COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Council Regulation (EC) 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers network Accompanying the document Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the creation of a European network of immigration liaison officers (recast)
Date: 2018-05-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU police cooperation, aid to refugees, cross-border cooperation, exchange of information, external border of the EU, illegal migration, information network, return migration, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.5.2018 SWD(2018) 197 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Council Regulation (EC) 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers network  Accompanying the document Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council  on the creation of a European network of immigration liaison officers  (recast)  {COM(2018) 303 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 5 

3.  METHOD ........................................................................................................................................... 10 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 12 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 13 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 24 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 27 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 31 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS .......................................................................... 32 

ANNEX 4: ADDITIONAL DATA AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 35 

1 

 
 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Glossary 

AFIC 
AFG 
ALO 
EASO 
EBCGA 
EBF 
COM 
EMLO 
EURLO 
EUROJUST 
FCG 
FLEC 
GILT 
ICE 
ILO 
ILOMN 
IOM 
ISF 
LION 
LSC 
NAIL 
SAIL 
TAIL 
TU-RAN 

Africa-Frontex Intelligence Community 
Anti-fraud group (see also FCG) 
Airline Liaison Officer 
European Asylum Support Office 
European Border and Coast Guards Agency 
External Borders Fund 
European Commission 
European Migration Liaison Officer 
European Return Liaison Officer 
The European Union’s Judicial Cooperation Unit 
Fraud Control Group (see also AFG) 
Foreign Law Enforcement Community  
Ghana Immigration Liaison Team (Ghana) 
Immigration Control Experts Team (Thailand) 
Immigration Liaison Officer 
Immigration Liaison Officers Managers Network 
International Organisation on Migration 
Internal Security Fund 
Liaison Immigration Officers Network (Nigeria) 
Local Schengen Cooperation 
Nairobi Immigration Liaison Team (Kenya) 
South Africa Airline Immigration Liaison Officers (South Africa) 
Team Amman Immigration Liaison (Jordan) 
Turkey-Frontex Risk Analysis Network 

2 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope of evaluation 

In  its  2015  Communication  on  the  EU  Action  Plan  against  Migrant  Smuggling1,  the 
Commission  announced the  evaluation  in  2016, and  a  possible  revision,  of  the  Council 
Regulation (EC) 377/2004 of 19 February 2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison 
officers network2 (referred as ‘ILO Regulation’). Network that was set up under this legal 
instrument was considered as one component of a wider array of tools to gather and share 
relevant information aimed at preventing irregular migration, countering related criminal 
activities, facilitate return and manage legal migration. 

The  present  assessment  looks  at  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and 
EU  added-value3  of  the  ILO  Regulation.  It  provides  an  updated  overview  of  its 
application, identifying trends, gaps and potential areas for improvement. However, the 
evaluation of the ILO Regulation cannot be separated from the assessment of the work of 
the  individual  immigration  liaison  officers  (referred  as  ILOs)  and  of  ILO  Networks, 
therefore  the  review  takes  also  stock  of  developments  within  the  network  since  the 
adoption  of  the  present  legal  framework.  The  evaluation  encompasses  evidence  and 
opinions from a range of sources and stakeholders. It also unveils the existing limitations 
in  terms  of  available  quantitative  and  qualitative  evidence  as  regards  deployment  of 
ILOs, results and impact of ILO Networks activities. Finally, the evaluation includes also 
an analysis of application of related implementing acts45.   

The evaluation findings  constitute the  main evidence  that informed the development  of 
the  Commission's  proposal  on  the  creation  of  a  European  network  of  migration  liaison 
officers, in line with the Commission Work Programme for 20186.  

Context 

In  2017,  the  migratory  situation  became  more  stable  but  remained  challenging.  With 
almost 205 000 irregular border crossings in 2017, there were overall 28% fewer arrivals 
than  in  2014,  the  year  before  the  crisis.4  Yet  the  situation  is  fragile,  and  work  on  all 
migratory routes is continuing in 2018 to maintain the downward trend. 

In  this  context,  ensuring  capacity  to  efficiently  gather  and  share  information  on  flows, 
routes,  smuggling  networks,  their  modus  operandi  and  related  crimes  in  the  area  of 
irregular migration is and remains one of the priorities set at European and national levels 
over the last years. Likewise, gaining robust understanding of third countries' capabilities 
and  policies  in  the  field  of  migration  became  essential  in  order  to  make  the  EU  better 
equipped  in  designing  relations  with  the  priority  countries  of  origin  and  transit  and  to 

1   COM(2015) 285. 
2  OJ L 64, 2.3.2004, p. 1-4. 
3   Since  the  adoption  in  2004,  the  ILO  Regulation  has  never  been  evaluated.  A  limited  review  was 
undertaken by the Commission in 2006 to prepare an amendment of the Regulation (EU) NO 493/2011 
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011.  

4  Commission  Decision  of  29  September  2005  on  the  format  for  the  report  on  the  activities  of 
immigration  liaison  officers  networks  and  on  the  situation  in  the  host  country  in  matters  relating  to 
illegal immigration (notified under document number C(2005) 1508. 

5  Commission  Decision  of  15  December  2005  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the  implementation  of 
Council  Decision  2005/267/EC  establishing  a  secure  web-based  Information  and  Coordination 
Network for Member States' Migration Management Services C(2005) 5159. 

6  COM(2017) 650 final, Annex I 

3 

 
 
                                                 
render return and readmission policy more effective as well as to efficiently manage legal 
migration.  

The  Council  Conclusions  adopted  by  the  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  ministers  on  10 
March 20167 
echoed the commitments of the Action Plan to advance concerted actions at 
EU and international  levels against  migrant smuggling  and set out  recommendations  to 
Member States, the Commission and EU agencies, in particular to make an optimal use 
of  the  information  systems  and  EU  assets  deployed  to  third  countries  to  gather,  cross-
check  and  share  migration  related  data  and  use  them  to  predict  flows  and  smuggling 
activities as well as to enhance effective and sustainable return of illegally staying third 
country nationals. The role of the liaison officers was also recognised in the context of 
legal  migration  and  in  particular  in  view  of  providing  pre-departure  support  to  third 
country  nationals  before  migrating  to  the  EU,  as  stipulated  in  the  Integration  Action 
Plan8. Indeed  migrant smuggling, return  and readmission  as well as  legal migration are 
key aspects of cooperation with third countries, as highlighted in the Communication on 
establishing Partnership Frameworks9 with third countries under the European Agenda on 
Migration10.  

The importance of having a common framework and clear mandates for staff posted in 
third  countries  to  take  action  to  counter  migrant  smuggling  was  further  asserted  by  the 
Commission  in  its  2017  Communication  on  the  Delivery  of  the  European  Agenda  on 
Migration11  which  committed  to  establishing  these  through  a  revision  of  the  ILO 
Regulation,  thereby  confirming  one  of  priorities  set  out  by  the  Commission  in  the  EU 
Action Plan against Migrant Smuggling. 

The objective of the current review of the ILO Regulation is to ensure better coordination 
and  optimisation  of  the  use  of  ILOs,  including  those  deployed  by  the  Commission  and 
Union Agencies to third countries in order to more effectively respond to EU priorities in 
terms  of  preventing  and  combating  irregular  migration,  facilitating  the  return, 
readmission  and  reintegration  of  irregular  migrants,  supporting  management  of  legal 
migration  and  providing  assistance  to  persons  in  need  of  international  protection,  for 
instance through resettlement.  

Trends and figures 

The latest available data indicates clearly that the rate of irregular migration into the EU 
across  the  main  routes  of  Central,  Eastern  and  Western  Mediterranean,  as  well  as  of 
Western Balkans, remains high despite a reduction observed in 201712. 

Table 1: Illegal border crossing along four main migratory routes in the period of 2014-2017 

 Route 
Eastern Mediterranean 

Central Mediterranean 

Western Mediterranean/ 
Atlantic 

2014 
50 834 

170 664 

7 519 

2015 
885 386 

153 946 

7 878 

2016 
182 277 

181 376 

10 661 

2017 
42 319 

118 962 

23 564 

7   http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/10/council-conclusions-on-migrant-

smuggling/pdf  
8   COM(2016) 377. 
9   COM(2016) 385. 
10   COM(2015) 240. 
11   COM(2017) 558. 
12   ISAA annual Statistical Overview – 2017 Unit A4: DG HOME. 

4 

 
                                                 
Western Balkans 
Total 

43 357 
272 374 

764 038 
1 811 248 

130 261 
504 575 

12 179 
197 024 

Source: Frontex data as of 2 February 2018 

The reasons behind these high numbers include wars and geo-political instability in EU 
neighbouring  countries,  as  well  as  poverty,  lack  of  socio-economic  development  and 
global  inequalities,  constituting  strong  push  factors  for  irregular  migration  towards  the 
EU, in particular from Sub-Saharan African countries.  

It  is  in  this  context  of  the  rising  migratory  pressures  that  the  utilisation  of  ILOs  has 
increased  dramatically  to  a  point  where  almost  500  ILOs  are  currently  deployed  by 
Member States in third countries, together with 13 European Migration Liaison Officers 
(EMLOs)13 and 3 EBCGA Liaison Officers14. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The  development  of  a  common  European  migration  policy  within  the  EU  area  of 
freedom,  security  and  justice  is  built  upon,  inter  alia,  the  shared  commitment  among 
Member  States  to  prevent  and  fight  against  irregular  migration  and  well  manage  legal 
migration. Against this backdrop, the deployment of immigration liaison officers to third 
countries has been consistently recognised as one of the essential measures supporting a 
well-managed EU migration system.  

The general objective of the ILO Regulation is indeed to contribute to the prevention and 
combating  of  irregular  migration,  to  the  return  of  irregular  migrants  and  to  the 
management of legal migration. The specific objectives are to enhance cooperation and 
exchange  of  information  between  ILOs  deployed  to  third  countries  by  encouraging  the 
formation of local and regional networks (see intervention logic framework in Annex 4).  

Despite ILOs being Member States national resources and part of a bilateral strategy of 
engagement with third countries, the key role they have in pre-frontiers risk analysis and 
in  supporting  investigations  into  migration  related  crimes  is  largely  recognised  from  a 
perspective  of  security  of  the  EU  external  borders.  Moreover,  ILOs  have  operational 
expertise,  first-hand  knowledge  and  direct  contacts  with  the  authorities  of  host  third 
countries, which are highly relevant and useful to existing cooperation, information and 
policy development needs in the field of migration at the European level. These unique 
characteristics of ILOs triggered EU level action in this field.   

The  first  steps  to  develop  a  European  concept  of  liaison  officers  in  countries  of  transit 
and origin were taken in 1998 within the Schengen Framework15 and further developed 
along the lines of the conclusions approved by the JHA Councils in November 2000 and 
May  2001.  The  Commission's  Communication  on  a  “Common  Policy  on  Illegal 
Immigration”  of  15  November  200116  underlined  the  need  for  further  developing 
networks  of  immigration  and  airline  liaison  officers  (ALOs)  by  promoting  closer  co-

13   EMLOs are currently deployed in Ethiopia, Jordan, Lebanon, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, 

Senegal, Serbia, Sudan, Tunisia and Turkey  

14   EBCGA LO are currently deployed in Turkey, Serbia and Niger  
15   SCH/Comex (98) 59 rev = OJ L 239 of 22 September 2000, p. 308 and SCH/Comex 599° 7 Rev 2 = 

OJ L 239 of 22.9.2000 p. 411. 

16   COM(2001) 672 final. 

5 

 
                                                 
operation,  including  permanent  information  exchange,  common  regular  trainings  and 
mutual support.  

Building  upon  the  Commission's  Communication,  a  “Comprehensive  Action  Plan  to 
combat  illegal  immigration  and  trafficking  in  human  beings  in  the  European  Union”, 
adopted  by  the  JHA  Council  on  28  February  200217,  fully  endorsed  this  approach  and 
highlighted the potential key role of ILO networks.  

The  European  Council  repeatedly  highlighted  the  importance  of  ILO  deployment  and 
cooperation  and  tried  to  provide  the  necessary  political  impetus,  notably  in  June  2002 
including to the establishment of ILO networks in the context of the “Action Plan for the 
management  of  the  external  borders  of  the  EU  Member  States”18.  The  policy  guidance 
was  complemented  by  more  practical  measures  adopted  by  the  JHA  Council  in 
November  200219,  including  (1)  implementation  of  a  pilot  ILO  network  project  in  the 
Western  Balkans,  (2)  improvement  of  the  co-operation  between  ILOs  and  the  consular 
services  of  Member  States,  (3)  seminars  and  workshops  with  a  view  to  establish  best 
practices, and (4) clarification of the different role of ILOs, other kind of liaison officers, 
document  advisors  and  other  staff  dealing  with  immigration-related  issues  and  (5) 
elaboration of a common manual for ILOs.  

Whilst Member States have made efforts to enhance the co-operation among their ILOs 
posted  in  third  countries,  they  have  also  encountered  difficulties  due  to  the  lack  of  a 
common regulatory framework. Thus, when in 2003 the Greek Presidency set improving 
the  work  of  ILO  networks  as  one  of  its  main  priorities20,  it  eventually  resulted  in  a 
legislative  initiative  aimed  at  creating  a  legal  instrument  formally  establishing  ILO 
networks in third countries21. On 19 February 2004, the Council adopted a Regulation on 
the  creation  of  an  immigration  liaison  officers  network22.  Article  8  of  the  Regulation 
required  Member  States  to  directly  apply  the  Regulation  in  its  entirety  as  of  5  January 
2004. 

