REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the Development of the European Migration Network
Date: 2012-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community migration, EU Member State, EU visa policy, Norway, disclosure of information, exchange of information, migration control, right of asylum

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 1.8.2012  
COM(2012) 427 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

on the Development of the European Migration Network 

{SWD(2012) 240 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
I. INTRODUCTION 

Four years after the adoption of its legal basis,1 it is now timely to take stock of the progress 
made  by  the  European  Migration  Network  (EMN)  and  consider  how  it  should  evolve, 
including in the context of the next multiannual financial framework beyond 2013.  

Council Decision 2008/381/EC formally established the EMN,2 its purpose being to provide 
up-to-date,  objective,  reliable  and  comparable  information  on  migration  and  asylum,  with  a 
view to supporting policymaking in the European Union in these areas. The EMN does this 
via a multilevel network co-ordinated by the European Commission, with the support of two 
Service  Providers,  in  co-operation  with  EMN  National  Contact  Points  (EMN  NCPs) 
established  in  each  Member  State3  plus  Norway,4  who  in  turn  develop  national  networks 
comprising of a wide range of relevant stakeholders. More recently, Croatia now participates 
as  an  observer.5  The  EMN  also  networks  at  EU  level  via  collaborations  with  other  relevant 
EU/international  bodies.  Political  guidance  on  the  activities  of  the  EMN  is  provided  by  a 
Steering  Board,  chaired  by  the  European  Commission  and  consisting  of  one  representative 
from  each  participating  Member  State  plus  Observers  from  Denmark,  Norway  and  the 
European Parliament.  

II. EMN ACTIVITIES 

The EMN undertakes a wide-range of activities in order to fulfil its objectives, all within the 
framework of an annual work programme approved by the EMN Steering Board and adopted 
by the Commission.6 These currently include: 

• 

Annual  Policy  Reports,  informing  policymakers  on  the  most  significant 
political and legislative (including EU) developments, as well as public debates 
in the area of migration and asylum, including, to the extent possible, relevant 
statistics.  They  also  serve  to  inform  the  Commission's  Annual  Reports  on 
Immigration and Asylum;7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 
7 

Council  Decision  2008/381/EC  of  14  May  2008.  This  Report  also  serves  to  satisfy  the  obligation  in 
Article 13 of this decision.  
The  EMN  has  existed  since  2003  when  it  began  as  a  Pilot  Project  and  then  a  Preparatory  Action. 
Extensive information on the EMN and its numerous outputs is available at http://www.emn.europa.eu.  
Denmark did not participate in the adoption of this Council Decision but is informally involved in the 
EMN as an observer.  
Commission  Decision  C(2010)6171  of  13  September  2010  established  the  basis  for  administrative 
cooperation  between  the  European  Commission  and  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  the  Police  of  the 
Kingdom of Norway for the participation of Norway in the European Migration Network. The Working 
Arrangement entered into force on 15 November 2010. 
Following signature of the Accession Treaty with Croatia on 9 December 2011, Croatia participates in 
the  EMN  in  accordance  with  Commission  Decision  C(2011)  9005  of  8  December  2011  on  internal 
implementing arrangements for the interim period before formal accession. 
For example, the EMN Work Programme 2012 was adopted as Commission Decision C(2012) 1771. 
See, for example, COM(2012) 250 final and SWD(2012) 139 final. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Ad-Hoc  Queries,  which  are  a  responsive  tool  for  collecting  comparative 
information quickly on a specific, topical issue. They can be launched by the 
Commission or an EMN NCP with a typical response rate of up to four weeks;8 

Studies on policy relevant themes, each year typically including both a main 
study,  giving  a  detailed  compilation  and  analysis  on  a  topic  of  medium-  to 
longer-term relevance, including identifying possible upcoming issues, and up 
to  three  focussed  studies,  in  order  to  address  more  immediate,  short-term 
policy needs;9 

EMN  Informs,  which  provide  the  key  findings  in  a  succinct  manner  on  a 
specific  topic  from,  for  example,  studies  or  Ad-Hoc  Queries  in  a  format 
intended for policymakers; 

