COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on the Ex Post Evaluation of the European Return Fund 2011-2013 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Ex post evaluation reports for the period 2011 to 2013 of actions co-financed by the four Funds under the framework programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows'
Date: 2018-06-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU programme, foreign national, fund (EU), illegal migration, migratory movement, repatriation grant, return migration, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.6.2018  SWD(2018) 335 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on the Ex Post Evaluation of the European Return Fund 2011-2013 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions  Ex post evaluation reports for the period 2011 to 2013 of actions co-financed by the four Funds under the framework programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows' {COM(2018) 456 final}  - {SWD(2018) 333 final}  - {SWD(2018) 334 final}  - {SWD(2018) 336 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 

Background to the initiative ............................................................................................................ 5 

The Return Fund as funding instrument (Objectives and priorities) ............................................... 7 

Evaluation questions ..................................................................................................................... 10 

5  Method .......................................................................................................................................... 10 

5.1 

Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 11 

6  Management modes of the RF ...................................................................................................... 12 

6.1 

6.2 

Shared management: Multiannual and Annual Programmes of the Member States ............. 12 

Direct management: Annual Work Programmes of the Commission ................................... 14 

7 

Implementation status of the two management modes .............................................................. 15 

7.1 

7.2 

Implementation through shared management (annual programmes) .................................... 15 

Implementation through direct management ......................................................................... 18 

8 

Answers to the evaluation questions ............................................................................................ 19 

8.1 

8.2 

Relevance .............................................................................................................................. 19 

Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 21 

Specific Objective a): The contribution of the Fund to the introduction and 

8.2.1 
improvement of integrated return management............................................................................. 22 

8.2.2 
Specific Objective b) Contribution of the RF to Cooperation between Member States in 
Return Management ...................................................................................................................... 27 

Specific objective c): The Contribution of the RF to the Implementation of EU 
8.2.3 
Standards and Best Practices in Return Management ................................................................... 29 

Effectiveness of the principle of solidarity: The Contribution of the RF to the Support 

8.2.4 
Services Provided to Member States in Emergency Situations ..................................................... 30 

Specific objective d): The contribution of the RF to Specific Innovative Tools for 

8.2.5 
Return Management ...................................................................................................................... 32 

8.3 

8.4 

8.5 

8.6 

Efficiency .............................................................................................................................. 33 

Sustainability ......................................................................................................................... 36 

Coherence and Complementarity .......................................................................................... 38 

EU added value ..................................................................................................................... 40 

9 

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 43 

10 

ANNEX 1 — Procedural information ......................................................................................... 47 

1 

 
 
 
11 

12 

13 

14 

ANNEX 2 — Stakeholders’ consultation .................................................................................... 48 

ANNEX 3 — Methodology ......................................................................................................... 53 

ANNEX 4 — List of evaluation questions ................................................................................... 56 

ANNEX 5 — List of abbreviations and country codes ................................................................ 58 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
1 

Introduction 

The European Return Fund (RF) was established in 2007 for the period 2008 to 2013. It is one 
of  four  Funds  (SOLID  Funds)  set  up  under  the  General  Programme  ‘Solidarity  and 
Management  of  Migration  Flows’1.  The  aim  of  this  General  Programme  was  to  address  the 
issue  of  a  fair  share  of  responsibilities  between  Member  States  concerning  the  financial 
burden  arising  from  the  introduction  of  an  integrated  management  of  the  Union’s  external 
borders and from the implementation of common policies on asylum and immigration. 

The  Decision  establishing  the  fund  requires  the  Commission  to  submit  to  the  European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the Regions three evaluations reports: 

  by  31  December  2010,  an  intermediate  report  on  the  results  achieved  and  on 
qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects  of  implementation  of  the  Fund,  based  on 
evaluation reports provided by the Member States by 30 June 20102;  

  by  31  December  2012,  an  ex-post  evaluation  for  the  period  2008  to  2010  based  on 
national  evaluation  reports  on  the  results  and  impact  of  actions  co-financed  by  the 
Fund3. This ex-post evaluation report covered the implementation of the 2008 to 2010 
annual programmes implemented by the Member States4.  

  By  31  December  2015,  an  ex-post  evaluation  for  the  period  2011  to  2013  based  on 
national  evaluation  reports  on  the  results  and  impact  of  actions  co-financed  by  the 
Fund5.  

The present staff working document reports on this ex-post evaluation covering the evaluation 
for  the  period  2011  to  2013  and  the  annual  programmes  implemented  by  27  participating 
Member  States6  from  1  January  2011  to  30  June  2015.  The  implementation  of  the  2008  to 
2010  annual  programmes  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this  evaluation.  Actions  implemented 
during the 2008-2010 period are, however, considered where relevant, specifically as part of 
the analysis of complementarity and coherence. 

1      Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament establishing a framework      
programme  on  solidarity  and  management  of  migration  flows  for  the  period  2007-2013,  COM(2005)  123 
final. 

2     Decision No 575/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the 
European  Return  Fund  for  the  period  2008  to  2013  as  part  of  the  General  Programme  ‘Solidarity  and 
Management  of  Migration  Flows’,  Articles  50(2)(a)  and  50(3)(b).  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the 
Regions  on  the  results  achieved  and  on  qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects  of  implementation  of  the 
European Return Fund for the period 2007-2009, 9 December 2011, COM(2011) 858 final. 

3   Decision No 575/2007/EC, Articles 50(2)(b) and 50(3)(c).  
4   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee of the Regions on the ex-post evaluation of the European Return Fund for the period 2008-2010, 
23 April 2014, COM(2014)230. 

5   Decision No 575/2007/EC, Article 50(2)(b) and 50(3)(c).  
6   DK  does  not participate  in  accordance  with  Articles  1  and  2  of  the  Protocol  on  the  position  of  Denmark, 
annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community. Croatia 
participated from 2013 only, upon accession to the EU. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  present  document  also  covers  the  evaluation  of  the  Community  actions  implemented 
under  the  2010  to  2013  annual  work  programmes  with  an  eligibility  period  running  from  1 
January 2011 to 31 December 20167.  

The  present  evaluation  builds  upon  the  results  of  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  actions 
implemented  under  the  RF  2008-2010  annual  programmes  and  the  intermediate  report 
mentioned above.  

This  ex post evaluation8 assesses the RF in  the light of its relevance (whether its  objectives 
matched  with  societal  needs),  effectiveness  (to  what  extent  objectives  have  been  achieved), 
efficiency (to what extent costs were proportionate to the achieved benefits), sustainability of 
effects  after  the  intervention  ended,  coherence  with  and  complementarity  to  other  EU 
financial  instruments  or  national  resources  of  the  Member  States,  and  the  added  value  of 
intervening at EU level. 

