved  each  year,  does  not  necessarily  lend  itself  well  to  support  recurrent 
activities  such  as  voluntary  and  forced  (joint)  return  operations.  Member  States 
could  explore  more  extensively  the  possibilities  to  set  up  multiannual  projects, 
e.g.  assisted  voluntary  return  programmes  with  a  reintegration  component,  in 
accordance  with  the  regulatory  framework,  thus  reducing  also  the  incidence  of 
selection processes and establishing a stable financial multiannual planning.  

The learning effects of the Fund can be further boosted. To inspire innovative and 
successful  projects  and  promote  the  potential  for  exchange  of  information  Member 
States  should  share  more  information  on  projects  on  both  bilateral  and  multilateral 
basis.  This  should  become  a  responsibility  of  the  Ministries  concerned  and  go 
beyond  the  remit  of  the  designated  "responsible  authorities"  and/or  the  project 
beneficiaries.  In  particular  in  the  field  of  reintegration,  a  lot  is  to  be  gained  from 
information exchange, since the more successful projects are those which are moving 
away  from  purely  cash  incentives  (lump-sums)  towards  a  more  individual,  tailor-
made  approach  in  rebuilding  the  lives  of  returnees.  To  facilitate  this  process,  the 
Commission  shall  inter  alia  establish a network on voluntary return using the  2010 
Community  actions,  set  up  a  database  for  Member  States  on  projects  funded  and 
develop communication material and events on the Fund by 2012.  

EN 

27 

   EN 

– 

Finally, recognising the important role IOM plays in supporting activities in Member 
States  under  the  Fund,  the  Commission  will  continue  its  efforts  to  strengthen  its 
working  relations  with  IOM  in  the  framework  of  the  ongoing  dialogue  on 
migration policy and the development of the Global Approach on Migration.  

7.2. 

Preparing for the first ex-post evaluation (2012)  

The next milestone for the Fund is the ex-post evaluation report for 2008-201015. According 
to the basic act the Commission report is due by 31 December 2012.  

The  preparations  for  this  exercise  are  ongoing.  Unfortunately,  Member  States  cannot 
reasonably  be  expected  to  report  on  the  outputs  of  the  2010  annual  programme  by  30  June 
2012, as indicated in the basic act, since the eligibility period for 2010 runs till the second half 
of 2012. In order to provide complete data on 2010, Member States will be asked to submit 
their contributions by end October 2012 instead.  

To build upon this intermediate report, the ex-post evaluation for 2008-2010 could present a 
more  comprehensive  picture  of  the  Fund's  intervention  at  national  and  EU  level  as  regards 
outputs,  results  and  its  overall  impact  on  the  application  of  EU  standards  on  return  and 
integrated  return  management  in  Member  States.  To  that  end,  its  overall  aim  would  be  as 
follows:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

To  identify  concrete  results  such  as  the  number  of  third  country  nationals  reached 
directly through actions on operations and assistance under the Fund and the number 
of third country nationals affected directly and indirectly by all the funding activities 
(i.e.  including  the  general  capacity  building  measures,  co-operation  with  third 
countries  and  co-operation  with  other  Member  States),  using  a  common 
methodology;  

To  distinguish  clearly  the  results  achieved  under  forced  and  voluntary  return 
operations and also for the different categories of the target group, e.g. distinguishing 
between  (rejected)  asylum  seekers  and  refugees  on  the  one  hand  and  irregular 
migrants, including overstayers, on the other;  

To  assess  the  degree  to  which  the  Fund's  intervention  contributed  to  the  overall 
development  of  each  national  return  system,  taking  into  account  the  strategy 
established in the multi-annual programme and specific national targets identified;  

To assess the extent to which the Fund's intervention contributed to the application of 
EU standards, in particular the Return Directive; and  

Finally,  to  measure  the  values  obtained  in  relation  to  the  share  of  EU  allocations 
under the Fund to the overall national (financial and other) inputs and to identify any 
other relevant factors having had an impact on the intervention.  

15 

Article 50(3) c) basic act RF 

EN 

28 

   EN