EMN  Bulletin  Reports,  providing  up-to-date, 
to 
policymakers  in  particular,  on  current  and  recent  developments  at  EU  and 
Member  State  level,  including  also  latest  published  statistics,  primarily  from 
Eurostat;10 

information, 

topical 

EMN Glossary and Thesaurus, with the glossary comprising 300+ terms with 
translations based on EU acquis and serves inter alia to improve comparability 
between  Member  States  through  the  use  and  common  understanding  of  the 
terms and definitions contained therein, and the thesaurus providing a coherent, 
structured means by which to catalogue and search for comparable documents 
on a specific topic; 

EMN  Status  Reports,  for  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
Commission,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions concerning the ongoing activities of the EMN and the key findings of 
its various outputs;11 

EU  Immigration  Portal12  updates,  in  order  to  ensure  that  information  on 
Member States' immigration policies and procedures13 is kept up-to-date. The 
EMN, owing to its links with and understanding of the legislative bodies in the 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 
13 

To give an indication of the extent and range of EMN Ad-Hoc Queries, in 2011 a total of 76 individual 
queries were launched with each one, on average, receiving 17+ Member State responses equivalent to 
over  1  300  individual  responses.  Topics  covered  range  from  Borders,  to  Economic  Migration,  EU 
Acquis, Family Reunification, Irregular migration, Integration, Protection, Residence, Return, Students, 
Trafficking and Visas. 
In 2012, the EMN is undertaking a main study on The Immigration of International Students to the EU 
and  focussed  studies  on  Misuse  of  the  Right  to  Family  Reunification,  to  inform  the  Green  Paper 
(COM(2011)  735)  on  this  topic;  Challenges  and  practices  for  establishing  applicants’  identity  in  the 
migration process; and Intra-EU Mobility of Third-Country Nationals.  
See 
http://t.co/FDBAbFuO. 
The  EMN  Status  Report  2011  accompanies  this  Report  as  SEC(2012)240.  For  previous  years  see 
SEC(2010) 1006 and SEC(2011) 1273. 
http://ec.europa.eu/immigration/  
This  information  is  available  under  the  headings  'What  do  I  need  before  leaving?'  and  'What  do  EU 
countries do?' 

first  edition  announced  on  DG  Home  Affairs  Twitter  site 

(@EUHomeAffairs),  at 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member  States,  is  well-placed  to  provide  updates  quickly  to  ensure  the  EU 
Immigration Portal remains topical; 

• 

• 

Networking,  which  takes  place  at  EMN  level,  notably  through  regular 
meetings  of  the  EMN  NCPs;  at  national  level,  with  EMN  NCPs  developing 
national  networks  representing  all  relevant  stakeholders,  including  national 
policymakers;  and  at  EU/international  level,  in  order  to  develop  consistency 
and  co-ordination  with  relevant  EU  instruments  and  structures  in  the  area  of 
migration  and  asylum  plus  having  strategic  co-operative  relationships  with 
other  (non-EU)  European  organisations,  institutions  and  networks  pursuing 
similar objectives; 

Communication  and  Dissemination  of  EMN  outputs,  notably  via  the 
aforementioned  EMN  Informs  and  Bulletins,  plus  via  dedicated  websites 
(EMN14  plus  national),  an  annual  EMN  Conference15  and  presentations  at 
relevant (inter)national events. 

The  EMN  used  to  produce  Annual  Reports  on  Migration  and  International  Protection 
Statistics,16  analysing  data  primarily  from  Eurostat  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EC) 
862/2007. Whilst the quality of these reports was high, they suffered from a lack of topicality, 
owing  also  to  the  timeframe  in  which  annual  data  became  available.17  Consequently,  it  was 
decided to stop this activity and to instead present the latest available published data primarily 
via the EMN Bulletin report. 

All  EMN  products  are  made  publicly  available,  principally  via  its  website,  as  well  as  in 
dedicated  publications  by  both  EMN  NCPs  and  the  Commission.  For  reports/studies,  the 
methodology followed is to develop common specifications or templates, in order to ensure 
better comparability, which are then used by each EMN NCP to produce a National Report or 
Contribution,  normally  via  "desk  research."  On  the  basis  of  these  (typically  24  individual 
national  responses),18  a  Synthesis  Report  is  then  produced,  bringing  together  and  analysing 
the main findings and placing them within an EU perspective, e.g. by relating to recent policy 
initiatives.  

III. EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

In order to inform the further development of the EMN, an independent, external evaluation 
of  the  EMN  was  undertaken  in  the  latter  half  of  2011.19  This  evaluation  addressed  several 
aspects  of  the  EMN  and  its  functioning  and  the  Table  below  gives  an  overall  summary 
assessment of the EMN's performance. 

14 
15 

16 
17 

18 

19 

http://www.emn.europa.eu 
The  EMN  Conference  2011  was  held  in  Warsaw  under  the  auspices  of  the  Polish  Presidency  of  the 
European Union on the topic of irregular migration.  
The last report covered the year 2009 and was completed in April 2012. 
Whilst asylum data is provided on a monthly basis, data on immigration, emigration, residence permits 
and citizenship only becomes available, in accordance with Regulation (EC) 862/2007, up to 15 months 
after the end of a reporting year (e.g. 2010 data were available in Spring 2012). 
Whilst an EMN NCP exists in each Member State (except DK) and Norway, some of them do not yet 
have the personnel resources necessary to contribute to all EMN activities. 
This  evaluation  was  undertaken  by  the  Centre  for  Strategy  &  Evaluation  Services  (CSES)  and  the 
evaluation 
http://emn.intrasoft-
intl.com/Downloads/prepareShowFiles.do?directoryID=249.  

available 

report 

from 

is 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 1: Overall Summary – EMN Performance 

Positive 

Less Positive 

•  Quality of EMN outputs (mostly up-to-date, 
objective, reliable and comparable) with Ad-
Hoc Queries especially highly valued; 

• 

on 

influence 

•  Positive 

policy-making, 
especially  at  the  EU  level,  but  also  in 
relation to many Member States; 
Intensity  of  networking  between  EMN 
NCPs and their commitment to the EMN; 
•  Quality  and  quantity  of  outputs  compared 
with level of financial and human resources. 

•  Time-lags  in  producing  information  and 
limited  comparability,  especially  when  not 
all EMN NCPs make an input; 
In relation to the wider public, very limited 
impact  and  uncertainty  as  to  the  EMN’s 
role; 

• 

•  Relatively  low  visibility  of  EMN  (e.g.  low 
number  of  website  hits  and  newsletter 
registrations)  and  weak  national  networks 
in some countries; 

•  Lack  of  resources  at  EU  level  to  support 

EMN’s development. 

Overall,  the  EMN  was  considered  to  be  performing  well,  providing  useful  information  to 
support  policymaking  at  the  EU  and  Member  State  level.  Less  positive  were  the  limited 
readability  of  the  information  it  produced  (e.g.  too  long)  for  policymakers  and  the  lack  of 
visibility  or  awareness  of  the  EMN  amongst  other  practitioners  as  well  as  policymakers, 
particularly within the EU institutions.  

Some thirty recommendations to improve further the functioning of the EMN were identified. 
Indeed,  even  whilst  the  evaluation  was  underway,  the  EMN  took  on  board  several 
recommendations in the development of its annual work programme for 2012, in particular in 
relation to ensuring that information provided was more relevant, up-to-date and with concise 
summaries of findings for policymakers in particular. 

IV. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EMN 

Whilst the EMN is now firmly established in the  landscape of asylum and  migration and is 
highly regarded, it is appropriate to consider how it could even better meet its objectives. This 
section thus  outlines how  the Commission  sees  the further development  of the  EMN within 
the context also of the Asylum and Migration Fund,20 although some of the changes proposed 
can be implemented before this Regulation would enter into force. 

The  EMN  has  already  demonstrated  its  flexibility  to  evolve  and  adapt  to  better  meet  the 
expectations  of  policymakers  in  particular.  A  key  factor  in  this  respect  is  the  pro-active 
involvement  of  and  strong  partnership  between  the  Commission  and  the  EMN  NCPs,  as 
nominated  by  their  respective  Member  State,  who  constitute  the  essential  building  blocks 
upon which the EMN is built. 