The results of this evaluation complements the interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration 
and Integration Fund (AMIF)9, the successor of the RF, Refugee Fund and Integration Fund 
for  the  period  2014-2020.  The  interim  evaluation  of  the  AMIF  is  due  in  201810.  The 
Commission  will  submit  an  interim  evaluation  report  of  the  Fund  by  30  June  2018  to  the 
European  parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee  of  the  Regions.  This  interim  evaluation  report  will  be  based  on  the  interim 
evaluation reports provided by the Member States on the implementation of the actions and 
progress towards achieving the objectives of their national programmes to be submitted to the 
Commission by 31 December 2017. The interim evaluation report which the Commission will 
submit  will  also  include  an  assessment  of  the  mid-term  review  carried  out  by  the  Member 
States and of the implementation of the emergency assistance grants and Union actions. The 
results  of  the  interim  evaluation  together  with  the  results  of  the  present  evaluation  will 

7   As  Community  actions  implemented  under  the  2010  annual  work  programme  were  implemented  after  1 

January 2011 they are covered by the evaluation. 

8   According  to  the  legal  basis  the  Commission  shall  submit  by  31  December  2015  to  the  European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 
by  31  December  2015  an  ex-post  evaluation  report  (Article  50(3)(c)  of  Decision  No  575/2007/EC).  The 
deadline  was  extended  as  the  Commission's  ex-post  evaluation  report  had  to  take  account  of  the  national 
(ex-post) evaluation reports to be submitted by the Member States. The deadline for those, provided in the 
legal basis was 30 June 2015. Considering that the eligibility period of the 2013 annual programmes for the 
Return  Fund  ended  on  the  same  day  (30  June  2015),  it  has  not  been  feasible  to  finalize  national  ex-post 
evaluation at the same moment of time as the implementation ended. The national evaluation reports were 
therefore  provided  to  the  Commission  by  30  November  2015.  Consequently,  also  the  ex-post  evaluation 
report of the Commission has been prepared with a delay in comparison with the deadline set in the legal 
basis. The targeted date for the submission of the report was 31 December 2016.This date was postponed to 
the  first  quarter  of  2018  due  to  the  fact  that  two  out  of  four  SWDs  (ERF  and  EBF)  were  selected  by  the 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board. 

9   Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing 

the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 168). 

10   Part  of  the  interim  evaluation  is  the  mid-term  review  of  the  AMIF  national  programmes  of  the  Member 
States (Regulation (EU) No 514/2014, Article 15) which will take place in 2017 and 2018. The purpose of 
the mid-term review is for the Commission and the Member States to review the national programmes and 
assess the need for a possible revision of the programme, in the light of developments in Union and national 
policies  through  a  questionnaire  and  bilateral  dialogues  with  the  Member  States.  In  addition  if  the  need 
arises,  the results of  the  mid-term  review of  the national programmes  may support  requests  for  additional 
funding made by the Commission to the budgetary authorities for the remaining implementation period.   

4 

 
 
                                                            
contribute to the shaping of the future policies under DG HOME responsibility, especially to 
the preparation of the new funding instruments in the framework of the Multiannual Financial 
Framework (MFF) post 2020. 

2  Background to the initiative 

In the early 2000s, the European Union recorded between 240,000 and 400,000 removals11 of 
third  country  nationals  per  year12  and  a  total  of  1,986,139  return  decisions13  were  issued  in 
2002, 2003 and 200414. 

The return of third-country nationals who do not, or no longer, fulfil the conditions for entry 
to, presence in, or residence on the territories of the Member States of the European Union is 
vital  to  ensure  that  admission  policy  is  not  undermined  and  to  enforce  the  rule  of  law,  an 
essential  feature  of  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice.  In  practice,  however,  putting 
return  policy  into  effect  is  a  considerable  challenge,  in  particular  for  Member  States  with 
relatively low GDP or little experience, or for some Member States that face disproportionate 
migration  flows,  due  to  their  geographic  situation  or  attractive  economic  profile.  Return 
management is a complex process. It requires good working relationships with the countries 
of  return,  while  balancing  individual  rights  and  humanitarian  considerations  with  the  state 
interest in law enforcement.  

Reducing irregular immigration through an effective return policy should be the concern of all 
Member  States.  In  an  area  without  internal  borders  where  people  can  in  principle  move 
without  hindrance,  tolerance  of  irregular  stays  in  one  Member  State  may  lead  to  secondary 
movements and for instance adversely affect the fight against illegal employment throughout 
the  EU,  which,  in  turn,  acts  as  a  pull  factor  for  more  irregular  immigration  to  the  EU. 
Conversely,  effective  return  policies  throughout  the  EU  have  beneficial  effects  on  the 
credibility of the common immigration policy and help to increase the acceptance of legally 
staying third-country nationals in Member States. 

In this context, in the period 2005-2007, preparatory actions, namely the ‘Return Preparatory 
Actions  2005-2006'  and  the  ‘Preparatory  Action  -  Migration  Management,  Solidarity  in 
Action 2007 - return and reintegration of returnees’ were launched. The instruments created 
first-hand practical experience with transnational projects and thus helped the Member States, 
NGOs and other stakeholders to prepare for the launch of the RF in 2008.  

11   Removed  third  country  nationals:  persons  other  than  those  entitled  under  Community  law  who,  having 
entered the country illegally, having resided in the country illegally or for other reasons, are returned to a 
third country. The figures may include voluntary departure where such a departure takes place in order to 
comply with a formal order to leave. 

12   For example, 393,635 removals were recorded for 2001, 242,225 for 2002 and 298,504 for 2003 (Eurostat 
and CIREFI data collection as reported in Annex to the General Programme Solidarity and Management of 
Migration Flows – Extended impact assessment 2005 – SEC(2005) 435 of 6/04/2005, p. 57. 

13   Return decisions:  Administrative  or  judicial decision  or  act,  stating  or  declaring  the  illegality of  stay  of  a 
third country national and imposing an obligation to leave the territory of the Member State concerned. 
14   Data provided by the Member States and complemented by estimates made by the European Commission 
when necessary. See Annex to the General Programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows  – 
Extended impact assessment 2005 – SEC(2005) 435 of 6/04/2005, p. 58. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
A number of key issues in the field of EU return policy were identified in 2005 in the impact 
assessment  accompanying  the  setting  up  of  the  RF  and  the  other  three  SOLID  Funds15. 
Returns  were  found  to  be  costly  and  the  cost  per  person  returned  varied  greatly  across 
Member States depending on the country of return, the length of the flights involved, whether 
direct flights were available or not, and whether return was voluntary or enforced. Voluntary 
return was usually found to be less costly than enforced return. However no robust baseline 
was set in the impact assessment, which proved to be an issue for the present evaluation (See 
Title 7 on 'Method').  

Given the challenges faced by the EU in the area of return, it became increasingly necessary 
for  Member  States  to  cooperate  in  this  field  and  for  a  common  EU  return  strategy  to  be 
developed. As  identified  by  the  2005  impact  assessment,  the  main  problem  to  be  addressed 
was  putting  into  practice  the  principle  of  solidarity  between  Member  States  in  managing 
migration flows, including EU return policy. 