The  double  legal  basis  for  the  adoption  of  the  ILO  Regulation  in  2004  corresponds  to 
Article 79(2)(c) on the EU policy in the area of illegal immigration and Article 74 on the 
administrative  cooperation  of  the  Treaty  on  the  functioning  of  the  European  Union 
(TFEU)23. The ILO Regulation constitutes a development of the Schengen acquis and it 
applies  therefore  to  Iceland,  Norway,  Switzerland  and  Liechtenstein.  The  United 
Kingdom and Ireland are taking part in this Regulation in accordance with Article 5 of 
the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union 
and respectively Article 8(2) of the Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 200024 and 
Article  6(2)  of  the  Council  Decision  2002/192/EC  of  28  February  200225.  It  applies  to 
Denmark in accordance with Article 4 of Protocol 22. ILO Regulation is also binding and 

17   Council doc. 6621/02 REV 1 LIMITE JAI 30 FRONT 19 MIGR 10 VISA 29. 
18   Council doc. 10019/02 FRONT 58 COMIX 398. 
19   Council doc. 14464/02 CIREFI 69 FRONT 134 COMIX 659. 
20   http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/20847/76279.pdf  
21   OJ C 140, 14.6.2003, p.12. (2003/C 140/10). 
22   OJ L 64, 2.302004, p.1. 
23   Former Article 63(3)(b) and Article 66 of the Treaty establishing the European Community  
24    Council  Decision  2000/365/EC  of  29  May  2000  concerning  the  request  of  the  United  Kingdom  of 
Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis, OJ L 
131, 1.6.2000, p.43. 

25   Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning request of Ireland to take part in some 

of the provisions of the Schengen acquis, OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p.20. 

6 

 
                                                 
applicable  in  EU  Member  States  who  are  not  members  of  Schengen  yet,  notably 
Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Croatia as of the date of their accession to the EU.  

First  experiences  with  implementation  of  the  ILO  Regulation  were  reported  in  a 
Commission non-paper on the further development of ILO networks in third countries in 
October  2006.  While  highlighting  ILO  networks'  contribution  to  the  management  of 
migratory flows towards the EU, the paper pointed out to shortcomings in relation to the 
regular update on the development and operation of ILOs’ networks and to the lack of a 
clear  framework  for  planning,  executing  and  co-ordinating  the  development  and 
operation  of  the  networks.  It  also  pointed  out  to  the  limited  developments  in 
establishment of formal ILO networks in the main source and transit countries, despite a 
broad  interpretation  of  the  definition  of  ILOs,  as  well  as  of  joint  activities  provided  by 
the legislative framework.  

Subsequent  discussions  with  Member  States  resulted  in  the  Commission  proposing  an 
amendment  to  the  ILO  Regulation  in  July  200926.  The  main  changes  encompassed  (1) 
promoting secure web-based Information and Coordination Network for Member States’ 
Migration  Management  Services  (ICONet)  27  for  exchange  of  information  and  practical 
experiences among ILOs and notification  of their  deployment,  (2) defining  cooperation 
between  FRONTEX  and  ILO  networks,  (3)  introducing  provisions  for  any  Member 
States,  other  than  the  one  holding  or  acting  as  the  Presidency,  to  take  the  initiative  for 
holding  meetings  of  ILOs,  (4)  simplifying  reporting  obligations  established  by  the 
Regulation in relation to activities of ILO networks in specific regions and/or countries of 
particular  interest  to  the  European  Union,  as  well  as  on  the  situation  in  those  regions 
and/or  countries,  in  matters  relating  to  illegal  immigration,  and  (5)  confirming  that  the 
creation  and  operation  of  ILO  networks  might  benefit  from  Community  funds.  The 
amending  Council  Regulation  (EU)  No  493/2001  was  adopted  by  the  European 
Parliament and the Council on 5 April 201128. 

Definition and tasks of ILO  

The  ILO  Regulation  defines  immigration  liaison  officers  as  representatives  of  EU 
Member States, deployed to third countries and tasked with developing and maintaining 
contacts with host countries' authorities with an aim of preventing and combating illegal 
immigration; rendering assistance to the return of irregular migrants; and contributing to 
the management of legal migration. The Regulation opted for an inclusive approach by 
considering all liaison officers dealing with migration issues as a part of their duties as 
being  ILOs,  notwithstanding  their  core  mandates  or  sending  authorities.  However  the 
evaluation evidence clearly shows that neither the ILOs themselves nor their managers in 
capitals, (so called 'back office'), indicate at present that ‘legal migration’ is at present a 
significant aspect of their work. Indeed the evaluation provided evidence that only 2% of 
ILOs’ operational activity is focused on resettlement. Similarly, only a small percentage 
of  ILO  deployed  to  third  countries,  as  illustrated  in  the  Table  2  below,  were  actively 
executing functions related to facilitation of return of irregular migrants.  

26   COM(2009) 322 final. 
27   Council  Decision  2005/267/EC  of  16  March  2005  establishing  secure  web-based  Information  and 
Coordination  Network  for  member  States’  Migration  management  for  the  exchange  of  strategic, 
tactical  and  operational  information  concerning  illegal  migratory  movements,  supplemented  by  the 
Commission Decision of 15 December 2005 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of that 
Council Decision C(2005) 5169 final.   

28   OJ L 141/13, 27.05.2011, p. 13. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
Table 2 – Time spent by ILOs on various activities 

% of time spent on the activity 

Preventing facilitation at air borders  
Criminal investigations  
Work at visa sections 
Training 
Facilitating return  
Preventing facilitation at land and sea-borders 
Resettlement  
Other 
Total 
Source: Evaluation of ILO Regulation (EC) no 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers 
network, Ecorys 2017 

19% 
17% 
14% 
10% 
9% 
4% 
2% 
15% 
100% 

ILOs  are  usually  deployed,  for  a  reasonable  time  period  determined  by  the  sending 
Member State, to the consular offices of Member States in third countries but could also 
be  deployed  to  another  Member  State's  authority  in  third  country,  the  competent 
authorities of the third countries concerned, as well as to international organisations. 

As  a  consequence,  ILOs  constitute  a  wide  group  of  actors  with  different  mandates  and 
tasks  (see  figure  1).  Just  under  half  of  the  ILOs  work  exclusively  on  migration  issues 
(44%  in  the  ILO  survey),  while  56%  have  migration  as  part  of  their  duties.  A  large 
majority of the ILOs have a law enforcement background, compared with those having 
civil background29. More than half of the ILOs have systematic or punctual airport access 
(46%  of  the  respondents  in  the  ILO  survey  have  systematic  and  further  12%  punctual 
airport access). However, of those having an access, the actual time spent at the airport 
differs widely.  

Figure 1 Main elements of the ILOs job description  

Source: Evaluation of ILO Regulation (EC) no 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers 
network, Ecorys 2017 

As a consequence of the increasing sophistication of Member States’ response to tackling 
irregular migration over the recent years, the tasks of ILOs have been subject to gradual 
evolution. The tasks of typical ALOs evolved from checking documents at the entrance 
of the aircraft of their national airline carrier (as ‘first line of defence’ of the European 
borders)  to  assisting  (advising)  with  check-in  procedures  at  the  departure  area  of  the 
airport (beyond the national airline carrier), providing training and other forms of support 

29   74%  of  the  ILO  respondents  to  the  ILO  survey  have  a  police  background,  while  26%  has  a  civil 
background.  However,  this number  may be  influenced by  the  relatively  high  number  of  respondents 
from Germany, Spain and France, where most ILOs have a police background. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
and advice to various host country authorities in and outside the airports, and developing 
intelligence relating to irregular migration that forms the basis of criminal investigations 
and prosecutions.  

While not all Member States presently deploy ILOs30, the biggest number of national ILO 
are deployed by Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Netherland (126, 111, 
59, 47, 25 respectively31). 

Baseline on ILO Network - Development of ILO Network 

At the time of the entry into force of the existing Regulation in 2004, ILOs had, as now, 
different roles, responsibilities and different labels attached to their functions. Thus rather 
than “creating ILO networks”, the ILO Regulation was designed in practice to strengthen 
an  existing situation  and  encourage  more  effective  pathways  for  information  exchange. 
Indeed,  there  were  some  formal  networks  that  had  been  created  and  were  already 
functioning  well  before  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation  in  2004,  e.g.  ICE  in  Thailand 
(1999), SAIL in South Africa (2001) and GILT in Ghana (2003)32. 

The networks of ILOs that had developed in third countries were not then confined solely 
to EU or Schengen countries, which remains the case today too. The evaluation provided 
evidence that ILOs regard operational and strategic engagement with non-EU and/or non-
Schengen  counterparts  as  highly  beneficial  to  all  parties  in  terms  of  fulfilling  their 
objectives.  Among  the  ILO  respondents  to  the  survey,  approximately  two-thirds 
indicated that their respective networks include non-European partners, of which Canada, 
the  United  States,  Australia  and  New  Zealand  are  most  frequently  mentioned33.  This 
more  ‘globalised’  approach  has  been  reflected at  senior  level  by a  number  of  countries 
who participate alongside other key EU Member States in a global ILO grouping known 
as the ILO Manager Network (ILOMN)34.  

EU Member States and associated countries started deploying ILOs to non-EU European 
countries from the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 2002 the Danish Presidency presented a 
report  on  ILOs35confirming  that  in  most  of  the  third  countries  there  existed  well-
functioning, though often informal, communities or networks among the liaison officers. 
The decision to use a Regulation to encourage a movement away from informal networks 
of  liaison  officers  towards  a  more  formal  approach  was  seen  as  a  progressive  step 
towards enhanced cooperation, closer teamwork and a better pooling of resources. At the 
time of adoption, approximately 129 ILOs were deployed to third countries, with France 
and Spain having the largest networks (25 ILOs each), followed by Germany (12 ILOs) 
and  the  Netherlands  (11  ILOs).  Since  then,  the  number  of  officers  has  grown  to  an 

30  17 EU Member States as well as Switzerland and Norway deployed ILOs as for January 2018.  
31   Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration  liaison  officers 

network, Ecorys 2017. 

32   Immigration  Control  and  Enfoncement  (ICE)/  South  Africa  Immigration  Liaison  (SAIL)  Ghana 

Immigration Liaison Team (GILT). 

33   Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration  liaison  officers 

network, Ecorys 2017. 

34   ILOMN  consists  currently  of  back  offices  from  Germany,  Austria,  Finland,  The  United  Kingdom, 

Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, United States and Canada.  

35   Council  doc.  13271/02  LIMITE  CIREFI  63  FRONT  119  COMIX  585  and  14464/02  CIREFI  69 

FRONT 134 COMIX 659. 

9 

 
                                                 
estimated in the 492 at present, posted in 105 countries36, which reflect a growth of over 
250% as shown below.  

Table 3. Growth in ILOs networks (2004-2018) 

Total no. deployed ILOs 

2004 

129* 

2010 

232* 

201837 
492** 

% growth (compared to 2004) 
Source:  *    Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration  liaison 

80% 

250% 

- 

officers network, Ecorys 2017 

** Mapping of deployment carried out by the Commission in 2018 

Finally, since the adoption of the ILO Regulation, new platforms and forums involving 
migration stakeholders have been set-up in third countries, often with the same circle of 
consular staff and liaison officers present. In addition to the anti-fraud groups, which in 
many  third  countries  serve  as  the  de  facto  ILO  network  umbrella,  other  fora  include: 
Local Schengen Cooperation (LSC), Foreign Law Enforcement Community (FLEC), EU 
Cooperation  Platforms  on  Migrant  Smuggling38,  and  Joint  Readmission  Committees. 
This  proliferation  of  potential  meetings  and  forums  aimed  at  sharing  information, 
discussing  emerging  trends  and  modus  operandi  and  involving  ILOs,  makes  a 
fundamental difference in the present situation compared to 2004, when the Regulation 
was adopted. 

3.  METHOD 

Short description of methodology 

The methodological approach for the present assessment of the ILO Regulation strove to 
be robust by gathering and triangulating information from a variety of sources, including 
evidence  from  an  external  evaluation  study  and  consultations  with  key  stakeholders. 
However,  given  limited  availability  of  open  source  documents  related  to  the  ILO 
Regulation  and  their  often  confidential  nature,  e.g.  Presidency  reports  and  documents 
associated to the work of the  Expert Group of Member States on ILO Networks set up 
and  led  by  the  Commission,  the  major  components  of  the  research  were  primarily 
constituted  through  field  work.  A  participatory  approach  was  applied  allowing  for 
proactive  and  continuous  involvement  of  those  directly  affected  by  the  Regulation, 
notably  the  ILOs  deployed  to  third  countries  and  their  managers  in  national 
administrations of Member States.  

The  external  evaluation  was  carried  out  in  the  period  of  June  2016  –  August  2017  by 
ECORYS NL. The research team conducted workshops in 14 third countries39 ensuring 
that the sample represented locations of high and low levels of ILO deployment, as well 
as countries that are either an important source of irregular migration, airline hub or land- 
and sea transit countries. The selected countries also varied in their levels of cooperation 
with  the  EU  in  matters of  illegal  immigration.  At  each  location,  additional  face-to-face 

36   The  mapping  of  the  ILO  deployment  carried  out during  the  external  evaluation  resulted  with  a  total 
number of 581 ILOs deployed in 88 third countries in 2016. Subsequent verification of this data by the 
Commission and in cooperation with Member States allowed for correcting and updating the mapping 
of deployment as for the cutting date of 1 April 2018.  

37   Figure as of March 2018 which includes a correction from the UK that removed 81 locally employed 
staff from their original figure of 137 provided to the external evaluators, as well as the end of a small 
number of other ILO deployments by Member States that were not replaced.  

38   Launched in July 2016 in Pakistan, in October 2016 in Nigeria and in February 2018 in Tunisia. 
39   Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Nigeria, Ethiopia, South Africa, Albania (Western Balkans region), Morocco, 

Senegal, Ghana, Turkey, Thailand, China, and Russia. 
10 

 
  
                                                 
interviews  were  conducted  with  individual  ILOs  (prior  to  or  after  the  focus  group)  as 
well  as  with  relevant  host  country  stakeholders,  including  competent  authorities,  local 
police, airlines, international organisations (IOM, UNHCR) and EU Delegations. A total 
of 62 interviews were conducted during the field missions followed up by two targeted 
surveys of ILOs and ILO managers as well as in-depth interviews with representatives of 
the  European  Commission,  European  External  Action  Service  and  EU  Agencies 
(EBCGA and Europol).  