The continuation of the EMN, along with its objectives and tasks, is set out in Article 23 of 
the  proposed  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund  Regulation,  with  Council  Decision  2008/381/EC 
then repealed. The objectives would be: 

(a) 

to  serve  as  an  Union  advisory  council  for  migration  and  asylum  through  co-
level  with 
ordination  and  cooperation  at  both  national  and  Union 
representatives  of  Member  States,  academia,  civil  society,  think-tanks  and 
other Union/international entities; 

20 

COM(2011) 751 final 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(b) 

to meet the migration and asylum information needs of Union institutions and 
of  the  Member  States  by  providing  up-to-date,  objective,  reliable  and 
comparable  information  on  migration  and  asylum,  in  order  to  support 
policymaking in the European Union in these areas;  

(c) 

to provide the general public with the information referred to in point (b). 

Article  23  also  outlines  the  EMN's  activities  to  meet  these  objectives;  the  need  to  ensure 
coherence  with  EASO21  and  Frontex;22  the  composition  of  the  EMN;  and  the  financial 
assistance to be provided. 

The  following  sub-sections  will  address  in  turn  each  objective  outlined  above,  providing  in 
more detail the Commission's vision for the EMN. 

IV.1 THE ROLE OF THE EMN 

The  development  of  a  common  EU  migration  policy  increasingly  requires  comparative, 
factual  information  in  order  to  develop  and  inform  policy  approaches  based  on  reliable 
evidence  and  analysis  covering  a  wide  range  of  perspectives.  Whilst  there  is  an  array  of 
extensive  information  available,  and  not  only  from  the  EMN,  most  often  it  is  in  a  format 
which is difficult for policymakers to digest and also not sufficiently accessible to meet their 
immediate needs.  

Clearly,  it  would  be  advantageous  for  there  to  be  a  common  European  source  where 
policymakers,  both  nationally  and  from  the  EU  institutions,  could  access  or  request  reliable 
information,  including  statistics,  in  a  factual,  user-friendly,  objective  manner  in  order  to 
inform their deliberations. There is also a need to consider longer-term perspectives in order 
to anticipate potential challenges that the EU will have to address.  

The  EMN  is  ideally  placed  to  meet  this  need  and  to  fully  meet  the  expectations  of 
policymakers. It has demonstrated that it has extensive analytical expertise available at both 
Member  State  and  at  EU  level  and  the  ability  to  fully  understand  and  contextualise  the 
information  coming  from  relevant  national  government  Ministries,  as  well  as  other  national 
sources through the extensive networks that have developed. The strength of the networking 
between  EMN  NCPs  also  serves  to  demonstrate  that  a  common  culture  of  knowledge  has 
developed whereby the situation in one Member State can be understood in others and within 
the Commission. 

What  then  are  the  changes  required  of  the  EMN?  Firstly,  it  should  extend  its  scope  of 
information  sources  in  two  respects:  through  its  national  networks  and  through  its  links  to 
other relevant EU/international bodies. This would require the role of the EMN NCPs to be 
enhanced further so that they are each able to act as the national hub for information gathering 
and analysis. 

Many EMN NCPs have made extensive efforts to develop a national network consisting of a 
wide-range  of  stakeholders,  not  only,  for  example,  from  government  Ministries.  More 
emphasis  has  also  been  placed  in  meetings  of  these  national  networks  to  address  (topical) 

21 
22 

European Asylum Support Office, established by Regulation (EC) 439/2010 
European  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Operational  Cooperation  at  the  External  Borders  of  the 
Member States of the European Union, established by Council Regulation (EC) 2007/2004. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
issues  of  national/EU  policy  relevance  and  to  involve  (national)  policymakers.  Indeed,  via 
these  national  networks,  the  EMN  has  facilitated  information  provision  and  exchange  of 
views  between,  for  example,  (national)  policymakers;  government  officials,  including  from 
different  Ministries;  international  organisations;  researchers;  think  tanks  and  other  policy 
advisors;  NGOs;  and  civil  society.  In  some  Member  States,  such  a  wide  gathering  of 
stakeholders  was  previously  unheard  of.  Another  aspect  is  through  the  development  of  the 
various  national  websites  which  serve  as  a  (national)  focus  for  asylum  and  migration 
information including, in some cases, databases of relevant legislation, case law, etc.23 

Consequently,  national  networks  should  be  recognised  as  one  of  the  constituent  elements 
comprising  the  EMN  and  thereby  promoted  still  further  to  the  extent  of,  for  example, 
involving  national  network  members  more  in  providing  input,  even  on  an  ad-hoc  advisory 
basis, when there is an identified need for information.  