In this context, the RF was established for the period from 1 January 2008 until 31 December 
2013,  under  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  2007-2013  (MFF).  In  order  to  make  the 
fight  against  irregular  migration  at  national  level  more  effective,  the  RF  was  created  to 
support  the  voluntary  and,  where  necessary,  forced  return  of  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals within a common framework of ‘integrated return management’16 and in accordance 
with common standards. In a migratory context where migration flows affect Member States 
differently, the Fund was aimed at ensuring that the principles of solidarity and fair sharing of 
responsibilities  are  observed  between  Member  States  by  providing  financial  assistance  to 
support  their  efforts  to  improve  the  management  of  return  in  all  its  dimensions.  The 
distribution  of  the  available  EU  resources  among  Member  States  was  based  on  two  criteria 
that  reflect  the  situation  of  the  Member  State  with  regard  to  the  obligations  undertaken  on 
behalf  of  —  or  for  the  overall  benefit  of  —  the  Union  in  this  area:  the  number  of  removal 
decisions affecting third-country nationals, and the number of returns to third countries.  

An amount of EUR 676 million was allocated for the implementation of the Fund during the 
2008-2013  period.  As  part  of  the  wider  policy  framework  in  the  field  of  return,  the  Return 
Directive17 adopted in 2008 forms the basis of EU return policy, supplying common EU rules 
for  the  return  of  those  staying  irregularly  in  the  participating  Member  States  including 
common  standards  which  guarantee  that  returnees  received  humane  and  dignified  treatment 
and  the  establishment  of  a  two-step  approach  in  the  return  procedure  giving  preference  to 
voluntary return.  

One of the characteristics of the period relevant for the present evaluation is the uprisings in 
North Africa of 2011 that contributed significantly to the rise in migratory pressure towards 
Mediterranean countries and therefore to the overall national efforts in the area of return. In 
2011, in the Central Mediterranean area, Member States reported a total of 64 000 detections, 
compared  to  only  5  000  in  201018.  Detections  in  the  Central  Mediterranean  massively 

15   Annex  to  the  General  Programme  Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows  –  Extended  impact 

assessment 2005 – SEC(2005) 435 of 6/04/2005. 

16     See title 5 for definition.  
17   Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common 

standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. 

18    Frontex, Annual Risk Analysis, 2012, p.15. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
increased  in  early  2011,  due  to  civil  unrest  erupting  in  the  region,  particularly  in  Tunisia, 
Libya  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  Egypt.  As  a  result,  between  January  and  March  some  20  000 
Tunisian migrants arrived on the Italian island of Lampedusa. In the second quarter of 2011 
the  flow  of  Tunisian  migrants  was  reduced  by  75%  following  an  accelerated  repatriation 
agreement  that  was  signed  between  Italy  and  Tunisia.  The  flow  of  Tunisian  migrants  who 
crossed the border  illegally  appeared  to  be  mostly  economically-driven,  with  most  migrants 
heading  to  France  as  their  final  destination.  The  large  number  of  detections  of  Tunisians 
crossing the external border illegally in 2011 increased from under 8 500 in 2010 to more than 
22 500 in 2011. In 2011, approximately 8 600 Tunisians were returned, mostly by Italy and 
France.  In  addition,  large  numbers  of  sub-Saharan  migrants  were  detected  in  Lampedusa, 
Sicily and Malta, many having been forcibly expelled from Libya by the Gaddafi regime. The 
year 2013 saw a second peak of detection of illegal crossings along the EU external borders 
(107.000)19  which  represents  an  annual  increase  of  48%  in  comparison  to  2012.  The  year 
2013  was  characterised  by  three  phenomena:  a  large  increase  in  illegal  border-crossings  by 
Syrians  on  the  Eastern  Mediterranean  route  and  in  the  Central  Mediterranean,  subsequently 
applying  for  asylum;  a  steady  flow  of  migrants  departing  from  North  Africa  (Libya  and 
Egypt) and a sharp increase, mostly in January-June, in detections reported by Hungary at its 
land border with Serbia. In 2014, detections of illegal border-crossing reached a new record, 
with more than 280 000 detections. 

3  The Return Fund as funding instrument (Objectives and priorities) 

The 2005 impact assessment underpinning the setting up of the four SOLID Funds identified 
as  a  general  need  to  be  addressed  by  the  four  Funds  the  need  for  solidarity  supporting  the 
implementation of EU standards. As a specific need in the area of return, it identified the need 
to reduce illegal immigration through an effective return policy.  

In accordance with the conclusions of the impact assessment, the general objective of the RF 
was identified as follows: "to support the efforts made by the Member States to improve the 
management  of  return  in  all  its  dimensions  through  the  use  of  the  concept  of  integrated 
management  and  by  providing  for  joint  actions  to  be  implemented  by  Member  States  or 
national  actions  that  pursue  Community  objectives  under  the  principle  of  solidarity,  taking 
account  of  Community  legislation  in  this  field  and  in  full  compliance  with  fundamental 
rights"20.  

To achieve this general objective, the following three specific objectives21 were identified in 
the legal basis of the RF: 

 

the  introduction  and  improvement  of  integrated  return  management  (Specific 
objective a)). Under integrated return management, Member states should develop 
integrated  return  plans  which  covers  all  phases  of  the  return  process,  from  the  pre-
departure phase and the return as such to the reception and reintegration in the country 
of  return  and  should  be  tailored  to  take  account  of  the  specific  situation  in  different 
countries. At the basis of an integrated return management plan should be an analysis 
of the situation in the Member State with respect to the targeted population, a realistic 

19   Frontex, Annual Risk Analysis, 2014, p. 7. 
20   See Article 2 of Decision 575/2007/EC. 
21   See Article 3 of Decision 575/2007/EC. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
assessment of the potential for return and the cooperation with the countries of return, 
a planning and evaluation mechanism with respect to the return process of the targeted 
population  and  cooperation  throughout  the  process  with  relevant  stakeholders  at 
national,  European  and  international  level,  such  as  UNHCR  and  the  International 
Organisation  for  Migration  (IOM).  Priority  should  be  given  to  cooperation  between 
Member  States  to  secure  such  an  approach,  given  the  cost-effectiveness  and  the 
synergies  involved22.  Under  integrated  return  management,  Member  States  should 
give the preference to voluntary return over forced return.  

  enhanced  cooperation  between  Member  States  within  the  framework  of  integrated 

return management (Specific objective b23)), and  

 

the  promotion  of  an  effective  implementation  of  common  standards  on  return 
(Specific objective c24)).  

The  specific  objectives  were  further  clarified  by  a  list  of  examples  of  eligible  actions  per 
specific objective25. 

In  accordance  with  the  Decision  establishing  the  RF26,  the  Commission  adopted  Strategic 
Guidelines27  which  identified  four  priorities  and  eight  specific  priorities  (between  1  to  3 
specific  priorities  per  priorities).  The  specific  priorities  were  defined  to  target  particular 
actions  for  which  the  Member  States  could  request  an  EU  co-financing  rate  of  75%28  (See 
Section 6.1). Each action planned in the annual programme should be programmed under one 
of  the  priorities  set  in  the  Strategic  Guidelines.  As  the  Strategic  Guidelines  did  not  set  any 
threshold per priorities, Member States could distribute their annual allocation as they wished 
provided that the MSs target the available resources to three out of four priorities. 