Member  States’  views  on  the  ILO  Regulation  were  gathered  in  the  framework  of  the 
external  evaluation  study  and  in  particular  via  in-depth  interviews  and  an  ‘ILO  back 
office  panel’  composed  of  France,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Spain  and  the  United 
Kingdom.  They  were  also  informed  of  activities  linked  to  the  evaluation  during  the 
meetings of the Expert Group of Member States on ILO Networks.  

Methodological challenges: limitations and robustness of findings 

While  the  data  collection  process  was  designed  and  implemented  in  a  robust  way, 
constraints  related  to  the  availability  of  data,  representativeness  of  the  research  sample 
and analysis of attribution have to be highlighted.  

A major challenge throughout the evaluation was the limited availability of quantitative 
data relating to activities of ILO networks, which in turn limited the ability to carry out 
objective  comparative  analysis.  This  has  meant  that  the  evaluation  itself  relies 
significantly upon qualitative information deriving from the focus groups with ILOs and 
interviews with their managers in Member States and other relevant stakeholders, which 
has  also  shown  some  shortcoming  as  to  the  viability  and  completeness  of  information 
provided.   

While  the  geographical  and  functional  representativeness  of  ILOs  consulted  is  broadly 
consistent with  the overall  distribution of their population by sending State, the overall 
sample was small. A total of 142 ILO survey responses were received, representing about 
26% of the ILOs posted in third countries and covering 18 Member States40. 83% of the 
ILO  survey  respondents  represented  France  (26  responses),  Spain  (20  responses), 
Germany (14 responses), Austria and the Netherlands (12 responses each), Norway (11 
responses)  and  UK  (8  responses),  who  are  also  the  countries  deploying  the  highest 
number  of  ILOs.  However,  the  above  number  of  responses  constitutes  only  23%  of 
French,  15%  of  Spanish,  29%  of  German  and  10%  in  case  of  UK  population  of  ILOs, 
however  for Austria  and the Netherlands it represented 57%  and 48%  respectively. All 
together  20  EU  Member  States  plus  Norway  and  Switzerland  were  reached  during  the 
evaluation.  

Another  challenge  was  linked  to  determining  the  extent  to  which  the  reality  of  ILO 
deployments,  the  existence  of  ILO  networks  and  the  nature  of  cooperation  and 
information exchange among ILOs in a given host country could have been attributed to 
the  Regulation.  Due  to  the  limited  comparability  of  the  bi-annual  Presidency  reports, 
which are de facto the only mechanism of reporting on ILO networks, it was difficult to 
define  a  credible  approximation  as  to  what  would  have  occurred  in  the  absence  of  the 
Regulation.  Additionally,  historic  data  on  the  deployment  were  not  provided  by  all 
Member States, which impeded comprehensiveness of the analysis of the developments 
related to the ILO Networks since the adoption of the Regulation. 

40   ILOs  from  Belgium,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Portugal  and  Slovenia  were  not 

represented in the ILO survey, other EU Member States do not deploy ILOs.  

11 

 
                                                 
A  number  of  mitigations  were  undertaken  in  the  attempt  to  overcome  the  challenges 
mentioned  above,  including  repeated  consultation  with  Member  States  through  Expert 
Group  of  Member  States  on  ILO  Networks  meetings,  as  well  as  widening  outreach  to 
ILOs.  However,  despite  such  efforts,  the  evidence  base  upon  which  judgments  can  be 
made  concerning  the  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  added  value  of  the  ILO  Regulation, 
remains  weak.  This  also  includes  challenges  in  establishing  a  robust  baseline  for  the 
evaluation  of  the  ILO  Regulation  and  comparable  data  going  back  in  time  to  adoption 
and throughout implementation.   

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

Description of the current situation  

The  provisions  of  the  ILO  Regulation  are  directly  applicable  and  seem  largely  to  be 
complied  with  by  Member  States.  However,  the  nature  of  the  Regulation  and  limited 
tangibility  of  its  components  constrains  the  unequivocal  assessment  of  the  quality  and 
completeness of its implementation, in particular the extent to which the specific ILOs’ 
networking, as defined by the Articles 2 and 4, has been taking place. As concluded by 
the  evaluation,  the  majority  of  Member  States  have  aligned  the  national  definitions  of 
ILOs to the definition of the Article 1(1) and instructed their ILOs to collect and share 
information within the scope of their respective mandates as well as to ensure networking 
with  relevant  stakeholders.  Indeed,  in  most  locations  where  there  are  more  than  3  ILO 
present,  ILOs  have  formed  networks  of  some  description.  However,  in  the  majority  of 
cases  these  networks  have  not  been  “formalised”  in  the  sense  of  either  being  given  a 
name, having a formal mission statement, agreeing to rules of procedure over meetings 
and accounting for the agreed actions. Only few isolated examples of highly formalised 
networks that meet some or all of these characteristics were identified.  

Figure  2  Specific  activities  on  which  Back  Offices  instruct  their respective  ILOs  to  collaborate 
with other ILOs posted in the same country 

Set up contact with similar networks

Exchange information

Meet with other MS ILOs

Attend joint trainings

Organise trainings

Adopt common approach to strategic issues

Contribute to Presidency reports

96% 

96% 

96% 

78% 

74% 

70% 

61% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

22% 

26% 

30% 

39% 

Adopt common approach to airline carriers

48% 

52% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes No

Source: Evaluation of ILO Regulation (EC) no 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers 
network, Ecorys 2017 

In contrast, not all Member States  fully applied, nor did they take full advantage of the 
provisions of the Regulation to inform each other, and the Commission and the Council, 
regarding  current  and  intended  deployments  as  foreseen  in  the  Article  3  of  the 
Regulation. Such information has been only occasionally shared through the institutional 
channels or through ICONet, the latter, however, as reported in the evaluation, was used 
only by 3 Member States. The annual mapping of the ILO deployments launched by the 

12 

 
 
Commission  in  2015,  2016  and  most  recently  in  2018  in  the  framework  of  the  Expert 
Group of Member States on ILO Networks allowed for capturing some recent changes in 
the ILO presence in third countries but may not be fully exhaustive.  

Non-compliance was also observed in relation to Article 4 (3) and 6 (1) stipulating that 
the  Member  State  holding  Presidency  of  the  Council  should  organise  ILO  network 
meetings and draw up by the end of each semester, a report to the European Parliament, 
the  Council  and  the  Commission  on  the  activities  of  immigration  liaison  officers 
networks in specific countries and/or regions of particular interest to the Union as well as 
on  the  situation  in  those  countries  and/or  regions  in  matters  relating  to  illegal 
immigration.  An  option  of  engaging  another  Member  States  as  an  acting  Presidency  in 
case of lack of presence in the country or the region concerned was not widely applied. 
While all, but one, Member State submitted reports on the activities of ILOs as required 
by  Article  6(1)41,  many  of  them  were  delivered  late  (up  to  two  years  following  the 
Presidency) and some did not include responses to Part I questions.  

The nature of the reports presented by Presidencies (covering one country or region, and 
thus  summarising  the  activities  of  just  one  network  at  a  time,  rather  than  all  ILOs 
Networks) also limited the ability of the Commission to provide factual summaries and, 
where appropriate, recommendations to the European Parliament and the Council on the 
development  of  the  immigration  liaison  officers  networks,  on  an  annual  basis,  as 
stipulated in Article 6(4).  

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

Relevance 

At the time of adoption of the ILO Regulation, Member States felt that more operational 
cooperation and coordination, including a closer integration between tasks performed by 
ILOs  deployed  to  third  countries  was  needed to  effectively  address common  threats  on 
the external border of the Schengen area. This need is still relevant today, arguably more 
so  given  the  increasing  migration  pressure  at  the  European  borders  and  the  crisis 
experienced most recently in 2015, when Member States reported more than 1 820 000 
detections  of  illegal  border  crossing  along  the  external  borders42.  The  policy  response,  
set out in the European Agenda on Migration, outlined the need to take a comprehensive 
approach and ensure that all the tools available to the Union and its Member States were 
fully effective. Thus, with the core objectives of the ILO Regulation being to contribute 
to the prevention and combating of irregular migration, facilitating return and supporting 
legal  migration,  by  promoting  networking,  cooperation  and  exchange  of  information 
between of ILOs deployed to third countries, the role of ILOs in terms of fostering a joint 
European response remains highly relevant. Indeed the liaison component of their work 
can  also  significantly  contribute  to  both  building  bilateral  partnerships  with  third 
countries’  authorities  and  supporting  implementation  of  EU  external  migration  policy 
priorities. 

The conclusion on the relevance of deploying ILOs to third countries is widely shared by 
all  stakeholders.  By  virtue  of  being  located  in  third  countries  and  cooperating  with  the 
authorities there, ILOs and their networks play unique roles in the European toolbox of 
measures  used  to  pursue  a  common  migration  policy.  ILOs  are  ideally  positioned  and 
have the capability to contribute to forecasting and risk analysis which, in the context of 

41   Based on the reporting format specified in the Commission Decision 2005/687/EC. 
42   http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/Annula_Risk_Analysis_2016.pdf  

13 

 
                                                 
rapidly changing trends and flows of migrants, is critical to understanding of the context 
within which irregular migration occurs. They provide insight into sources of information 
such as social media that can spread misinformation and thus fuel peoples’ movements. 
Encouraged  by  the  current  Regulation  for  creating  networks,  when  posted  in  the  same 
country, ILOs share of factual and on-the-ground knowledge among themselves. 

Member  States  have  long  recognised  the  relevance  and  benefits  of  deploying  specialist 
ILOs  to  third  countries  for  establishing  partnerships,  supporting  collaborative  working 
with international actors to more effectively manage the impacts caused through irregular 
migration pressures from source and transit countries. Indeed the original regulation was 
a response itself to the rapid expansion by Member States of their liaison officer footprint 
and  intended  to  ensure  that  as  they  did  so,  the  ILO  work  in  networks  and  share 
information. Since 2004 Member States have continued to expand their networks as well 
as  widen  the  sophistication  of  their  officers’  responses.  The  almost  500  ILOs  that  are 
now  deployed  across  over  100  countries  come  from  a  range  of  backgrounds,  both  law 
enforcement  and  immigration.  They  have  responsibilities  that  include  disrupting 
organised crime networks; working with  the aviation sector to  ensure passengers board 
flights with correct travel documents; supporting anti-fraud measures to secure the visa 
issuance process; facilitating returns; and building the capacity of third countries to better 
manage  and  counter  their  own  irregular  migration  pressures.  Increasingly  too  ILOs  are 
being asked to support Member States’ own resettlement programmes as well as become 
involved in integration of migrants entering the EU on legal migration routes. The more 
than fourfold increase in ILOs since 2004 is a significant indicator of how important and 
relevant Member States continue to view the deployment of ILOs. 

Coherence 

As explicitly stated in the European Agenda on Migration43, ILO Networks are a tool that 
can help to enhance cooperation with third countries of origin and transit and has been 
seen as important element of implementation of 'migration compacts' established by the 
Partnership Framework44. The European integrated border management (IBM) based on 
four-tier access control model45 presumes contribution from networks of ILOs. Similarly, 
ILOs  are  to  feed  into  situational  awareness  of  the  border  situation,  pre-frontiers 
intelligence picture and risk analysis in line with European Border Surveillance System 
(Eurosur)46. The extent to which the potential synergies and complementarities between 
ILO  networks  and  other  EU  measures  are  actually  maximised  depends  on  the 
implementation of the latter and the level of ILOs involvement in the execution of those.  

Likewise, there are clear potential complementarities and synergies with new European 
liaison officers’ functions that have been established since the adoption of the Regulation 
(see table 4 below). A network of European Migration Liaison Officers (EMLOs) was set 
the  Council  Conclusion  of  April  201547  and  subsequent  COM 
up  following 
Communication  on  the  European  Agenda  on  Migration.  EMLOs,  who  primarily 

43   COM(2015) 240. 
44   COM(2016) 385. 
45   Regulation  (EU)  No  2016/1624  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  European 
Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/299 of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  and  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No  836/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council,  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2007/2004  and  Council  Decision  2005/267/EC  (OJ  L  251, 
16.9.2016, p. 1-76). 

46   Regulation  (EU)  No  1052/2016  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  October  2013 

establishing the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur) OJ L 295, 6.11.2013, p.11-26. 
47   http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/04/23/special-euco-statement/pdf  

14 

 
                                                 
represent the interests of the Union, have so far been deployed to the EU Delegations in 
13  key  third  countries  To  avoid  the  duplication  of  tasks  with  ILOs  and  improve 
networks’  effectiveness,  EMLOs  were  tasked  with  coordination  of  ILO  networks  by 
organising  regular  meetings  where  necessary,  as  well  as  supporting  the  ILOs  in  the 
contacts with host authorities by utilising its position as an Union representative. When 
questioned in the context of this evaluation, the EMLOs pointed out to the important role 
they  have  been  already  playing  in  bringing  ILOs  together  in  the  regular  ILO  network 
meetings and facilitating access to information thanks to their leverage as representatives 
of EU-28, in particular in those countries where ILOs do not have an easy access to host 
authorities.  