There are a plethora of different entities addressing various aspects of asylum and migration 
analysis and research, at national, EU and international level.24 Each performs a certain role 
with  a  particular  audience.  In  order  for  policymakers  to  also  benefit  from  the  extensive 
information  produced,  the  EMN  can  strengthen its  cooperation  and  collaboration  with  these 
various bodies to  exchange  information and mutually complement  each other's activities, as 
well as to avoid any overlap. Whilst this would be formally assured within the Commission 
(notably  with  DGs  Eurostat,  Research  and  Innovation,  Development  and  Cooperation,  plus 
Employment  and  Social  Affairs)  and  with  EU  bodies  like  EASO,  Frontex,  FRA25  (See 
Section  IV.4),  liaisons  with  other  bodies,  such  as  inter  alia  other  EU  institutions,  and  the 
African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Observatory on Migration, GDISC, IGC, NORFACE, 
IOM, UN, Migration Policy Centre, OECD, etc.26 could typically be in the context of specific 
topics or studies. This would also serve to provide, when deemed relevant, a rest of the world 
or outside the EU (regional) perspective on a specific topic, as well as a link to the migration 
dimension  of  EU  development  policies,  so  that  coherence  and  synergies,  in  particular  with 
regard  to  defining  cooperation  with  priority  countries  under  the  external  dimension  of  EU 
migration policy, could be ensured. 

The  EMN  should  also  put  more  effort  into  improving  its  "mining"  of  the  information 
published by these various entities, although this would necessitate more resources. There is 
good  previous  experience  of  this,  such  as  the  EMN's  study  on  Satisfying  Labour  Demand 
through Migration which involved contributions from and collaboration with Eurocities and 
the IOM. 

In a similar vein, even though Denmark is not formally required to participate in the EMN, 
efforts have nevertheless been undertaken to involve them and they have taken part in some 
EMN activities and meetings. Further steps should be taken to explore how Denmark might 

23 

24 
25 
26 

for 

the 

national 

example, 

jurisprudence 

See, 
(http://194.88.246.195/WD160AWP/WD160Awp.exe/CONNECT/EMN_JURISPRUDENCES) 
developed by the LU EMN NCP, which permits searching of recent decisions of administrative courts 
in Luxembourg and is freely accessible to the general public, as well as scientific and legal experts. 
An extensive list of other relevant entities is given at http://www.emn.europa.eu under "Useful Links". 
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, established by Council Regulation (EC) 168/2007. 
GDISC  (General  Directors  of  Immigration  Services  Conference);  IGC  (Inter-Governmental 
Consultation  on  Migration,  Asylum  and  Refugees);  NORFACE  (New  Opportunities  for  Research 
Funding Agency Co-operation in Europe); IOM (International Organization for Migration); UN (United 
Nations,  in  particular  its  Population  Statistics  Division);  OECD  (Organisation  for  Economy  Co-
operation and Development).  

database 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
more  actively  participate,  on  the  basis  of  the  experience  of  incorporating  Norway  into  the 
EMN.  

IV.2 INFORMATION PROVISION TO INFORM POLICYMAKING 

Secondly,  the  EMN  should  further  improve  the  relevance  and  manner  in  which  it  provides 
information. The external evaluation noted that whilst the relevance, quality and added value 
of  EMN  outputs  is  high,  there  is  still  scope  for  improvement,  including  in  respect  to  its 
synthesis  reports.  Specifically  the  synthesis  reports  should  be  less  descriptive  and  more 
analytical with key messages and policy implications highlighted more clearly for the target 
group(s). Flexibility to be able to select a topic for a study during a year, in light of topical 
political developments, is also important. 

The  EMN  should  thus  continue  to  provide  up-to-date,  objective,  reliable  and  comparable 
information, but also needs to continue the steps already taken to be flexible and adaptive to 
even better meet the needs of policymakers. Whilst a positive evolution has been for the EMN 
to undertake studies of direct relevance and need to policymakers, with the role of the EMN 
Steering  Board  being  crucial  in  this  respect,  nevertheless  two  obstacles,  namely  timeliness 
and conciseness of information presented, need to be addressed still further.  