Priorities 

Specific priorities (75% EU contribution) 

22    Article 3.2 of Decision 575/2007/EC: Integrated return plans: (a) are based on a comprehensive assessment 
of  the  situation  in  the  Member  State  with  respect  to  the  targeted  population  or  a  targeted  specific  issue 
concerning  return  and  the  challenges  with  respect  to  the  operations  envisaged  (such  as  those  related  to 
obtaining travel documents and other practical obstacles to return), taking into account, where appropriate, 
the  relevant  caseload.  The  comprehensive  assessment  shall  be  drawn  up  in  cooperation  with  all  relevant 
authorities and partners; (b) aim to achieve a wide set of measures encouraging voluntary return schemes of 
third-country  nationals,  in  particular  for  those  who  do  not or  no  longer  fulfil  the  conditions  for  entry  and 
stay  on  its  territories  and,  where  necessary,  implementing  enforced  return  operations  with  respect  to  such 
persons,  in  full  compliance  with  humanitarian  principles  and  respect  for  their  dignity;  (c)  include  a  plan 
and/or  time  table  and,  where  appropriate,  provide  for  a  periodic  evaluation  mechanism  allowing  for 
adjustment of the plan and assessment of the impact of the plan in practice; and (d) include, where Member 
States consider it appropriate, measures to facilitate cooperation between the competent administrative, law 
enforcement and judicial bodies, where appropriate at different levels of government. 

23   For examples of actions, see Article 4(2). 
24   For examples of actions, see Article 4(3). 
25   Article 4 of Decision 575/2007/EC.  
26    Article 18 of Decision 575/2007/EC. 
27   Commission  Decision  of  30  November  2007  implementing  Decision  575/2007/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards  the  adoption  of  strategic  guidelines  for  2008  to  2013  (notified 
under document number C (2007) 5822). 

28   Article 15.4 of Decision 575/2007/EC. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
►  Specific  priority  1  deals  with  assisted  voluntary  return 

programmes; 

►  Specific  priority  2  supports  cash  incentives  and  measures  to 

address the specific situation of vulnerable returnees; 

►  Specific priority 3 promotes integrated return plans supporting 
return  of  persons  not  covered  under  Community 
the 
readmission  agreements  or  national  bilateral  readmission 
agreements  to  countries  of  origin,  former  residence  or  transit 
with  which  cooperation  in  the  field  of  return  is  particularly 
difficult. 

►  Specific priority 1 focuses on integrated return plans designed 
and  implemented  in  cooperation  with  other  Member  States, 
Frontex, NGOs and International Organisations. 

►  Specific  priority  1  supports  projects  proposing  particularly 
innovative  means  of  informing  and  counselling  potential 
returnees  and/or other  innovative  incentives  for  increasing  the 
number of voluntary returnees based on respect for the dignity 
of the individuals concerned. 

►  Specific  priority  2  supports  projects  which  test  new  working 
methods  to  speed  up  the  process  of  documenting  returnees  in 
cooperation  with  the  consular  authorities  and  immigration 
services of third countries. 

Priority 1: Support for the development of 
a strategic approach to return management 
by Member States. 

Priority 2: Support for the cooperation 
between Member States in return 
management –  
This includes setting up and implementing 
integrated return plans as well as 
cooperation in specific areas of integrated 
return management, such as the 
preparation, enforcement and follow-up of 
joint flights for removal and joint 
removals by land. 
Priority 3: Support for specific 
innovative (inter)national tools for return 
management. 
This includes setting up or improving 
counselling and return information 
measures, reintegration measures for 
returnees in the country of return, modes 
of cooperation with consular and/or 
immigration services, including training, 
and measures to gain information on 
undocumented third-country nationals or 
stateless persons. 

Priority 4: Support for Community 
standards and best practices on return 
management. 

►  Specific  priority  1  concerns  evaluations  and  missions  to 
measure progress in return programmes, tools and processes; 
►  Specific priority 2 deals with measures taken at national level 
to  ensure  a  fair  and  effective  implementation  of  common 
standards on return, including the training of practitioners. 

Priority  1  'Support  for  the  development  of  a  strategic  approach  to  return  management  by 
Member States' can be mainly linked to Specific Objective a).    

Priority 2 'Support for the cooperation between Member States in return management' can be 
mainly linked to specific objective b).  

Priority  3  'Support  for  specific  innovative  (inter)national  tools  for  return  management'  is 
cross-cutting.  This priority is not linked to any of the three specific objectives of the RF in 
particular.  

Priority 4 'Support for Community standards and best practices on return management' can 
be mainly linked to Specific Objective c).  

While those priorities aimed to better target EU funding to policy objectives, it also resulted 
in a complex architecture, with the specific objectives and example of eligible actions on the 
one  hand  and  priorities  and  specific  priorities  on  the  other  hand  not  always  matching 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
perfectly.  As  mentioned  above,  for  example  priority  3  does  not  correspond  to  any  specific 
objective.  Also,  projects  aimed  at  supporting the  cooperation  with  third  countries  fall  either 
under  Objective  a)/Priority  1  (if  one  MS  involved),  Objective  b)/Priority  2  (if  several  MSs 
pool  their  resources  to  cooperate  with  third  countries)  or  Priority  3  (if  the  project  aims  at 
testing new working methods to speed up the process of documenting returnees in cooperation 
with consular or immigration services of third countries).     

As priorities, being more concrete and more operational, were used to guide implementation 
of  the  national  programmes  by  MSs,  the  latter  were  requested  to  program  their  actions  and 
report  on  their  implementation  per  priority.  However,  the  evaluation  methodology,  required 
analysing the extent to which the RF had achieved the objectives as set in the legal base. The 
complexity of the global architecture of the Fund, combined with the limitations imposed by 
the reporting format, made the evaluation exercise difficult. Nevertheless, the objectives and 
priorities of RF are naturally strongly linked and reinforce each other. As a result, the RF has 
been  assessed  through  the  priorities,  which,  given  the  interlinkage  with  specific  objectives, 
enabled the Commission to draw valid conclusions about the overall performance of the RF. 

The  weaknesses  in  the  architecture  of  the  Fund  have  been  addressed  when  preparing  the 
subsequent  funding  instrument:  the  AMIF  includes  three  specific  objectives  (Asylum, 
Integration/legal migration and Return). The specific objective related to return is supported 
by three national objectives, and Member States are requested to report on the implementation 
of their national programmes in light of the objectives set out in the legal base. 

4  Evaluation questions 

The  evaluation  assessed  the  RF  against  five  mandatory  evaluation  criteria  laid  down  in  the 
Commission Better Regulation Guidelines (effectiveness, efficiency, relevance coherence and 
EU  added  value).  In  addition,  the  co-financed  actions  were  also  assessed  for  their 
sustainability  and  complementarity.  To  assess  these  seven  criteria,  thirteen  evaluation 
questions were defined (see Annex 5). 

5  Method 

This evaluation relies on a supporting study carried out between April 2016 and March 2017 
by a consulting firm specialising in evaluation. The methodology combined desk research, on-
site  visits,  and  qualitative  and  quantitative  analysis.  It  required  a  systemic  summary  of  the 
evidence  regarding  the  implementation  of  the  Fund.  Most  of  the  information  was  taken 
mainly from the Member States’ national evaluation reports (NERs) and annual programmes 
(APs).  The  APs  set  out  the  operational  objectives  through  actions  for  each  year  while  the 
NERs provided information on outputs, results and impacts of the actions. 