Since  2016,  following  the  entry  into  force  of  the  new  legal  basis48,  the  EBCG  Agency 
commenced deployment of liaison officers to third countries with a mandate to play an 
operational  and  connecting  role  in  the  EBCGA  contacts  with  host  authorities,  and  in 
some  locations  in  particular,  to  facilitate  agreements  and  implementation  of  EBCGA 
Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with third countries. EBCGA liaison officers are 
also  tasked  with  contributing  to  the  work  of  the  Agency,  notably  in  the  fields  of  risk 
analysis  and  return.  Pursuant  to  Article  55(2)  of  the  EBCG  Regulation,  priority  for  the 
deployment of EBCGA liaison officers has been given to those third countries which, on 
the  basis  of  a  risk  analysis,  constitute  a  country  of  origin  or  transit  regarding  illegal 
immigration.  To  this  end,  the  first  three  liaison  officers  were  posted  in  Turkey  (April 
2016), Niger (August 2017) and the Western Balkans (September 2017) and seven more 
positions  are  to  be  established  by  the  end  of  2020.  Where  deployed,  EBCGA  liaison 
officers have formed part of the local ILO Networks. 

Table  4  below,  provides  comparison  of  the  main  characteristics  of  ILOs  deployed  by 
member States and EU to third countries. 

Table 4 Comparison of ILOs with similar EU instruments49 

MS ILOs 

EMLOs 

Ownership 
Bilateral 
Posted in MS 
diplomatic 
missions  

Multilateral 
Posted in EU 
Delegations 

Scope 
Represent police 
cooperation and  
migration bilateral 
interests 

Represent general EU 
migration interests  

EBCGA 
LOs 

Bilateral / 
Multilateral  
Posted in EU 
Delegations 

Represents EBCGA 
interests   
Cooperation with third 
countries at EU external 
borders 

Responsibilities 
Establish and maintain direct contacts with 
competent national and regional authorities  
Gather knowledge and information 
Prevent of irregular entries to its sending 
state and detect false documents 
Establish and maintain direct contacts with 
competent national and regional authorities 
for cooperation with EU on migration 
Provide analysis and recommendations  
Coordinate and support ILOs Network 
Support implementation of EU return policy 
Develop and maintain operational bilateral 
cooperation with host country  
Draft and elaborate field assessments;  
Support implementation of EBCGA projects 
Support ILOs Network 

Source: Evaluation of ILO Regulation (EC) no 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers 
network, Ecorys 2017 

48     Regulation  (EU)  No  2016/1624  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  European 
Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/299 of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  and  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No  836/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council,  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2007/2004  and  Council  Decision  2005/267/EC  (OJ  L  251, 
16.9.2016, p. 1-76). 

49    Detailed analysis of typologies and numbers of ILOs deployed by Member States and EU are presented  

contained in Annex 4. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
As  concluded  by  the  evaluation,  the  existing  ILO  networks  can  be  complemented  and 
benefit from the new European liaison functions and good practices of close cooperation 
between ILO, EMLO and EBCGA LO have been already identified, e.g. in Niger, where 
all  liaison  officers  cooperate  closely  and  share  information  in  the  framework  of  the 
Platform  on  Information  Exchange  on  irregular  migration  and  migrant  smuggling.  The 
ILO  Regulation  and  activities  of  ILO  networks  are  coherent  with  EU  migration  policy 
priorities  and  EU-funded  interventions  aiming  to  enhance  migration  management,  to 
reduce irregular migration flows, migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings and 
to promote integrated border management. 

Effectiveness 

The  ILO  Regulation  is  just  one  piece  of  a  wider  array  of  measures  in  the  area  of 
migration. As such, its implementation has had only a partial and indirect impact on the 
global objectives of reduction of irregular migrant flows and related criminality as well 
as  increasing  effective  returns  and  management  of  legal  migration.  However,  while 
assessing the effectiveness of the ILO Regulation, the external evaluation considered the 
extent to which the specific and operational objectives stipulated by the legal framework 
have been fulfilled since its adoption in 2004. These include in particular effectiveness of 
ILO Regulation in triggering deployment of and cooperation of ILOs in location and vis-
à-vis  host  country  stakeholders,  gathering  and  exchange  of  operational  and  strategic 
information, supporting return as well as coordination of resources at the European level.  

Role of the ILO Regulation in relation to the liaison officers’ deployment 

Member  States  began  deploying  liaison  officers  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  ILO 
Regulation and as concluded by the external evaluation, the new legal instrument had no 
apparent impact on Member States decision-making process on future deployment plans. 
In  fact,  the  underlying  priorities  of  Member  States’  remained  influenced  more  by 
developments in migration trends, national strategic priorities and financial capabilities. 
ILOs  were  deployed  to  third  countries  characterized  by  particularly  large  or  specific 
migratory  pressure  and/or  where  large  volumes  of  visa  applications  are  processed  by 
sending  Member  States.  Non-functioning  mechanisms  for  mutual  notification  of 
deployment  of  ILOs  hindered  further  the  opportunity  of  EU  wide  coordination  in  this 
respect.  As  a  result,  there  are  third  countries  with  ILOs  from  more  than  15  Member 
States are: China, Russia, Turkey, India, Nigeria, Thailand, Pakistan, Jordan50.  

In  Article  5(1),  the  Regulation  provided  a  possibility  for  Member  States  to  agree 
bilaterally  or  multilaterally  on  the  common  use  of  the  ILOs  deployed  to  the  same 
location.  However,  there  are  only  few  examples  on  how  Member  States  exploited  this 
opportunity,  including  the  deployments  within  the  network  of  Nordic  law  enforcement 
liaison  officers,  composed  of  Finland,  Iceland,  Denmark,  Sweden  and  Norway  and 
addressing  migration  related  issues  in  a  wider  context  of  collaboration  in  combatting 
organised  and  transnational  crime.  The  shorter-term  joint  deployments  under  External 
Border  Fund  (EBF)  2007-201351  have  enabled  a  more  cost-effective  way  of  widening 
presence  in  third  countries,  in  particular  for  Members  States  with  limited  or  no  ILO 
network.  An  EBF  allocation  of  little  over  8M  EUR  co-financed  posting  a  total  32 

50   Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration  liaison  officers 

network, Ecorys 2017. 

51  Decision No 574/2007/EC, OJ L144, 6.6.2007, p. 22. 

16 

 
                                                 
common  ILOs  (i.e.  shared  between  at  least  two  Member  States),  with  dedicated 
Community Actions launched in 2007 (7 ILOs deployed), 2008 (7 ILOs deployed), 2011 
(7 ILOs deployed) and 2012 (11 ILOs deployed). However, short duration of the projects 
(between 18-24 months), difficulties in recognition of multiple accreditation by the host 
authorities  and  lack  of  specific  provisions  on  communication  and  information  sharing 
beyond partnering countries hindered the possible benefits of such joint deployments. 

Furthermore,  sharing  certain  tasks  among  ILOs  as  stipulated  in  Article  5(2)  has  been 
observed  in  locations  where  ILOs  work  predominantly  at  airports.  In  such  situations, 
ILOs  tend  to  rotate  schedule  for  airport  duties.  Only  in  a  handful  locations  those 
arrangements  have  been  formalised,  e.g.  in  case  of  ICE  or  SAIL  networks,  while  in 
general they are based on a mutual understanding among ILOs.    

Role of the ILO Regulation in creating and strengthening local ILO Networks 

The  establishment  of  the  networks  stipulated  by  the  ILO  Regulation  was  a  progressive 
step towards enhanced cooperation, closer team work and a better pooling of resources 
within  the  same  third  country  location.  However,  the  provision  leaves  much  room  for 
interpretation as to how ILOs should organise their network activities, such as what level 
of joint activities and formalisation should be sought.  As reported in the ILO survey and 
presented  in  the  figure  3  below,  ILOs  deployed  to  the  same  host  country  frequently 
cooperate and exchange information in a ‘natural way’, resulting  in the emergence of an 
informal ‘ILO network’.  

Figure 3. ILO activities and formalisation of the networks 

Regular ILO network meetings

68% 

32% 

Organise joint trainings for local stakeholders

ILO network has a name

Joint positions vis-à-vis local authorities

Internal terms of reference

Joint positions vis-a-via airlines

54% 

45% 

36% 

34% 

31% 

Joint agreement with the authorities

24% 

Joint duty phone

17% 

46% 

55% 

64% 

66% 

69% 

76% 

83% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Yes No

Source: Evaluation of ILO Regulation (EC) no 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers 
network, Ecorys 2017 

At  the  same  time,  only  two  thirds  of  interviewed  ILOs  reported  to  be  part  of  an  ILO 
network.  Importantly,  the  other  third  of  ILOs  largely  consisted  of  law  enforcement 
liaison officers for whom migration related tasks are only a fraction of their duties and 
who reportedly do not consider themselves as ILOs. That points to the currently observed 
lack  of  clarity  over  the  definition  of  ILO,  which  as  stipulated  by  the  Article  1  of  the 
Regulation on the one hand embraces liaison officers if they work on migration, while on 
the  other  is  not  explicit  vis-à-vis  those  deployed  as  police  attachés  and  having  certain 
functions related to migration.  

As  evidenced  by  the  external  evaluation,  the  intensity  of  cooperation  and  information 
exchange  and  the  level  of  formality  of  the  networks  vary  per  location  depending  on 
several factors such as size and homogeneity of the liaison community and the situation 

17 

 
 
of  the  host  country  (see  figure  8  in  Annex  4).  Such  cooperation  tends  to  be  stronger 
where ILOs' tasks are framed by similar core objectives and mandates, such as in case of 
the  airline  liaison  officers,  whose  roles  are  to  monitor  flights  departing  to  the  EU  and 
prevent  boarding  of  third  country  nationals  suspected  of  being  facilitated  to  the  EU 
illegally. As seen from the examples in South Africa, Kenya, Ghana, Thailand or China, 
ILOs  working  at  the  airport  form  semi-formalised,  co-located  teams  with  a  rotating 
schedule  or  arrangement  to  ensure  ILO  presence  at  the  boarding  gates  of  Schengen 
directed  flights.  Outside  airports,  the  ILO  community  is  characterised  by  a  wider 
diversity of tasks and background, and even if this is per se no obstacle to cooperation, 
the more alike mandates are, the stronger the collaboration that exists between individual 
ILOs posted in the same location. ILOs interviewed in the context of the study admitted 
that  personal  factors,  past  working  experiences  or  joint  connections  in  the  world-wide 
ILOs  network  might  define  to  what  extent  ILOs  would  trust  each  other  and  would  be 
willing to share information.  

Few cases of regular and formalised interactions within the ILO networks were identified 
through  the  evaluation,  e.g.  in  Pretoria,  Bangkok,  Beijing  and  Nairobi  where  ILOs 
meetings  are  scheduled  in  the  airport  specific  context.  Scattered  evidence  points  to 
meetings being called upon in third countries subjected to the biannual Presidency report, 
by Member States holding the Presidency of the Council. Despite the renewed interest in 
ILO  networks  work  prompted  by  the  migratory  crisis  and  despite  the  existing  legal 
obligation,  not  all  past  Presidencies  organised  those  meetings.  There  are  also  a  few 
locations  in  which  ILO  network  meetings  have  been  organised  on  initiative  of  the  EU 
Delegations, e.g. in Ankara and Rabat. In countries where ILO network meetings do not 
occur regularly, ILOs reported on the higher importance of the Anti-Fraud Group/Fraud 
Control  Group52  (64%  ILOs  surveyed  confirm  this  being  relevant),  and  to  some  lesser 
extent of the Local Schengen Committee meetings (46% ILOs surveyed). However, still 
only 29% ILOs declared regular participation in those fora.  

Role of the ILO Regulation in stipulating contact with local stakeholders  

While maintaining contacts with local stakeholders, ILOs turn to competent authorities of 
the host third country, such as immigration, border control, airport and law enforcement 
authorities as well as  airline carriers, international organisations (e.g. UNHCR, UNODC, 
IOM  or  Interpol)  and  local  NGOs,  and  finally    consular  staff  of  Member  States’  visa 
sections as well as EU Delegations. Contacts with host country authorities are developed 
and  maintained  in  overwhelming  number  of  cases  on  the  individual  ILO  level,  i.e.  de 
facto on bilateral basis between the sending Member State and the hosting third country, 
rather than on the ILO network level. This is both a consequence and a demonstration of 
the limited extent to which cooperation as a network can be  productive, in particular in 
third countries with a difficult political environment. Only in third countries with better 
political  alignment  with  Member  States  and  where  authorities  are  invited  to  ILO 
meetings,  acting  as  a  network  presents  an  added  value  and  impact  positively  on  its 
maturity.  

The organisation of joint information sessions and training courses for airlines, handling 
agents,  security  checking  companies,  consular  departments,  and  to  a  lesser  extent, 
immigration authorities and border agencies in the host third country is a key component 

52   Anti-Fraud  Group/Fraud  Control  Group  meetings  are  an  informal  platform  of  ILOs,  consular  staff, 
general police and security attaches and dedicated to discuss cases of visa fraud and modus operandi 
and trends in the field of irregular migration, e.g. falsification of documents and travel routes. 

18 

 
                                                 
of  ILO  work  and  often  used  as  leverage  and  for  reaching  out  to  the  authorities  and 
building  their  goodwill.  The  training  typically  covers  topics  such  as  document  fraud 
prevention, impostor profiling and entry requirements. 

As  regards  cooperation  with  EU  Delegations  mentioned  already  above,  there  is  only 
limited evidence of third country locations where EU Delegations took an active role in 
animating ILO networks, by calling meetings on behalf of the Member State holding the 
EU  Presidency.  This  should  not  come  as  a  surprise  given  that  under  the  current 
Regulation  the  coordination  role  of  the  ILO  networks  is  given  to  the  Member  States 
holding  the  Presidency.  ILOs’  potential  to  contribute  to  improving  EU  Delegation’s 
awareness  and  capacities  to  deal  with  migration  issues  could  be  however  exploited 
further,  in  view  of  strengthening  policy  dialogue  and  effective  operational  cooperation 
with  local  authorities.  Indeed,  interactions  between  EU  Delegations  and  ILOs  has  been 
developing recently but primarily in third countries, with whom Union engages directly 
on  migration  issues  ,  thus  key  countries  of  origin  and  transit  where  EMLOs  have  been 
deployed.  