Indeed,  the  EMN  has  already  taken  on  board  these  recommendations  in  its  2012  work 
programme, with a number of changes to its modus operandi, such as increased emphasis on 
mining  of  the  extensive  information  already  available  within  the  EMN;  the  introduction  of 
focussed  studies;27  the  production  of  EMN  Informs,28  intended  to  provide  policymakers  in 
particular with the key findings of a particular activity; and the introduction of EMN Bulletin 
reports. 

IV.3 INFORMING THE WIDER PUBLIC 

A further change required by the EMN concerns the manner in which it presents its outputs to 
inform the wider public. Migration is today a widely debated and sometimes contentious issue 
in the EU, with polemics sometimes based on incorrect or misleading information. There are a 
number of good practices at Member State level of presenting information in a user-friendly, 
objective, impartial manner,29 some developed with the involvement of their respective EMN 
NCP. This is currently missing at EU level and the EMN should thus take on this role too by, 
for example, using modern communication means (e.g. via social media, interactive website) 
to  give  concisely  the  factual  situation  on  a  particular  theme  targeted  at  the  media  and  other 
information  multipliers.  National  network  members  would  also  be  expected  to  contribute  to 
the dissemination of information.  

This is entirely consistent with the EMN's path towards providing more targeted outputs, as 
part  of  being  an  advisory  council,  including  developing  and  then  promoting  its  EMN  and 
national  websites  to  be  user-friendly  reference sources  of  information.  Another  facet  in  this 
respect would be for the EMN to provide timely factual updates enabling the Commission and 
Member States amongst others to reinforce their evidence base. 

27 
28 
29 

See Footnote 9. 
Circulated and also published on the EMN website under "EMN Informs." 
See,  for  example,  the  UK's  Migration  Observatory  (http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk)  and 
LT's Migration in Numbers (http://123.emn.lt/).  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
IV.4 STRENGTHENED LINKS WITH EU AGENCIES 

By its very nature, asylum, immigration and integration are highly interlinked, being elements 
of the whole field of migration. The EMN's strength in this respect is its ability to analyse a 
particular migration-related topic, calling on a wide-range of expertise in the Member States. 
It can therefore usefully support other EU entities, notably agencies. 

Given  that  EASO  also  analyses  the  situation  of  asylum  in  the  EU,  collaboration  should  be 
strengthened  to  avoid  duplications,  ensure  coherence  and  complementarity  and  thereby 
increase the capacity of both bodies. For example, and based on the experience with the FRA, 
the EMN and EASO could jointly undertake a study on an asylum-related topic30 addressing 
different but complementary components. Another possibility could be for EASO to provide 
input to the EMN as part of the Annual Policy Report, and in particular information for the 
preparation of the Commission's Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum. 

In  a  similar  vein,  relations  with  Frontex  should  be  developed  further.  Promoting  synergies 
between the  EMN and  Frontex could potentially close the gap between border management 
considerations  and  socio-economic  considerations  by  bringing  together  a  wide  range  of 
experts with different but complementary specialisations. This would ensure a comprehensive 
coverage  of  migration  and  asylum  issues.  To  illustrate  this  further,  Frontex's  Risk  Analysis 
Network  (FRAN)  produces,  on  a  quarterly  basis,  an  analysis  of  migratory  trends  at  the  EU 
external borders.31 The EMN could more fully utilise this information as part of, for example, 
an in-depth analysis of irregular migration or a broader analysis of migration flows.  

There are already strong relations with FRA which have developed over a number of years. 
The  different  roles  and  responsibilities  of  the  two  bodies  means  that  there  is  often  high 
complementarity in their respective activities and regular attendance of a FRA representative 
at EMN meetings ensures that the two are mutually informed of each other's work. Examples 
of  this  complementarity  are  the  parallel  undertaking  of  studies  on  unaccompanied 
minors/separated children32 and on irregular migration.33  

IV.5 STRUCTURE REQUIRED TO MEET THESE NEW CHALLENGES 

The  EMN  functions  as  a  true  European  network  comprising  the  Commission  and  Member 
States  plus  Norway,  albeit  with  no  legal  identity.  Whilst  this  atypical  structure  has  created 
some difficulties, notably in terms of financing of the EMN NCPs, it has nevertheless ensured 
a closer link with the policy agenda of the Commission. It also works very well in practice. 
There is thus no need to consider any modification of the EMN's current structure. 