Targeted  consultations  took  place  with  a  broad  range  of  stakeholders,  including  22 
Responsible  Authorities  (RAs),  24  beneficiaries,  7  EU  officials  and  case-study  respondents. 
The  methodology  combined  interviews  and  case  studies29  (each  involving  a  site  visit).  The 

29   Six case studies were carried out, focusing on HU, IT, MT, NL, RO and UK. The MSs selected for the case 
studies  were  chosen  following  an  assessment  made  by  the  consulting  firm  carrying  out  the  supporting 
evaluation  study  and  the  Directorate-General  Migration  and  Home  Affairs  (DG  HOME)  which  sought  to 
ensure a good representation in terms of MS geographical location and size. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
case studies illustrate practical examples of projects carried out by MSs with RF support. The 
results of the case studies were integrated in the replies to the evaluation criteria. An Internet-
based  open  public  consultation  was  also  carried  out.  A  detailed  analysis  of  the  outcome  of 
consultation activities may be found in Annex 2. 

Information was triangulated to the extent possible in order to ensure validity and robustness. 
The financial data extracted from SFC30 and ABAC31 presented in the document was updated 
in January 2017. 

5.1  Limitations 

The  evaluation  process  has  encountered  some  difficulties  that  induced  methodological 
limitations (see Annex 3 for more details). 

In particular, the assessment of effectiveness and efficiency was hindered, to a certain extent, 
by the absence of comparable quantitative data. For annual programmes, it is due to the fact 
that  the  reporting  requirements  in  the  Fund's  legal  base  did  not  stipulate  that  RAs  should 
collect  the  data  that  would  be  required  to  conduct  an  assessment  of  effectiveness  and 
efficiency32.  To  mitigate  this,  the  assessment  of  these  criteria  had  to  rely  on  the  qualitative 
data collected through the stakeholder consultations and the NERs. This, combined with the 
absence of a baseline, proved to be a limitation in terms of methodology. Also, it should be 
underlined that some annual programmes were not yet closed when the evaluation was carried 
out:  one  2011  annual  programme,  three  2012  annual  programmes  and  fifteen  2013  annual 
programmes were still open 

Due  to  these  limitations,  it  has  not  been  possible  to  establish  causal  links  between  the  RF's 
intervention  and  observed  impacts  or  results;  therefore,  effectiveness  has  been  evaluated  in 
terms of outputs – which could be measured and compared across MSs – rather than impacts 
or results. Furthermore,  it has been difficult to measure efficiency (the relationship between 
the  inputs  utilised  such  as  time,  human  and  financial  resources  and  the  results  achieved) 
because,  as  the  evaluation  concluded,  it  was  not  possible  to  compare  different  types  of 
projects. Hence, no clear trends could be established. Significant differences between Member 
States  were  sometimes  not  directly  linked  to  the  efficiency  of  the  return  action  but  to  the 
policy and practice on return management at Member State level33. In addition, results could 
not be measured due to the lack of ex ante targets.  

Moreover, indicators and quantitative targets were set by Member States through their Annual 
Programmes when selecting the actions supported by the programme for each year. For each 
action proposed, Member States defined independently the expected quantified results. As a 
result, there was a multitude of indicators across Member States with no harmonisation and a 
limited assessment on the side of the Commission. 

30   System  for  Fund  Management  2007  (SFC)  is  an  online  monitoring  tool  managed  by  the  Commission 
services and used for certain funding programmes, where Member States can upload implementation reports 
and financial information. 

31   ABAC is the Commission’s accrual-based online accounting system. 
32   This  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  Better  Regulation  agenda,  which  formalised  the  criteria  of  the 

evaluations to be carried out by the Commission, was adopted after the RF was established. 

33   An example is provided under the section devoted to Unit Costs in section 8.3. 

11 

 
 
                                                            
In addition, the absence of convened definitions for benchmarks or units stems from different 
understandings among Member States of what to record in the NERs34. Despite the fact that 
guidance on the interpretation of the indicators was provided to RAs on an ad hoc basis, upon 
their request, and answers were made accessible to all RAs, the information recorded in the 
NERs still proved to be diverse and hardly comparable.  

To  mitigate  to  the  extent  possible  the  limitations  mentioned,  different  mitigation  strategies 
were  taken  by  the  evaluator.  For  effectiveness  and  efficiency,  the  analysis  was  based 
primarily  on  stakeholders’  assessments,  gathered  through  interviews  with  beneficiaries  and 
RAs.  In  addition,  the  potentially  positive  stakeholder  bias  was  corrected  by  looking  at  past 
achievements  of  predecessor  programmes  and  the  judgment  of  the  evaluators.  Overall,  the 
availability, robustness and reliability of the data were sufficient to generate findings. 

Under  the  successor  fund,  AMIF,  in  order  to  improve  transparency  and  accountability,  the 
Commission  has  developed  a  specific  common  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework35  and 
prepared a document to guide RAs in their evaluation exercises to be carried out all along the 
life cycle of the Fund.36 

6  Management modes of the RF  

The actions co-financed under the RF were implemented through two different management 
modes: 

6.1  Shared management: Multiannual and Annual Programmes of the Member States 

Programming: Under the shared management mode, MSs hold the primary responsibility for 
the implementation and management and control of the interventions of the Fund. Under this 
management  mode,  the  Fund  is  implemented  on  the  basis  of  strategic  multiannual 
programmes adopted  for each Member State covering  the  2008-2013 programming  period. 
In addition annual programmes were negotiated each year with each Member State within 
the framework set by the multiannual programme to implement the annual financial allocation 
granted to each of them.  
Calculation  of  the  annual  financial  allocation37  for  each  Member  State:  to  express 
solidarity  with  the  Member  States  who  bear,  for  the  benefit  of  the  EU,  a  heavier  financial 
burden, the Fund basic act lays down the two objective criteria to be taken into consideration 

34   Some Member States recorded the total compound number relating to an indicator in a given year (i.e. the 
total for the year in question and all the previous ones), while others provided only the additional number for 
that  year  (i.e.  the  change  in  the  number).  In  addition  some  were  not  consistent  in  the  units  used  for  the 
indicators. 

35     Commission  Delegated  regulation  (EU)  No  2017/207  of  3  October  2016  on  the  common  monitoring  and 
evaluation framework provided for in Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  laying  down  general  provisions  on  the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  and  on  the 
instrument  for  financial  support  for  police  cooperation,  preventing  and  combating  crime,  and  crisis 
management, OJ L33, 8.02.2017, p. 1. 

36   The Guidance on the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework was developed in the framework of 
the  evaluation  network.  It  is  a  living  document  which  is  regularly  updated,  following  discussions  with 
Member  State  authorities  and  other  stakeholders  which  are  held  during  working  group  and  evaluation 
network meetings. It is available to the Member States. 

37     Decision No 575/2007/EC, Article 14.  

12 

 
 
 
                                                            
for the calculation of the annual allocation, i.e. the number of removal decisions affecting 
third-country  nationals  over  the  previous  three  years38  and  the  number  of  returns  to 
third countries over the previous three years39. 