Role of the ILO Regulation in relation to information gathering and sharing  

The  ILO  Regulation  adopted  in  2004  was  not  prescriptive  regarding  ways  in  which 
operational  and  strategic  information  should  be  gathered  and  shared  within  local  ILO 
networks. However, following the establishment of the ICONet, it was deemed necessary 
to  provide  ILOs  with  a  structured  and  secure  mean  of  communication.  The  2011 
amendment to the ILO Regulation included provisions for ICONet to become a platform 
where relevant information could be made available for all ILOs. However, despite being 
stipulated  by  the  Regulation,  hardly  any  ILOs  consulted  during  the  external  evaluation 
had  heard  about  ICONet  and  only  a  handful  of  ILO  managers,  despite  having  access, 
used it actively to upload or consult information. In fact, the information provided in the 
ICONet  has  not  been  regularly  updated  and  is  generally  modest  in  scope,  thus  not 
considered very useful by ILOs and their managers.  

Additionally, an overwhelming majority of consulted ILOs indicated that while operating 
within  the  same  local  network  they  do  not  generally  adopt  common  approaches  to 
gathering and reporting information. In their view, and in particular in the view of those 
with law enforcement background, any attempt to frame information exchange should be 
avoided as it could inadvertently place more restrictions on the ILOs ability to share it. 
Nevertheless,  information  and  practical  experiences  are  shared  on  a  frequent  basis  and 
when  needed.  This  happens  mostly  via  informal  channels,  with  face-to-face  bilateral 
contacts  (42%),  emails  (35%),  WhatsApp  (13%),  telephone  (10%)  being  the  most 
important channels, while formal meetings of ILO Networks reportedly used to channel 
information  by  only  14%  of  ILOs53.  Still,  ILOs  interviewed  in  the  framework  of  the 
evaluation,  declared  interest  in  having  a  common  web-secured  platform  or  apps  for 
strategic and operational information exchange. 

The ILO Regulation, and in particular its amendment of 2011, was also aimed to stipulate 
a  more  systematic  sharing  of  information  with  Union  Agencies,  notably  Frontex 
(currently EBCGA). It was argued at the time of the revision that ILOs could provide a 
substantial  contribution  to  the  risk  analysis  developed  by  the  Agency.  However,  the 
evidence  stemming  from  the  evaluation,  including  feedback  received  from  the  EU 

53   Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration  liaison  officers 

network, Ecorys 2017, p.60. 

19 

 
                                                 
Agencies  themselves54,  leads  to  a  conclusion  that  any  direct  interactions  with  ILOs  are 
limited to meetings which Agencies organise (e.g. risk analysis networks’ meeting such 
as AFIC, TU-RAN) or attend (ILO network meetings in some countries). Information is 
ultimately shared by ILOs on a bilateral basis via their national administration and then 
via formal channels defined in the legal basis of each Agency, as presented in the graph 
below.  This,  as  concluded  in  the  external  evaluation,  not  only  slows  down  the  flow  in 
both directions but too often constraints it completely. 

Figure 4. Flow of information between ILOs and Union Agencies 

MS ILO  

MS ILO back 
office  

Europol / 
EBCGA 
National Units  

Europol  / 
EBCGA 

                                    Information exchange here  

responsibility of Member States 

As  reported  by  both  the  EBCGA  and  Europol,  it  was  not  uncommon  that  analytical 
products  developed  by  either  of  the  Agencies  failed  to  be  transferred  to  ILOs  despite 
being  of  high  relevance  of  them.  Equally,  information  collected  by  ILOs  has  not  been 
systematically shared with the Union Agencies. The external evaluation revealed that just 
under half of back offices indicated that they do it on a regular basis55. In this respect, the 
mechanisms that were provided by the Regulation have not been fully realised. 

Finally,  the  Regulation  has  not  had  any  measurable  impact  on  the  level  or  scope  of 
information sharing between ILO managers in different Member States. Only 8 out of 20 
back offices reported on some degree of exchange with other Member States' authorities. 
The only  attempt  to  systemise such  exchange at the European level, was undertaken in 
the  context  of  the  Commission  led  Expert  Group  of  Member  States  on  ILO  Networks, 
which  despite  having  an  advisory  status,  served  de  facto  as  a  networking  platform  for 
back  offices.  As  concluded  in  the  evaluation,  the  current  system  cannot  address  in  a 
sustainable  manner  the  real  necessity  of  communication  and  information  exchange 
between ILOs, back offices and EU Agencies.  

Effectiveness of reporting provision   

The bi-annual Presidency report on activities of the ILO network in a given host country 
(Part I) and information concerning the situation in matters relating to illegal immigration 
(Part  II)  in  the  same  country  constitutes  the  formal  reporting  provisions  of  the  ILO 
Regulation. The report’s format is set out by the Commission Decision of 29 September 
2005  and  stipulates  that  it  should  be  based  on  facts  and  figures  and  on  available  and 
reliable  sources  of  information  so  as  to  enable  correct  assessment  of  the  situation.  The 
final report shall be treated as “RESTREINT UE” document. 

54   Following  EU  Agencies  were  consulted  on  this  topic:  EBSGA,  Europol,  EASO,  EUROJUST,  FRA 

and CEPOL.   

55   Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration  liaison  officers 

network, Ecorys 2017. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Since the 2011 amendment, Member States holding the Presidency of the Council may 
have chosen, in consultation with the Council and the Commission, a third country or a 
region  "of  particular  interest  to  the  EU"  to  report  on.  However,  the  analysis  of  the 
Presidency reports undertaken in the context of the external evaluation revealed that the 
reports  prepared  so  far  have  not  reflected  a  balanced  selection  of  third  countries  with 
particular risks for irregular migration (see Figure 7 in Annex 4). This has largely been 
caused by the fact that the choice of reporting has often been less guided by the relevance 
of  the  location  and  more  by  the  availability  of  national  staff  in  specific  locations.  ILO 
managers pointed out that having representation in the third country subject to reporting 
can in a practical way assist the process of drafting, notably gathering information from 
ILOs  and  other  stakeholders,  however,  it  can  also  result  in  the  same  country  being 
regularly  targeted  for  reporting  just  because  ILOs  are  conveniently  based  there.  This 
would  explain  for  instance  the  concentration  of  reporting  on  the  Western  Balkans  and 
Turkey (covered by respectively 56% and 24% of all reports submitted by Member States 
so  far),  which  both  hosting  relatively  big  ILO  networks.  The  evaluation  concluded  too 
that contributions from ILOs to the collection of information and analysis in relation to 
the  country  selected  for  the  Presidency  reporting,  was  often  very  limited  despite  this 
being a specific task of ILO Networks stipulated by Article 4 of the ILO Regulation.  

Furthermore, the effectiveness of the bi-annual Presidency reports as an information tool 
proved  to  be  limited  both  because  of  their  insufficient  comprehensiveness  and  variable 
quality  and  the  fact  that  they    have  not  usually  reached  the  right  audience  at  Member 
States and European levels. Since the adoption of the Regulation, the reporting has only 
covered  a  handful  of  third  countries  and  typically  referred  to  past  trends  that  were  no 
longer of relevance at the time of the presentation of the report to the Council. While the 
format  of  the  Presidency  reports  is  very  prescriptive,  the  Regulation  fail  to  stipulate  
annual or periodic updates on issues cited in past reports, offering only a snapshot of the 
migration  situation  in  a  given  country  during  that  particular  reporting  period56. 
Additionally, the geographic scope limitation of the individual reports does not allow for 
using them to monitor compliance with the Regulation or developments in ILO networks 
on a global scale.  

As observed  by the evaluation,  the lack of provision  for a follow up  mechanism to  the 
recommendations  from  Presidency  reports,  after  these  having  been  presented  to  the 
Council Working Party, undermined both their usefulness and actual application. There is 
no discernible pattern with respect to Member States’ use or non-use of the reports, but 
there  is  a  wide  consensus  that  the  bi-annual  reports  fall  short  of  expectations  as 
formulated  in  the  ILO  Regulation.  The  Presidency  reports  are  considered  to  provide 
limited  added  value,  both  for  the  operational  work  of  ILOs  and  for  the  situational 
awareness  of  the  border  situation,  pre-frontiers  intelligence  picture  and  risk  analysis  at 
the European and national levels.  

Role of the ILO Regulation in relation to supporting returns 

56   Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration  liaison  officers 

network, Ecorys 2017. 

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  current  Regulation  stipulates  that  ILOs  could  render  assistance  in  establishing  the 
identity of third country nationals and in facilitating their return to their country of origin. 
This  aspect  of  ILOs’  tasks  has  in  fact  increased  and  become  more  significant  for  their 
roles, and resulted in additional tasks being expected of them as well as the creation of 
specific returns and readmission services in some Member States’ administrations.  Joint 
EU  readmission  agreements  with  third  countries  as  well  as  the  use  of  the  EBCGA  for 
organising joint charter flights for removals have further strengthened the focus for ILOs 
on returns.  

To  this  end,  the  European  Return  Liaison  Officers  (EURLOs)  Specific  Action  was 
developed  in  2013  by  Belgium  and  the  Netherlands  under  Asylum,  Migration  and 
Integration  Fund57.    It  established  a  network  of  specialised  liaison  officers  deployed  to 
key third countries with a deliberate mandate to support EU returns. The role of EURLOs 
is to facilitate returns, for any Member State who is part of the programme, by supporting 
establishing  of  identity  of  third  country  nationals  and  obtaining  travel  documents.  At 
present  17  Member  States  have  joined  the  project  financially  and  benefit  from  the 
support of EURLOs appointed in 10 third countries58.  

The  successful  roll  out  of  this  project  emphasises  that  there  is  both  Member  States 
interest and an ongoing need for such joint specialised deployment. It also seems to fill 
the  apparent  gap,  given  that  only  9%  of  ILOs  stated,  when  interviewed  during  the 
external evaluation, that their tasks are exclusively linked to facilitation of return. Such 
dedicated deployments of liaison officers, as reported in the stakeholders' consultations, 
promote also a comprehensive operational cooperation on return between Member States, 
the  European  Commission,  third  countries'  authorities,  EBCGA,  relevant  international 
organisations and NGOs. 

Effectiveness of EU level coordination of resources at the European level 

The  focus  of  the  current  Regulation  was  on  ensuring  cooperation  and  coordination  of 
activities  of  individual  ILOs  within  local  networks  in  third  countries.  However,  the 
current  review  brought  to  the  light  the  major  shortcoming  of  this  approach  that  lacks 
provision  for  the  strengthening  of  cooperation  between  Member  States  authorities 
responsible for management of national liaison officer networks at the European level. In 
reality, close cooperation between the managers of the national ILO networks is critical 
to the effective use of the liaison officers deployed to third countries and for ensuring the 
fulfilment of their tasks stipulated in the Regulation.  

Indeed,  a  number  of  Member  States  authorities  deploying  the  highest  number  of  ILOs 
felt that gap and formed the ILO Managers Network (ILOMN) soon after the adoption of 
the  ILO  Regulation.  The  ILOMN  currently  consists  of  senior  ILO  network  managers 
from  several  European  and  Schengen  associated  countries  (Netherlands,  Germany, 
Austria,  Finland,  UK,  Norway,  and  Switzerland)  and  four  non-EU/non-Schengen 
members (New Zealand, Australia, US, Canada). Since 2013, ILOMN has been operating 
according  to  “Guiding  Principles  for  Co-Location”.  These  principles  correspond  to  a 
certain extent with the ILO Regulation, but also take the Regulation one step further by 

57  Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 OF The European Parliament and of the Council 

58  EURLOs are currently deployed to Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea Conakry, Indie, 
Morocco,  Iraq  and  Nigeria.  In  2018,  new  pilot  deployment  pursued  by  EBCGA  in  2018  includes 
Ghana and possibly Thailand and Vietnam. 

22 

 
                                                 
formulating operational guidelines which allows for each ILOMN member to decide how 
their  ILO  activities  would  best  contribute  as  a  member  of  a  ‘co-located  team’  (ILO 
network),  i.e.  in  the  absence  of  formalised  ILO  coordination  at  the  European  level,  the 
ILOMN  serves  as  an  alternative  forum  for  cooperation,  exchange  of  information  and 
mutual learning and that allows for closer coordination with no-EU/non-Schengen like-
minded partners.  

In  the  views  of  the  stakeholders  consulted,  the  lack  of  a  proper  European  level 
coordination  mechanism  had  a  negative 
the 
implementation  of the Regulation. In fact, the ILO back  offices  play a critical role and 
form ultimate structures through which the fulfilment of ILOs tasks and communication 
from the ILOs networks to the EU and its Agencies can be ensured.  

the  effectiveness  of 

impact  on 

Efficiency 

The external evaluation allowed for a limited assessment of the efficiency of the current 
ILO  Regulation,  by  identifying  the  main  costs  emerging  from  its  implementation  and 
comparing it with the results achieved.  The ILO Regulation served mostly to formalise 
an already existing situation of ILOs being deployed to third countries by Member States, 
by  introducing  more  prescriptive  provisions  in  relation  to  networking,  gathering  and 
sharing information, coordinating positions vis-a-vis third country stakeholders. As such, 
the majority of obligations in the Regulation did not fundamentally alter the nature and 
scope  of  the  activities  carried  out  by  ILOs  and  by  their  managers  in  national 
administration.  

The two new elements that the ILO Regulation introduced were, firstly, an obligation for 
Member  States  authorities  to  notify  other  Member  States  on  the  planned  and  actual 
deployments of ILOs, and secondly, a bi-annual Presidency reports on activities of ILO 
networks and the situation in host third country in relation to illegal immigration. For the 
former,  the  analysis  provided  in  the  context  of  the  external  study  estimated  a  total 
administrative  burden  for  all  Member  States  deploying  ILOs  and  linked  to  the 
notification  of  ILO  deployments,  at  approximately  7  520  EUR  per  year.  For  the  latter, 
with the overall costs incurred to prepare 39 Presidency reports on individual countries 
presented since 2004,  analysed during the study amounts to between 0,7MEUR million 
(low estimate) and 3,7EUR (high estimate) per year59.   