Similarly,  a  strong  feature  of  the  EMN,  also  identified  by  the  external  evaluation,  is  its 
heterogeneity.  Article  5(1)  of  the  Council  Decision  establishing  the  EMN  required  each 
Member  State  (except  Denmark)  to  designate  the  entity  that  would  act  as  its  EMN  NCP. 
Although most EMN NCPs come primarily from the relevant Ministry in their Member State 

30 
31 
32 

33 

For example, in 2011 the EMN undertook a study on Non-EU Harmonised Protection Statuses.  
See http://frontex.europa.eu/publications?c=risk-analysis  
Policies  on  Reception,  Return  and  Integration  arrangements  for,  and  numbers  of,  Unaccompanied 
Minors (EMN, May 2010) and Separated, asylum-seeking children in European Union Member States 
(FRA,  November  2010).  Both  reports  served  to  inform  the  Action  Plan  on  Unaccompanied  Minors 
(COM(2010) 213. 
Practical  Measures  for  Reducing  Irregular  Migration  (EMN,  April  2012)  and  Fundamental  rights  of 
migrants in an irregular situation in the European Union (FRA, November 2011).  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
responsible  for  asylum  and  migration  policy,  some  come  from  research  institutes  or  the 
national offices of the IOM, albeit with strong collaborative links with the relevant Ministry. 
The experience with such a composition leads to the conclusion that this should not change. 
What should change, however, is that sufficient resources are made available in the Member 
State for any EMN NCP who currently is not able to fully participate in and contribute to all 
EMN activities. 

There are certain aspects of the EMN Steering Board which should be adapted. Whilst it has 
demonstrated its usefulness in more closely linking the activities of the EMN to the needs of 
policymakers,  a  number  of  improvements  can  be  made.  Principal  amongst  these  is  for  the 
Steering Board to focus more on providing strategic guidance to further ensure that the EMN's 
activities  are  of  direct  relevance  to  policymakers.  This  could  be  assured,  for  example,  by 
relevant  stakeholders  (e.g.  EU  Presidency  Trios,  Member  States,  European  Commission, 
European  Parliament)  outlining  their  strategic  priorities  and  Steering  Board  members  being 
sufficiently  high-level  to  provide  the  necessary  policy  guidance.  The  European  Parliament 
plus  Denmark  and  Norway  should  continue  to  have  observer  status  on  the  Steering  Board. 
There  should  also  be  a  clearer  separation  of  Steering  Board  members  from  their  respective 
EMN NCP34 so that no potential conflict of interest exists and the Steering Board can more 
actively request a Member State(s) to strengthen their capacities for under- or non-performing 
EMN  NCPs,  identified  on  the  basis  of  common  performance  indicators.35  In  addition,  the 
Steering  Board should do more to  promote the link between research and policymaking by, 
for example, highlighting the implications of EMN findings for current and future migration 
policies and practices.  

V. CONCLUDING REMARKS  

The EMN has proven itself to be an increasingly useful instrument to support policymakers. 
With  the  perspective  also  of  the  next  multiannual  financial  framework,  the  further 
enhancements  identified  in  this  report  would  enable  the  EMN  to  perform  its  important  role 
even  better.  Building  on  the  solid  base  established  so  far,  the  Commission  has  every 
confidence that the EMN will once again adapt to meet these new challenges.  

The  Commission  looks  forward  to  debating  the  further  development  of  the  EMN,  notably 
with the other EU institutions and the Member States and on the basis of this report. 

34 

35 

Currently, some 12 Member State members of the Steering Board also act as the EMN NCP for their 
Member State. 
These might include: Inputs to studies and reports, number of responses to Ad-Hoc Queries; the extent 
to which national networks and dissemination activities have been developed; the intensity of EU-level 
networking (e.g. as reflected in attendance at meetings, replies to Ad-Hoc Queries) and other aspects of 
work plans.  

EN 

10 

   EN