The provisional allocations were communicated to the Member States the year before (by 1st 
July  each  year40)  the  adoption  of  the  annual  programme  in  question  and  were  based  on 
average  figures  over  the  previous  three  years  (e.g.  allocation  for  the  2013  AP  were 
communicated  in  2012  and  were  based  on  data  of  2009,  2010  and  2011).  In  2011,  an 
assessment on the annual distribution of resources in the Member States for the SOLID Funds 
was carried out. The report concluded that despite some minor difficulties in ensuring uniform 
application  of  the  definitions  imposed  by  the  RF  basic  act,  it  proved  possible  to  collect  the 
necessary  data  to  apply  the  criteria  in  accordance  with  the  RF  basic  act  and  to  deliver  the 
calculation of the provisional allocations to Member States in time for them to be able to use 
them for the preparation of their annual programmes. As the application of the criteria have 
converged the bulk of the EU  available resources around those Member States most affected 
by migratory pressure, the report also concluded that this confirms the purpose of the Fund as 
an instrument of financial solidarity for return management in the EU41. 

Content  of  the  Annual  Programme:  The  annual  programme  sets  out  the  actions  to  be 
implemented  in  the  Member  State  and  indicates  their  purpose,  scope,  beneficiaries  (public 
authorities  in  charge  of  return,  NGO's,  international  organisations  etc),  expected  results  and 
financial allocation (EU and national co-financing). Each action is then implemented by one 
or more project(s) on the ground. In the shared management context, the projects are selected 
by the competent national authority (i.e. the Responsible Authority (RA)). Member States are 
therefore  independent  and  only  ex  post  assessment  is  carried  out  by  the  Commission  at  the 
time of submission of the closure report of the AP in question. Under the 2011 – 2013 annual 
programmes,  912  projects  were  implemented  by  Member  States.  The  target  group  for  the 
Fund  comprises  all  third-county  nationals  who  do  not  or  no  longer  fulfil  the  conditions  for 
entry and/or stay in a Member State, those who have not yet received a final negative decision 
in relation to their request for international protection in a Member State and who choose to 
make use of voluntary return and all third-country nationals enjoying a form of international 
protection and who choose to make use of voluntary return42. 

During  the  eligibility  period  of  each  annual  programme,  Member  States  were  entitled  to 
request  a  revision  of  their  annual  programme  to  adjust  the  actions  to  the  changing 
migration  flows  and/or  emergency  situations. However Member States  were  not    entitled  to 
request additional funding for the implementation of a specific AP.  

The  EU  co-financing  rate  is  set  at  50%.  This  rate  may  be  increased  to  75  %  for  projects 
addressing  specific  priorities  identified  in  the  Strategic  Guidelines  as  well  as  for  projects 
implemented by the Member States covered by the Cohesion Fund43.  

38   See footnote 13 for a definition. 
39     See footnote 11 for a definition.  
40     Decision No 575/2007/EC, Article 21.2 
41   Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  -  The  application  of  the  criteria  for  the  distribution  of 
resources among the Member States under the External Borders Fund, the European Fund for the Integration 
of third-country nationals and the European Return Fund, 20 July 2011, COM(2011)448, point 3.3.3. 

42   Decision No 575/2007/EC, Article 7. 
43    Decision No 575/2007/EC, Article 15.4.  

13 

 
 
                                                            
Technical  assistance:  Member  States  were  entitled  to  use  the  funds  allocated  to  the  AP  to 
finance  "preparatory  measures,  management,  monitoring,  evaluation,  information  and 
control measures as well measures for the reinforcement of the administrative capacity for the 
implementation of the Fund"44. For the AP 2011 to 2013, the technical assistance was set at 
4% of the total annual amount of funding allocated plus EUR 30,000. 

Closure  of  the  Annual  Programme:  The  eligibility  period  of  each  annual  programme  was 
set  at  two  years  and  a  half  (e.g.  2013  annual  programme  ran  from  1  January  2013  until  30 
June  2015).  After  the  end  of  eligibility  period,  the  Member  States  submitted  a  final  report, 
which included an audit report. The part of the annual allocation not spent – if any – after the 
end of the eligibility period was lost for the Member States and for the Commission. 

6.2  Direct management: Annual Work Programmes of the Commission 

Under  this  management  mode,  up  to  7%  of  the  RF's  available  resources  could  be  used  to 
finance transnational actions or actions of interest to the EU as a whole, which were managed 
by the Commission (Community actions). 

Each year the Commission adopted an annual work programme (AWP) specifying how the 
objectives of the RF were to be pursued for the implementation period, taking into account the 
policy context. The AWPs were  mainly  implemented via  grants, for which the Commission 
then  launched  calls  for  proposals  defining  the  eligible  actions.  Calls  for  proposals  were 
addressed  to  public  authorities  from  the  Member  States  participating  in  the  Fund, 
International  Organisations  and  NGOs  registered  in  one  of  the  Member  States.  The  RF 
Community  Actions  were  co-financing  (up  to  90%  of  the  total  eligible  costs  of  the  action) 
transnational  projects  predominantly  in  the  Assisted  Voluntary  Return  (AVR)  field45.  The 
projects  complemented  the  national  programmes  and  encouraged  EU-wide  cooperation  and 
experience sharing in different aspects of the AVR process.  

In addition, to top up the allocation provided to their annual programmes, the 2011 to 2013 
AWPs made it possible for the Commission to grant emergency assistance – without a call 
for proposal - to Member States in duly substantiated emergency situations requiring urgent 
action. Over the period, the Commission awarded 6 emergency assistance grants.  

Finally, the 2013 AWP provided for the signature of two joint management action grants 
with  the  International  Organisation  for  Migration  (IOM)  without  a  call  for  proposals.  The 
objective of the cooperation with IOM under joint management was to establish continuous, 
effective support to the Member States in setting up and further development of coordinated, 
effective assisted voluntary return (AVR) management system.  

Overall, an amount of EUR 32 million was made available for direct management under the 
2010 to 2013 AWPs and thirty-six direct management projects were financed via grants: six 
in 2010, eleven in 2011 (including two emergency action grants), ten in 2012 (including two 
emergency  action  grants)  and  nine  in  2013  (including  two  Joint  Management  action  grants 
and two emergency action grants).  

44     Decision No 575/2007/EC, Article 17. 
45   Assisted  Voluntary  Return  =  Voluntary  return  or  voluntary  departure  supported  by  logistical,  financial 
and/or other material assistance (European Commission, Communication on an EU Action Plan on Return, 
COM(2015) 453 final, 9 September 2015, p. 3). 

14 

 
 
                                                            
7 

Implementation status of the two management modes 

The  RF  was  launched  in  2008  with  a  total  financial  allocation  of  EUR  676  million  (2008-
2013).  For  2011-2013  period,  EUR  435  million  was  allocated  to  shared  management  (AP). 
An amount of EUR 32 million was allocated to Community actions under direct management. 
Table 1 below shows the EU distribution of financing under the different management modes 
during the period under assessment46. 