Additional cost linked to the implementation of the Regulation derived from a possibility 
to co-finance ILOs deployments using the External Border Fund (EBF) 2007-2013, both 
under the national allocations as well as through the Community Actions mechanism. A 
total of 8.3MEUR of Union financial resources were allocated to support the joint ILO 
deployments  by  at  least  two  Member  States  and  a  further  EUR  24.4  million  was 
programmed  to  support  ILOs  by  9  Member  States  through  their  2007-2013  national 
programmes. The co-financing for the deployment of ILOs continues to be available also 
in the current financial framework under the Internal Security Fund  – Borders Member 
States national programmes.     

The analysis of effectiveness revealed that the costs incurred to the affected stakeholders, 
i.e.  ILOs  and  their  deploying  administration,  and  deriving  from  the  new  requirements 
imposed by the ILO Regulation are marginal compared to the potential gains provided by 

59  Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration  liaison  officers 

network, Ecorys 2017. 

23 

 
                                                 
the  ILOs  networking  activities,  in  particular  in  preventing  illegal  immigration  at  the 
Union  external  air  borders,  detecting  documentary  frauds,  contributing  with  analysis  to 
on-going investigations into criminal networks of migrant smugglers and traffickers and 
facilitating return of third country nationals staying illegally in the EU. Indeed, there are 
several  aspects  of  migration  management  to  which  ILOs  contribute  by  actively 
preventing  irregular  migration  and  possibly  lowering  the  costs  of  reactive  measures 
aimed  at  combating  it.  However,  even  if  it  is  likely  that  the  existing  legal  basis 
contributes  to  mitigate  these  expenses,  methodologically  sound  conclusions  on  the 
efficiency of the ILO Regulation cannot be drawn from available data. 

EU added value 

As  argued  before,  due  to  limited  data  availability  on  the  performance  of  the  ILO 
networks, it has been particularly difficult to attribute the developments occurred in the 
architecture  of  the  ILO  networks  since  2004  to  the  Regulation  and  to  provide  a  robust 
assessment of the actual EU added value of this legal framework.  

The objective  of the ILO Regulation  was not  to establish new positions of ILOs but  to 
stipulate  networking,  cooperation  and  information  exchange  and  to  provide  a  common 
understanding and rules on how those liaison officers should interact when co-located in 
third  countries  to  work  on  migration  related  tasks.  As  signposted  by  ILOs  and  their 
managers,  these  networking  activities  was  so  inherent  to  the  ILOs  work  that  it 
materialised by default, without requiring a specific instruction or policy to be developed 
and  had  already  existed  before  the  legal  framework  was  established.  Thus,  the  ILO 
Regulation had limited added value as to the growth, consolidation and strengthening of 
local ILOs Networks.  

Additionally, the new requirements for information sharing and reporting, i.e. Presidency 
reports and ICONet, have proved ineffective and inadequate to the underlining objective 
of  gaining  a  comprehensive  assessment  on  the  migration  situation  in  the  key  third 
countries.  They  have  not  succeeded  in  systematising  flow  of  strategic  and  operational 
information  upwards  from  the  ILO  Networks  to  the  EU  bodies  (i.e.  Commission,    EU 
Delegations and Union Agencies) or horizontally across the networks and Member States 
authorities.  

Crucially  then  the  failure  to  have  a  sufficient  European  level  framework  obliging 
Member  State  back  offices  to  cooperate  and  coordinate  resources  has  been  a  major 
barrier to collectively exploiting the potential of ILOs and their networks in terms of EU 
added  value.  Member  State  authorities  consulted  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation 
recognise that and have expressly requested that a more systematic approach be taken to 
their networking in order to facilitate more effective cooperation.  

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

Nearly fourteen years have passed since the entry into force of the ILO Regulation and 
over  ten  years  since  its  last  review.  This  has  been  the  first  attempt  in  those  years  to 
review the impact and implementation of the Regulation, and it has been a challenge to 
assess  its  implementation  at  times  due  to  the  limited  data  available.  Despite  these 
limitations,  the  wide  and  participatory  consultative  approach  taken  throughout  the 
evaluation process allowed conclusions to be drawn, though it is clear that qualitative and 
quantitative  indicators  would  need  to  be  set  and  be  monitored  to  facilitate  any  future 
evaluation. 

24 

 
It became apparent in the process of the evaluation that ILOs and their networks remain 
relevant  in  the  current  global  migration  context  and  retain  coherence  with  the  Union 
polices  on  migration  in  all  their  aspects,  in  particular  those  aimed  at  preventing  and 
combating  irregular  migration.  The  ILOs  have  operational  expertise,  first-hand 
knowledge and contacts in host third countries that are relevant and useful when pursuing 
cooperation  on  migration  issues  with  authorities  and  other  relevant  stakeholders  and 
collecting  information  to  support  evidence-based  policy  making.  The  ILOs  have  been 
often described as 'ears and eyes in third countries' which illustrates their unique position 
and capacity to analyse challenges and provide strategic advice and operational support 
to  preventing and  countering irregular  migration, facilitating return  of the third country 
nationals illegally staying in the Union and legal migration.  

The  main  conclusion  from  the  external  evaluation  and  stakeholders  consultation  is  that 
ILOs are tightly bound to their home administration in terms of tasking and prioritising 
their  work  as  well  as  the  sharing  of  information.  Whilst  the  existing  Regulation 
concentrates  on  directing  how  officers  should  design,  develop  and  manage  networks 
locally in third countries, it neglects to address the fact that the vast majority of ILOs are 
Member  State  resources  with  clear  bilateral  objectives  and  guided  by  national 
administration.   

The evidence has also demonstrated that the current Regulation has not been responsible 
for  instigating  the  systematic  establishment  of  formal  networks.  Indeed,  evidence 
suggests that networking takes place in some form or another in any location where three 
or  more  ILOs  are  deployed.  These  networks  may  differ  significantly  by  location, 
depending on how they are organised; the levels of collaboration available and possible 
with  third  country  authorities;  and  the  levels  of  network  formalisation.  It  was  noted  as 
well that ILO networks seldom include all the ILOs deployed in the same location. Their 
involvement in different networks depends, among others, on their individual mandates, 
tasks, bilateral priorities of the sending country as well as less objective factors such as 
simply the personalities of liaison officers.   

The evaluation highlighted that a more systematic approach was needed at the European 
level  and  emphasised  the  importance  of  institutionalising  further  work  at  this  level 
between  Member  States,  the  Commission  and  the  Union  Agencies  responsible  for 
managing  networks  of  ILOs.  The  evaluation  cited  the  experience  of  the  Immigration 
Liaison Officers Managers Network, (ILOMN), which draws together managers of ILO 
networks  from  some  EU  Member  States  and  non-EU/non-Schengen  states  into  a  semi-
formal group who meet twice a year. ILOMN has successfully been used as a forum for 
those  countries  taking  part  to  identify  strategic  synergies  as  well  as  agree  codes  of 
conduct  directing  how  their  ILOs  interact  on  the  ground.  A  revision  of  the  current 
Regulation that aims to redress the above-mentioned shortcomings should therefore seek 
to  balance  obligations  towards  Member  States’  ILO  network  managers  and  strengthen 
their engagement at the European level through a formal governance mechanism. Such a 
mechanism  would  need  to  include  managers  of  Member  State  ILO  networks  that  have 
responsibility and authority to direct and coordinate their resources in third countries.  It 
should  also  provide  a  clear  framework  for  planning,  executing  and  co-ordinating  the 
development  and  operation  of  the  networks  at  a  European  level,  which  the  evaluation 
identified  as  being  missing  in  the  current  Regulation,  alongside  providing  a  platform 
through which newly developed European deployments and networks could be integrated 
and coordinated too. 

25 

 
In  terms  of  enhancing  and  promoting  the  exchange  of  information  between  Member 
States ILO networks as well as the Union and its Agencies, the existing ILO Regulation 
has  had  no  measurable  impact  on  the  level  and  scope  of  information  sharing  and  not 
succeeded  so  far  in  a  systematic  flow  of  strategic  information  and  operational  analysis 
upwards from the ILO networks to the EU bodies, i.e. Commission, European External 
Action  Service,  EU  Delegations  and  EU  Agencies,  as  well  as  horizontally  across  the 
networks  and  Member  States.  Furthermore  in  terms  of  information  exchange  the 
effectiveness  of  the  bi-annual  Presidency  Reports  as  information  tool  has  been  limited 
and had limited added value as unanimously agreed by all stakeholders consulted in the 
course  of  this  review.  Other  forms  of  reporting  remained  decentralised  and  fragmented 
across Member States, with ILOs reporting on a bilateral basis direct to their own back 
offices. 

It is clear that, when the heavy cross-border nature of the work of ILOs is considered, the 
objective of the current legal framework remains fully valid today and cannot be attained 
by Member States alone, thus confirming the importance of the EU intervention in this 
area.  The ILO  Regulation  remains  coherent  with  the  large number  of  EU  initiatives  on 
preventing  and  countering  irregular  migration,  with  synergies  and  complementarities 
between Member States ILO networks and new EU actors such as EMLOs, EURLOs and 
EBCGA LO but strongly dependant on the modalities for implementation of these new 
functions.  Furthermore,  the  evaluation  made  clear  that  the  current  Regulation  contains 
provisions that have neither been applied in practice nor monitored.  

In conclusion, the evaluation clearly demonstrated the continuing relevance and value for 
Member  States,  EU  and  Union  Agencies’  ILOs  in  managing  migration  pressures 
upstream in third countries. It did however highlight the flaws in the existing Regulation 
which  has  prevented  the  optimal  use  of  these  networks,  draw  attention  to  the  fact  that 
there is still much room for improvement regarding the coordination of activities of the 
ILOs and provided concrete recommendations that could be built upon with a revision.  

26 

 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

The  evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration 
liaison officers network has been led by Unit C1 Irregular Migration and Return Policy 
of DG Migration and Home Affairs.  

The Agenda planning for this evaluation is PLAN/2017/2186.  

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

An inter-service steering group on the revision of ILO Regulation was set up in October 
2015  in  view  of  preparing  terms  of  reference  for  the  external  evaluation  and  was 
systematically  consulted  throughout  the  research.  In  view  of  preparing  the  CSWD  and 
COM proposal on the revision of the ILO Regulation, the steering group was relaunched 
in  November  2017.  The  following  DGs  and  Services  were  invited  to  participate: 
Secretariat-General of the Commission (SG), Legal Service of the Commission (LS), DG 
Justice  and  Consumers  (JUST),  DG  International  Cooperation  and  Development 
(DEVCO),  DG  Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement  Negotiations  (NEAR),  DG  Budget 
(BUDG) and the European External Action Service (EEAS).  

The group met 3 times during the evaluation process. The first meeting was set up on 28 
November  2017.  The  second  meeting  took  place  on  11  January  2018  and  third  on  22 
January  2018.  The  meetings,  chaired  by  DG  HOME,  allowed  discussing  both  the 
evaluation  and  a  possible  modification  of  the  current  legal  framework.  All  the  DGs 
involved  had  the  opportunity  to  provide  their  views,  ask  for  clarifications  and  submit 
comments  to  the  draft  documents.    Besides  meetings,  regular  written  communication 
among the members was maintained.  

For  the  purpose  of  the  evaluation  and  possible  revision  of  the  legislation,  an  external 
evaluation  was  carried  out  between  July  2016  and  August  2017,  followed  by  the 
additional information gathering and analysis until April 2018.  

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

Given  the  limited  scope  of  the  application  of  the  ILO  Regulation,  only  targeted 
consultations with relevant stakeholders were carried out during the external evaluation 
process. All stakeholders involved in the implementation of the current legal framework 
and likely to be impacted by the envisaged changes, i.e. authorities of Member States and 
their  immigration  liaison  officers,  EU  institutions  and  Union  Agencies  were  consulted. 
14 workshops in key third countries where liaison officers are deployed were carried out, 
involving  consultations  with  all  relevant  staff,  notably  from  EU  Delegations,  consular 
sections  or  national  embassies  of  MS,  international  organisations  such  as  IOM  and 
UNHCR and national  authorities of the hosting countries. Additionally, EU  institutions 
and Union Agencies were consulted. Finally, tailored consultations took place in a form 
of five regional events gathering MS ILOs and other relevant stakeholders that will take 
place  between  November  2017  and  February  2018  in  Islamabad,  Belgrade,  Moscow, 
Amman and Tunis.  

 
 
4.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB (IF APPLICABLE) 

5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

As  a  result of  the  limited  availability  of  data  and  documentation,  the  evaluation  is  to  a 
large extent based on in-depth consultations with ILOs and ILO managers.  

ILO focus groups and surveys responses 

Member States’ ILOs who participated in the 16 Focus Groups, represented 26% of the 
Member States ILOs posted in third countries and covered 20 sending countries.60 Up to 
69%  of  the  focus  group  participants  represented  six  EU  countries:  France,  Spain, 
Germany, UK, the Netherlands and Austria.61  

A  total  of  142  ILO  survey  responses  were  received,  representing  about  26%  of  the 
Member States ILOs posted in third countries and covering 18 Member States.62 67% of 
the  ILO  survey  respondents  represented  France  (26  responses),  Spain  (20  responses), 
Germany (14 responses), Austria and the Netherlands (each 12 responses), and Norway 
(11  responses).63  The  142  ILO  respondents  cover  a  total  of  50  distinct  third-countries 
around  the  globe  according  to  their  posting  location  (dark  blue)  and  an  additional  61 
countries as part of their mandate (light blue). The geographic distribution of the ILOs’ 
deployment and coverage is visualised in the Figure 5 below: 

Figure 5. Distribution of ILO deployments of survey respondents 

Source:  Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration 
liaison officers network, Ecorys 2017 

Back office survey responses 

Back  office  survey  respondents represent  21  distinct  EU  Member  States.  Two  Member 
States  (Finland  and  Norway)  submitted  separate  survey  responses  on  behalf  of  each 
competent  authority  that  is  deploying  ILOs  abroad  (immigration  authorities  and  the 
police). Three of the back office respondents (Austria, Germany and Sweden) provided 
separate  responses  to  certain  questions  according  to  the  different  types  of  ILOs  that 
countries  deploys.  Consequently,  the  total  number  of  distinct  responses  varies,  and  for 

60  

ILOs from Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Greece and Latvia were not represented in the Focus Groups. 
Cyprus, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta have not deployed ILOs abroad. 

61   98 in total as a percentage of 143 EU / Schengen ILOs.  
62   ILOs  from  Belgium,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Portugal  and  Slovenia  were  not 

represented in the ILO survey.  

63   95 responses in out of 142 survey respondents.  

28 

 
 
                                                 
certain  questions,  is  as  high  26  individual  responses.  To  balance  the  potential  gap  in 
missing  back  office  data,  supplementary  interviews  were  conducted  with  four  Member 
States that did not return a back office survey.  

Overall representativeness  

Figure 6 provides an overview of the focus group participants and ILO survey responses 
per ILO typology, related to the entire ILO population posted in third countries.  

Figure 6. Representativeness of data collection on ILO typology 

EC Data (2015)

BO Survey (2016)

Focus Groups

ILOs survey

46% 

47% 

42% 

36% 

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

32% 

30% 

29% 

18% 

16% 

11% 

9% 

7% 

6% 

3% 

1% 

11% 

2% 

4% 

44% 

30% 

25% 

25% 

ILO

DVA

ALO

Police LO

Return LO

Non-specialised LO

Source:  Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration 
liaison officers network, Ecorys 2017 

According  to  the  outcomes  of  the  Commission  mapping  of  ILO  deployments  that  was 
completed  in  September  2015,  approximately  554  European  ILOs  were  posted  in  third 
countries at that time. According to the external evaluators’ calculations, this number has 
risen to 58164.  Tables 5 and 6 indicate that, with regards to the ILO typologies, the ILOs 
consulted in the Focus Groups and the ILO survey provide a representative sample of the 
various types of ILOs in the entire ILO population 

Table 5. Representativeness of ILOs consulted (number of ILOs per typology) 

Immigration liaison officer 

Police liaison officer 

Document and visa advisor 

Airline liaison officer 

Return liaison office 

Non-specialised liaison officer / other 
Total number of responses65 
Total number of respondents 

Response rate (2016) 

Total ILO population 

ILOs consulted 

DG HOME 
data 
(2015) 

Back Office 
survey  
(2017) 

Focus 
Groups 
(2016) 

ILO survey 
(2016) 

257 

- 

49 

3 

- 

245 

554 

244 

95 

40 

18 

11 

173 

581 

62 

40 

42 

24 

15 

33 

216 

133 

25% 

51 

41 

16 

9 

5 

35 

157 

142 

26% 

64   Calculations are based on a combination of Back Office survey response and the Commission mapping 

exercise from 2015. 

65   Respondents  to  the  Focus  Group  data  collection  exercise  and  to  the  ILO  survey,  respectively,  were 
given  the  option  to  select  multiple  response  options,  therefore  the  “total”  figure  (i.e.  133  and  142, 
respectively) refers to the number of respondents, not the number of selected responses. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Source:  Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration 
liaison officers network, Ecorys 2017 

Table 6. Representativeness of ILOs consulted (% of total number per typology) 

Immigration liaison officer 

Police liaison officer 

Document and visa advisor 

Airline liaison officer 

Return liaison office 

Non-specialised Liaison officer / other 

Total ILO population 

ILOs consulted 

DG HOME 
data 
(2015) 

Back Office 
survey  
(2017) 

Focus 
Groups 
(2016) 

ILO survey 
(2016) 

46% 

- 

9% 

1% 

- 

44% 

42% 

16% 

7% 

3% 

2% 

30% 

47% 

30% 

32% 

18% 

11% 

25% 

36% 

29% 

12% 

6% 

4% 

25% 

Total 
- 
Source:  Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration 
liaison officers network, Ecorys 2017 

100% 

100% 

- 

30 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

Targeted consultation has accompanied the evaluation of the ILO Regulation. The design 
of  the  evaluation  was  based  on  a  participatory  approach  allowing  for  an  active 
involvement of key stakeholders, notably Member States ILO back offices, who manage 
ILO networks at national level, as well as ILOs themselves. 14 workshops in key third 
countries where liaison officers are deployed (Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Nigeria, Ethiopia, 
South  Africa,  Albania  (Western  Balkans  region),  Morocco,  Senegal,  Ghana,  Turkey, 
Thailand, China, and Russia) were carried out, involving consultations with all relevant 
staff,  notably  from  EU  Delegations,  consular  sections  or  national  embassies  of  MS, 
international  organisations  such  as  IOM  and  UNHCR  and  national  authorities  of  the 
hosting  countries.  Additionally,  in-depth  interviews  with  EU  institutions,  EU  Agencies 
and  Member  State  back  offices  were  conducted  to  collect  detailed  information  on  the 
experiences with the ILO Regulation. A total of 62 interviews were conducted during the 
field  missions  followed  up  by  two  different  targeted  surveys  to  all  ILOs  and    their 
managers.  Finally,  an  ‘ILO  back  office  panel’  was  constituted  by  the  staff  of  four 
Member  States’  ILO  back  offices:  France,  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  the  United 
Kingdom. These sources were triangulated to provide robust evaluation results. 

The  Expert  Group  of  Member  States  on  ILO  Networks  was  involved  throughout  the 
evaluation process, in particular during the meetings held in May 2016, March 2017 and 
September  2017,  and  consulted  on  recommendations.  Additional  tailored  consultations 
took  place  in  the  form  of  6  regional  events  gathering  ILOs  and  other  relevant 
stakeholders between November 2017 and March 2018 in Islamabad, Belgrade, Moscow, 
Tunis, Amman and Dakar.  

Further,  targeted  consultation  with  relevant  stakeholders,  including  EU  Agencies 
(EBCGA,  EUROPOL,  EASO,  FRA,  EUROJUST,  EU-LISA  and  CEPOL),  Member 
States took place in November 2017 – January 2018 in the framework of the COM work 
on  the  revised  legislative  proposal.  Notably,  a  panel  of  Member  States  deploying  the 
largest ILO networks was re-convened in January, to take on board further insight from 
them.  

The results of the stakeholder consultation have broadly concurred with the conclusion of 
the  external  evaluation.  The  consulted  stakeholders  have  appreciated  the  potential  of 
immigration liaison officers to support the implementation of the Union priorities in the 
field of migration. They voiced need for better cooperation and coordination mechanisms 
to be established. Member States, in particular, stressed value of cooperation with non-
EU  states  deploying  liaison  officers  and  requested  flexibility  to  be  retained  as  to  the 
formation of the local and regional networks of immigration liaison officers. The Union 
Agencies solicited a closer cooperation with the networks of immigration liaison officers 
and  more  effective  sharing  of  information  with  the  Agencies  and  use  of  analytical 
product  produced  by  the  Agencies.  Furthermore,  there  was  a  unanimous  agreement 
across all consulted stakeholders on the ineffectiveness of the current provisions linked to 
information sharing and reporting mechanisms. 

 
 
    
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

The external evaluation  

The  evaluation  methodology  followed  the  principles  of  the  EU  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines.  A  logical  framework  (‘intervention  logic’),  combining  the  most  relevant 
elements of the ILO Regulation, is explained in detail in Annex 4.  

The  research  and  consultation  process  was  primarily  constituted  by  field  research 
activities with data being collected from various sources: 

Interviews with EU stakeholders, Back Offices and international organisations 

  Document analysis 
  Fact-finding missions to 14 third countries  
 
  Targeted survey to ILOs 
  Targeted survey to ILO Back Offices 
  Feedback from the Evaluation Steering Group. 

These sources were triangulated to provide robust evaluation results.  

Document  analysis  was  conducted  at  the  start  of  the  evaluation  and  throughout  the 
evaluation  process.  While  some  of  the  information  was  publicly  available,  certain 
documents  were  of  a  confidential  nature  and  therefore  might  have  only  been  used  as 
input for the analysis. Particularly relevant sources of information consulted were: the bi-
annual ILO Presidency Reports;  minutes  from  Expert Group of Member States on ILO 
Networks  meetings  and  other 
ILO-related  events,  and  associated  supporting 
documentation;  technical  implementation  reports  related  to  ILO  deployments  under  the 
European Borders Fund (EBF, 2007-2013); open source documents, such as relevant EU 
Regulations, EC Communications, EU Action Plans, readmission agreements and IATA 
Code of Conduct.  

The  external  evaluator  study  team  visited  14  third  countries  where  ILOs  are  deployed: 
Pakistan,  Jordan,  Egypt,  Nigeria,  Ethiopia,  South  Africa,  Albania  (Western  Balkans 
region), Morocco, Senegal, Ghana, Turkey, Thailand, China, and Russia, reaching out to 
ILOs  deployed  to  third  countries  and  their  local  and  regional  networks  (competent 
authorities,  airline  carriers,  international  organisations  et  cetera).  The  mission  locations 
represent both high and low levels of ILO deployment, as well as countries that are either 
an  important  source  of  irregular  migration  (for  example  Ghana  and  Nigeria),  transit 
airline  hub  (for  example  Turkey  and  Thailand)  or  land-  and  sea  transit  countries  (for 
example  Egypt  and  Jordan).  The  selected  countries  also  vary  in  their  levels  of 
cooperation with the EU in matters of illegal migration. 

The missions took place from July until December 2016. The Focus Groups in Senegal, 
Ghana and Albania had a specific regional outreach, with ILOs present from surrounding 
countries, while others were  more country specific (in some cases with participation of 
one or two ILOs posted in neighbouring countries). ILOs attending the focus groups had 
bilateral or regional assignment.  

A  total  of  161  individuals  participated  in  the  16  Focus  Groups.  The  161  participants 
included  143  ILO  representatives  of  EU  and  Schengen  States,  5  ILOs  of  non-EU  and 
non-Schengen States and 13 EU representatives (EUDEL, COM, EBCG). The majority 
of the Focus Group participants were ILOs according to the definition of Article 1 of the 
ILO Regulation. Representatives of consular sections or national embassies dealing with 
migration  issues  also  attended  the  Focus  Groups,  however  they  did  so  at  a  lower 

 
 
frequency. The first EBCG LO (posted in Turkey) joined the Focus Group in Ankara.  

A  total  of  62  interviews  were  conducted  during  the  field  missions.  At  each  location, 
additional face-to-face interviews were conducted with individual ILOs (prior to or after 
the Focus Group) as well as with relevant host country stakeholders, including competent 
authorities, local police, airlines, international  organisations and EU agencies (EUDEL, 
IOM, UNHCR). In addition, the study team participated in four airport visits (Islamabad, 
Amman,  Lagos  and  Johannesburg)  and  attended  two  fraud  control  meetings  (in  Jordan 
and Ethiopia).  

After the completion of all missions, two different targeted surveys were developed and 
distributed  to  all  ILOs  and  ILO  Back  Offices.  The  objective  of  these  surveys  was 
twofold:  to  fill  any  gaps  where  information  was  missing  or  required  additional 
clarification  and  to  validate  initial  findings  from  research  activities.  The  surveys  were 
launched on 15 December 2016 and ran until 11 January 2017. In total, 142 individual 
responses  were  received  on  the  ILO  survey  and  23  on  the  Back  Office  survey 
(representing 21 distinct Member States).  

Additional in-depth interviews with EU institutions and Member State Back Offices were 
conducted  to  collect  detailed  information  on  the  experiences  with  the  ILO  Regulation. 
The  study  team  carried  out  interviews  with  a  total  of  7  EU  stakeholders  from 
Commission services and relevant EU Agencies, as well with 12 Member States’ Back 
Offices. The study team was supported by an ‘ILO Back Office Panel’, constituted by the 
staff of four Member States’ ILO back offices: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the 
United  Kingdom.  The  Back  Office  Panel  members  were  invited  to  participate  in  two 
team workshops in September 2016 (covering topics related to the evaluation design and 
approach) and January 2017 (aiming at validating the main findings of the research). The 
study team also attended the ILO Managers  Network (ILOMN)  meeting in Helsinki on 
13 October 2016 where interim findings were presented and discussed.  

Essential to the study was the feedback from the Evaluation Steering Group that has been 
set up for this study. Meetings with the steering group took place on June 21 2016 (kick-
off meeting), July 7 (inception meeting), November 7 (interim meeting) and January 24 
2017 (draft final report meeting). 

Costs-efficiency analysis 

The  evaluation  of  the  efficiency  of  ILOs  Networks  requires  an  assessment  of  the  costs 
incurred by different stakeholders to implement the Regulation in relation to the outputs 
and anticipated benefits (impacts) to be materialised as a result of the intervention.  

A  methodology  was  developed  to  assess  the  main  changes  that  the  Regulation  brought 
about for the affected stakeholders, namely ILOs and their back offices. Where possible, 
the costs incurred to comply with the Regulation were quantified using a combination of 
labour  statistics  data  on  labour  costs  (ILOStat,  International  Standard  Industrial 
Classification  of  all  economic  activities,  ISIC  Revision  4)  and  inputs  from  the 
stakeholder  consultations  to  derive  a  set  of  assumptions  to  make  estimates  on 
administrative  and  compliance  costs  to  ILOs  and  ILO  back  offices.  The  calculation  of 
these  costs  is  based  on  a  simplified  estimation  model  rather  than  the  Standard  Cost 
Model  as  not  all  of  these  costs  and  potential  benefits  can  be  quantified,  particularly 
regarding  the  nature  and  scope  of  cooperation  between  ILOs  posted  in  the  same  third 
country compared to the pre-Regulation situation.  