Table 1:  

Total programmed EU contribution for RF, 2011-2013 (EUR) 

Shared  management 
national programmes) 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Total 

(via 

109,000,000 

151,124,999 

175,341,241 

435,466,240 

management 

Direct 
(via 
Community  actions,  including 
emergency  actions  and  joint 
management actions) 

Total  programmed  RF  EU 
contribution48 

8,068,942 

12,010,86047  

11,861,176 

31,940,978 

117,068,942 

163,135,859 

187,202,417 

467,407,218 

7.1 

Implementation through shared management (annual programmes) 

Finding 1: Absorption rates are good and remain stable at 81% 

Actions under national programmes were implemented from 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2015. 
It  should  be  underlined  that  some  annual  programmes  were  not  yet  closed  when  the 
evaluation was carried out: one 2011 annual programme, three 2012 annual programmes and 
fifteen  2013  annual  programmes  were  still  open.  The  final  total  EU  contribution  for  2011-
2013 closed annual programmes amounts to EUR 200 000 705 and for the open programmes 
the forecast final total EU contribution amounts to EUR 153218 758, hence the final total EU 
contribution for both open and closed programmes for 2011-2013 amounts to EUR 353 219 
463.  The  analysis  of  implementation  has  thus  considered  both  "closed"  and  "open" 
programmes, which means that the final implementation rate might be slightly different from 
the figures presented below. 

As illustrated by Figure 1, the programmed EU contribution under shared management rose 
gradually by 61% from EUR 109 000 000 in 2011 to EUR 175 341 241 in 2013. 

Figure  1:  Programmed  and  final  EU  contributions  and  absorption  rates  by  year  for  RF  shared  management 
(2008-2013) 

46    The data used was updated in December 2016. Given that some programmes were still open at the time of 

the  evaluation, both open and closed programmes are taken into consideration. 

47   This  includes  EUR  4,129,915  which  is  the  estimated  expenditure  for  a  project  under  emergency  actions 

which started in 2012 and was not yet closed at the time of writing. 

48    These  figures  are  the  sum  of  the  shared  management  programmed  EU  contribution  and  the  direct    

management   programmed EU contribution. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
83,3% 

85,5% 

75,4% 

75,8% 

72,8% 

58,3% 

l
a
n
i
F
&
d
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
P

€

s
n
o
i
l
l
i

M
n
i

s
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
C
U
E

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

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

e
t
a
R
n
o
i
t
p
r
o
b
s
b
A

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Programmed EU Contribution
ABSORPTION RATE

Final EU CONTRIBUTION
MEAN ABSORPTION 2008-2010

Source: European Commission data as of 31.01.2017 (SFC2007)49 

The RF absorption rate ranged from 58% in 2008 to 85.5% in 2012. The average absorption 
rate  was  higher  in  2011-2013  (81%)  than  in  2008-2010  (70%),  which  suggests  that 
stakeholders developed greater expertise over the course of the period studied. The absorption 
rate remained stable during 2011-2013 

No strong correlation could be identified between Member State implementation rates and the 
number of projects or the size of the projects implemented. For example, Finland, Ireland and 
the United Kingdom had a low number of projects and higher than average implementation 
rates, which could suggest that they were better able to target fund usage; however, Germany, 
Poland  and  Hungary  had  a  higher  number  of  projects  and  also  had  higher  than  average 
implementation rates, which shows that the number of projects does not necessarily have an 
effect  on  the  implementation  rate.  Regarding  project  size,  Finland  had  the  smallest  project 
size  and  it  had  a  high  implementation  rate  (91%),  while  France  had  very  large  projects  (an 
average  of  EUR  3  million)  and  had  the  highest  implementation  rate;  this  again  shows  that 
there is no strong link between these factors. 

While the ex post evaluation of the RF (2008-2010) found for that period that Member States 
with  a  high  implementation  rate were often those which received high  financial allocations, 
the same pattern could not be established for the implementation of the RF in 2011-2013. 

As can be seen in Figure 2, there are large differences between Member State implementation 
rates, which for 2011-2013 range from 17% for Croatia to 99.6% for France. A positive trend 
can  be  seen  in  the  fact  that  most  Member  State  implementation  rates  over  2011-2013  were 
higher than for 2008-2010. The exceptions to this trend were Malta (-21%), Romania (-10%), 
Portugal (-4%), Slovakia (-7%), Spain (-5%) and Slovenia (-2%)50. One of the main factors 
influencing  implementation  rates  was  the  reduction  of  migration  flows  to  some  Member 

49   System  for  Fund  Management  2007  (SFC)  is  an  online  monitoring  tool  managed  by  the  Commission 
services and used for certain funding programmes, where Member States can upload implementation reports 
and financial information. These data were aggregated manually. 

50   The negative percentages reflect the fact that these Member States had lower implementation rates in 2011-

2013 compared to the 2008-2010 period. 

16 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
States, which meant that a lower number of persons were returned than initially planned for, 
and this in turn resulted in an adjusted lower need for funding for such projects.51  

Figure  2:  Programmed  and  Final  EU  contributions  and  absorption  rates  by  Member  State  for  RF  shared 
management (2011-2013) 

l
a
n
i
F
&
d
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
P

€
s
n
o
i
l
l
i

M
n
i

s
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
C
U
E

100

80

60

40

20

0

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

e
t
a
r
n
o
i
t
p
r
o
s
b
A

RF Programmed EU Contribution 2011-2013

RF Final EU Contribution 2011-2013

RF Absorption Rate (2011-2013)

Source: European Commission data as of 31.01.2017 (SCF2007)52 

Finding 2: 'Sharing the burden' – the distribution of RF funding follows partially the trends in 
arrivals and return of irregular migrants 

The  total  RF  contribution  varied  significantly  across  Member  States.  Four  Member  States53 
account for almost 62% of the total programmed and the total final EU contributions. Funds 
were  allocated  on  the  basis  of  the  methodology  set  out  in  the  legal  basis  of  the  Fund  (See 
Section  6.1).  The  largest  allocations  were  granted  to  the  Member  States  with  the  highest 
influxes  of  irregular  migrants  and  the  highest  number  of  returnees:  Greece,  the  United 
Kingdom, Spain and France. 

However, the allocated budget for the Member States shows a delay of three years compared 
to  the  trend  in  return  decisions  and  effected  returns.  This  weakness  was  mitigated  to  some 
extent by the allocation of emergency assistance actions to support Member States in case of 
situations  requiring  urgent  action  (see  Section  8.2.4).  Some  flexibility  was  also  provided 
under  shared  management  by  the  fact  that  Member  States  could  revise  their  annual 
programmes  and  shift  funding  from  areas  where  there  would  have  been  an  underspend  to 

51   This was the case for Malta and Romania, which experienced a peak in effected returns in 2011 and 2012 
respectively  and  then  saw  a  decrease  in  2012  and  2013,  given  lower  numbers  of  arrivals.  See  European 
Commission (2017) External Ex-post evaluation of the European Return Fund 2011-2013, Annex A: Case 
Study Reports. 

52    These data were aggregated manually. 
53    EL (22.5%), ES (12.4%), FR (10.8%), UK (15.9%). 

17 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
areas  faced  with  a  potential  overspend,  thereby  taking  into  account  new  or  changing  needs 
and unforeseen events.54 

Finding 3: Due to the absence of a threshold, EU funding was concentrated on Priority 1 

Under the 2011-2013 APs, funds were allocated to four funding priorities unequally55. Over 
81% of funding was allocated to priority 1; 3% under priority 2; 13% under priority 3; and 3% 
under  priority  4.  Member  States  thus  tended  to  prioritise  the  development  of  a  strategic 
approach to return management (priority 1) over all other priorities. 