33 

 
Moreover, external evaluation study team has encountered difficulties to obtain data that 
would enable an accurate estimation of the actual achievements (i.e. benefits, including 
the  number  of  prevented  cases  of  visa  abuse  in  the  visa  sections  of  Member  States’ 
consular services and the number of successfully advised interdiction  cases) realised due 
to  Network-level  activities  as  opposed  to  individual  level  actions.  In  the  absence  of 
reliable  data on Network-level  achievements,  it is  not  possible  to  draw any  meaningful 
conclusions  regarding  the  magnitude  of  cost  savings  to  Member  States  from  the 
prevention of inadequately documented arrivals on EU territory.  

The economic  analysis is concerned with  those obligations that were introduced  by the 
Regulation, without which Member States’ ILO Back Offices, as well as their deployed 
ILOs, would not otherwise carry out. An analysis revealed that the only compliance cost 
involved with implementing the ILOs Regulation are the requirement to contribute to the 
Bi-annual Presidency Reports and to inform one another of Member States  secondments 
of  ILOs.  This  requirement  constitutes  the  main  administrative  burden  imposed  on 
relevant stakeholders from the Regulation.  

Due  to  the  aforementioned  data  limitations  concerning  the  costs  associated  with 
implementing  the  Regulation,  it  has  been  necessary  to  make  a  number  of  assumptions 
related to the number of reports, number of stakeholders affected, hourly labour costs for 
preparatory meetings, gathering necessary information, compiling and writing the reports 
as well as time spent to update the system and check on upcoming deployments of other 
Member  States’  back  offices.  Table  7  and  8  below  show  the  total  estimated  costs  to 
comply with the ILOs Regulation. 

Table 7. Summary of costs linked to Presidency Reports (EUR) Activity 

Time spent 
per person 
(per report) 

Number stakeholders 
affected (per report) 

Hourly 
wage 

Cost of 39 Reports 

Low 

High 

Low 

High 

Meetings in host 
country (ILOs) 

Data gathering 
collection (ILOs) 

Report drafting 
(Back Office) 

12 hours 

3 FTE 

6 FTE 

40 – 80 hours 

3 FTE 

6 FTE 

1 – 4 months 

1 FTE 

3 FTE 

EUR 
89,00 

EUR 
89,00 

EUR 
23,50 

EUR 124.830 

EUR 249.659 

EUR 416.099  EUR 1.664.395 

EUR 146.640  EUR 1.759.680 

Total costs 
EUR 687.568  EUR 3.673.734 
Source:  Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration 
liaison officers network, Ecorys 2017 

Table 8. Summary of costs linked to informing about deployment (EUR)  
Activity 

Annual costs for 40 BOs 

Time spent per 
person 

Number 
stakeholders 
affected 

Hourly 
wage 

Reporting in ICONet 
(back office) 

8 hours / year 

40 FTE 

EUR 
23,50 

EUR 7.520 

Total costs 
Source:  Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration 
2017
network, 
liaison 

EUR 7.520 

officers 

Ecorys 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: ADDITIONAL DATA AND ANALYSIS 

This  annex  presents  additional  data  and  figures  relevant  for  the  setting  the  context  and 
understanding of functioning of the ILO Regulation. 

Intervention logic of the ILO Regulation 

Some  elements  of  the  logical  framework  for  the  evaluation  are  directly  outlined  in  the 
recitals of the Regulation 377/2004, others had to be deducted from the specific articles. 
The results of the analysis aiming at reconstructing the intervention logic are presented in 
the Figure 6 below.   

Figure 7. Intervention logic of the ILO Regulation  
Logical Framework elements 

Need 

Overall 
objectives 

Specific 
objectives 

More operational cooperation and coordination when considering the common concern of the 
external border of the Schengen area, including a closer integration between tasks performed at 
external borders.66 

-  Prevention and combating of irregular immigration 
-  Return of irregular immigrants 
-  Management of legal migration 

To create networks of European immigration liaison officers posted in third countries, and to 
formalise the existence and functioning of these networks, with the aim to pool actions taken by 
ILOs and to enable the officers deployed to a particular location to liaise with one another 
through a legally binding instrument. Specific objectives are: 
-  Enhanced ILO cooperation on operational and strategic level 
-  Enhanced exchange of operational and strategic information on ILO tasks as specified in 

Article 1 of the ILO Regulation. 

Operational 
objectives 

Article 2 of the ILO Regulation: 
-  Establish and maintain direct contacts with the competent authorities in the host country and 

Inputs 

Activities 

any appropriate organisation within the host country 

-  Collect information for use either at operational level, strategic level, or both 
-  Render assistance in establishing the identity of third country nationals 
-  Facilitate return of third country nationals to their country of origin 

Promotion by EU / Schengen area Member States of the formation and formalisation of ILOs 
Networks through a legally binding act. 

ILOs Networks shall (Article 4 of the ILO Regulation): 
-  Meet regularly and whenever necessary 
-  Exchange information and practical experiences 
-  Attend joint specialised training courses 
-  Coordinate positions in contacts with commercial carriers 
-  Organise joint information sessions and training courses to host country counterparts 
-  Adopt common information gathering and sharing approaches 
-  Contribute to the biannual reports of their common activities 
-  Establish and maintain contacts with similar networks in host country or region 
Member States shall (Article 2 – 5): 
-  Set up ILOs Networks 

66   Action  Plan  for  the  management  of  the  external  borders  of  the  EU  Member  States  adopted  by  the 

Council in June 2002. 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Logical Framework elements 

-  Inform each other about secondments of ILOs 
-  Deploy joint ILOs or share tasks among ILOs 
-  Presidency: draft the biannual ILO Report 

Outputs 

-  ILO meetings scheduled and ad hoc 
-  Information exchanged among the ILOs Network (strategically and operational) 
-  Trainings attended 
-  Coordinated airport activities (departure, return) 
-  Coordinated positions / strategies in contacts with counterparts at the airport 
-  Trainings and information sessions delivered 
-  Joint information gathering activities 
-  Joint information sharing activities 
-  Use or creation of joint information platforms 
-  Bi-annual reports produced 
-  Information sharing about deployment of ILOs (Member States task) 
-  Deployment of joint Member States ILOs (Member States task) 

Results 

-  Enhanced ILO cooperation on operational and strategic level 
-  Enhanced exchange of operational and strategic information on ILO tasks as specified in 

Article 1 of the ILO Regulation 

Impacts 

Enhanced protection of external border in the Schengen area  

Source: Evaluation of ILO Regulation (EC) no 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers 
network, Ecorys 2017  

Typology and Deployment of ILOs 

16 Member States, the EU, Agencies and Switzerland and Norway currently deploy 492 
Liaison  Officers  who  come  under  the  regulation  as  ILOs.  Table  4  lists  the  top  five 
deploying Member States and numbers are compared to EU and Agency deployed ILOs, 
alongside  the  breakdown  in  percentage  terms  of  the  typology  of  ILO.  The  typology  of 
ILO uses is as referenced in the final evaluation and is self-assessed by Member States. 
In summary they cover: 

Immigration  Liaison  Officers:  Liaison  Officers  deployed  and  designated  formally  as 
ILOs whose work covers a range of migration related activity. 

Airline  Liaison  Officers:  Liaison  Officers  specifically  deployed  by  member  States  to 
work with airline carriers at airports to reduce irregular migration by air to their country.  

Document  Verification  Advisors:  Liaison  Officers  deployed  specifically  by  Member 
States  to  carry  out  forgery  examination  in  support  of  documents  submitted  for  visa 
applications. 

Police Liaison Officers: Liaison Officers deployed as Police attachés whose role covers 
the whole range of law enforcement liaison plus an element targeting migration related 
crime. 

Returns  Liaison  Officers:  Liaison  Officers  deployed  by  Member  States  to  work  on 
returns issues only to their country of deployment. 

General: Other liaison officers deployed my Member States with a mandate that includes 
some migration related activity. 

36 

 
 
 
Table 9: Analysis of Member State and EU and Agency deployed Liaison Officers who fall under 
the ILO Regulation 

Deploying Entity 

Number 

Spain 
France 
UK 
Germany 
The Netherlands 
EMLOs 

EBCGA 

126 
111 
59 
47 
25 
13 

3 

% of total 
ILOs  
26% 
23% 
12% 
10% 
5% 
3% 

1% 

Typology 

% of total 

Immigration Liaison Officer 
Airline Liaison Officer 
Document Verification Advisor 
Police Liaison Officer 
Return Liaison Officer 
General 

31% 
4% 
8% 
33% 
2% 
18% 

Overall total of 
ILOs deployed 
Source: Evaluation of ILO Regulation (EC) no 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers 
network, Ecorys 2017 as updated by Member States in April 2018 

492 

Creation and level of formalisation of ILO networks 

Figure  8  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  levels  of  formalisation  for  the  ILOs 
Networks  that  were  present  during  the  14  field  visits.  The  most  common  networking 
feature is the organisation of joint trainings, followed by organisation of or participation 
in anti-fraud group meetings and regular ILOs Network meetings. Nine networks have a 
name under which they are known by stakeholders in the host countries. Six have internal 
terms of reference and two have a joint agreement with authorities to have access to the 
airport. Information is mostly exchanged informally, which means: face-to-face (ad hoc 
meetings), via phone, email and WhatsApp.  

Figure 8. ILO activities and level of formalisation  

Name of 
the ILOs 
Network 

Joint 
MoU/ 
SoP  

Internal 
agreements 

Islamabad, 
Pakistan 
Amman, Jordan 

Cairo, Egypt 
Lagos, Nigeria 
Addis, Ethiopia 
Pretoria, South 
Africa 
Nairobi Kenya* 
Western Balkans 
Rabat, Morocco 
Accra, Ghana 
Dakar, Senegal 
Ankara, Turkey 
Istanbul, Turkey 
Bangkok, Thailand 

- 

TAIL 

- 
LION 
- 
SAIL 

NAIL 
- 
- 
GILT 
- 
- 
- 
ICE 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 
YES 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
YES 

- 

YES 

YES 
- 
- 
YES 

- 
- 
- 
YES 
- 
- 
- 
YES 

Regular 
ILOs 
Network 
meetings 
- 

Via AFG 

- 
- 
- 
YES 

YES 
- 
- 
YES 
- 
Via FLEC 
YES 
YES 

Anti-fraud 
group 
(AFG) 
meetings 
YES 

Rotating 
airport 
duty 
schedule 
- 

YES 

YES 
YES 
YES 
- 

YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 
- 
- 
YES 
- 

37 

- 

- 
- 
- 
YES 

YES 
- 
- 
YES 
- 
- 
- 
YES 

Duty 
phone 

Exchange of 
information 

Organise 
joint 
trainings 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 
YES 

- 
- 
- 
YES 
- 
- 
YES 
YES 

Informal** 

YES 

Informal** 

Informal** 
Informal** 
Informal** 
Informal** 

Informal** 
Informal** 
Informal** 
Formal 
Informal** 
Informal** 
Informal** 
Formal and 

YES 

YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 

YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 
- 
- 
- 
YES 

 
 
 
 
Beijing, China 
Shanghai, China 
Moscow, Russia 
Total 

CIILT 
SILOG 
MICA 
9 

- 
- 
- 
2 

YES 
- 
- 
6 

YES 
Via AFG 
- 
9 

YES 
YES 
YES 
13 

YES 
YES 
- 
6 

YES 
YES 
- 
6 

informal 

Informal** 
Informal** 
Informal** 
- 

YES 
YES 
YES 
14 

*No evaluation mission, but Nairobi ILOs were present at the Addis Focus Group. 
** Exchange of information is informal, which means: face-to-face (ad hoc meetings), phone, email, WhatsApp 
Source:  Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration 
liaison officers network, Ecorys 2017 

Analysis of bi-annual Presidency Reports 

The bi-annual Presidency Reports are the key reporting instruments developed as part of 
the  ILO  Regulation.  According  to  the  Commission  Decision  of  29  September  2005  on 
the format for the report on the activities of ILOs Networks and on the situation in the 
host  country  in  matters  relating  to  illegal  migration  (2005/687/EC),  the  reports  shall 
consist  of two parts: part I  providing information on the activities  of an ILOs Network 
and its tasks and part II on the migration context of the country.  

In the period from 2005 to first half of 2017, a total of 25 bi-annual Presidency reports 
have  been  submitted to  the  Council  Secretariat, covering  all  together  20  countries. Ten 
out  of  the  twenty  countries  have  been  evaluated  multiple  times  as  summarised  in  the 
Figure  9  below.  There  was  no  clear  indication  of  the  criteria  used  for  the  country 
selection,  and  it  does  not  reflect  in  a  balanced  way  those  with  a  particular  risk  for 
irregular migration. For example in the period 2008 to 2014 the top-10 nationalities that 
were found illegally present in EU were Albania, Afghanistan, Morocco, Syria, Pakistan, 
Algeria, India, Iraq, Eritrea and Tunisia.  Of these countries, only Albania, Pakistan and 
India have been covered by the bi-annual reports.  

Figure 9. Overview of the published Presidency Reports 
Country 

Years reported 

Albania 

Belarus 

Bulgaria 

Cape Verde 

China 

Croatia 

Egypt 

Georgia 

India 

Kenya 

Montenegro 

Nigeria 

Pakistan 

Romania 

2005, 2012 

2013 

2005 

2007 

2006 

2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 

2011, 2014 

2013, 2015 

2010, 2017 

2016 

2005, 2006 

2013 

2010 

2005 

38 

 
 
 
Country 

Russia 

Senegal 

Serbia 

Turkey 

UAE 

Ukraine 

Years reported 

2006, 2007, 2015 

2007 

2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2016  

2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 

2015 

2006, 2007, 2009, 2011 

Source:  Evaluation  of  ILO  Regulation  (EC)  no  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an  immigration 
liaison officers network, Ecorys 2017 

39