Figure 3: Programmed and final EU contribution by priority, 2011-2013 

400

300

200

100

0

U
E

l
a
n
i
F

/

d
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
P

€

s
n
o
i
l
l
i

M
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
C

83% 

80% 

77% 

42% 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Priority 1

Programmed EU Contribution

Priority 2

Priority 3
Final EU Contribution

Priority 4
Absorption rate

Source: European Commission data as of 21.03.2017 (SCF2007)56 

7.2 

Implementation through direct management 

Under  the  2010  to  2013  AWPs,  28  Community  actions  (with  the  exclusion  of  joint 
management actions and emergency assistance) were implemented for a total amount of more 
than  EUR  16.5  million  (commitment),  and  with  an  implementation  rate  of  78%  for  2010-
2012. For the 2013 AWPs, at the time of the evaluation, data was not available on the final 
EU contribution for four out of five Community actions, so the implementation rate has only 
been calculated up to 2012. The total final EU contribution for Community Actions under the 
2010 to 2012 AWPs was of EUR 6,377,248.  

In  addition,  2  Joint  Management  actions  were  implemented  under  the  2013  AWP  with  a 
granted EU contribution of EUR 2 million.57 

Finally,  six  emergency  assistance  projects  were  financed  with  a  granted  EU  contribution  of 
EUR 13,436,067.44 million. The applications submitted by Member States for these projects 
were not subject to calls for proposals58, in order to increase the speed at which these projects 

54   As provided by Article 19 of Decision 2008/458/EC, amended by Decision 2011/177/EU. 
55    Priorities (1) Support for the development of a strategic approach to return management by Member States; 
(2)  Support  for  the  cooperation  between  Member  States  in  return  management;  (3)  Support  for  specific 
innovative  (inter)national  tools  for  return  management;  (4)  Support  for  Community  standards  and  best 
practices on return management. 
56     These data were aggregated manually. 
57   IOM was the beneficiary of both of these actions. As the projects were not yet closed at the time of writing   

the report, the implementation rate is not available. 

58    As provided in Article 168(1) of the Rules of Application (Regulation No 2342/2002). 

18 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
could be implemented. The absorption rate of these projects was very high, ranging from 93% 
to  100%,  with  the  exception  of  one  project  which  had  a  48%  absorption  rate59.  The  high 
absorption rates suggest that the EU funding provided was very necessary and that the project 
beneficiaries had the capacity to implement it.  

8  Answers to the evaluation questions 

8.1  Relevance 

EQ10:  To  what  extent  did  the  RF  objectives  correspond  to  needs  in  the  field  of  return 
management? 

EQ11: To what extent did the objectives of the actions under the RF 2011-2013 correspond to 
the needs in the field of return management? 

Main  conclusions:  Overall,  the  majority  of  Member  States  and  all  respondents  to  a  survey 
found that the RF objectives corresponded to their needs in the field of return management. 
The  development  of  a  strategic  approach  to  return  management  (Integrated  return 
management) (Specific Objective a)/Priority 1) was highlighted as the most relevant specific 
objective/Priority of the RF.  

As  reflected  by  the  very  low  amount  allocated  by  MSs  to  the  second  specific  objective 
(b)/Priority  2  'Cooperation  between  Member  States  in  return  management',  the  latter  was 
considered less relevant to most Member States' needs. The same conclusion can be drawn for 
Specific Objective c)/Priority 4 on support for Community standards and best practices.  

As for the evolution of the needs, the continued relevance of the RF was ensured by the fact 
that MSs were entitled to revise their AP to adjust actions according to their changing needs.  

Some  shortcomings  were  identified  as  to  the  eligibility  rules,  which  were  all  addressed  in 
AMIF.  

The  majority  of  Member  States60  and  all  respondents  to  a  survey61  found  that  the  RF 
objectives corresponded to their needs in the field of return management62.  

The  development  of  a  strategic  approach  to  return  management  (Integrated  return 
management) (Specific Objective a)/(Priority 1) was highlighted as the most relevant specific 
objective/Priority  of  the  RF63.  A  number  of  Member  States  indicated  that  they  lacked 

59   The lower implementation rate of this project is due to the fact that the initial allocated budget was under     
spent. The initial planned number of UAMs to be returned by the project was not met (only 5 UAMs out of 
the  50  initially  foreseen  wished  to  return  voluntarily);  this  meant  that  the  reintegration  grants  budget  line 
was not used and that the fees linked to the reintegration monitoring of assisted UAMs were not spent. The 
funding  allocated  for  the  service  fees  for  the  contribution  of  partner  organisations  to  national  reports  on 
family tracing was also largely under spent. 

60    AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, LT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK. 
61    See  European  Commission  (2016)  External  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Return  Fund  2011-2013, 

Annex C. 

62     100%  of  respondents  to  a  survey  considered  that  project  objectives  were  relevant  to  the  needs  of  their 
specific  MS,  while  88%  found  them  relevant  to  the  needs  of  the  EU  as  a  whole  (European  Commission 
(2016) External Ex-post evaluation of the European Return Fund 2011-2013, Annex C). 

63     Indeed, 63% of all projects under the RF were implemented under this Priority. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                            
experience  prior  to  their  accession  to  the  EU,  and  thus  considered  particularly  relevant 
Priority 1 as it addressed their need to develop their return management system, including in 
relation  to  assisted  voluntary  return  and  reintegration  (AVR(R))64.  In  addition,  in  this  area, 
several Member States65 and the majority of respondents to a survey66 defined the support of 
assisted voluntary return (AVR(R)) programmes and reintegration measures (specific priority 
1 of Priority 1) as their key need.   

In  addition,  in  the  context  of  specific  objective  a)/Priority  1,  the  funding  by  the  EU  of 
activities aiming to develop and enhance cooperation between a Member State and countries 
of  origin  (Priority  1  -  specific  priority  3)  to  facilitate  the  organisation  of  returns  and  their 
effectiveness and sustainability was deemed particularly relevant by a significant number of 
Member  States67.  However,  the  evaluation  showed  that  bilateral  cooperation  with  third 
countries  could  be  less  relevant  than  a  multilateral  approach  which  provided  EU  Member 
States  with  a  stronger  influence68.The  second  specific  objective  (b))  (and  Priority  2) 
'Cooperation between Member States in return management'  was considered less relevant to 
most  Member  States'  needs.  This  is  reflected  by  the  fact  that  only  5%  of  the  number  of 
projects  funded  under  the  2011-2013  annual  programmes  were  implemented  under  Specific 
Objective b)/Priority 2 and that the final eligible costs of these projects represented only 1%. 
Some Member States indicated that they preferred to improve return policies at the national 
level before engaging with others69.  

Specific Objective c)/Priority 4 on support for Community standards and best practices in the 
field of return management were declared very relevant by only three Member States70. This 
is reflected by the fact that the projects implemented under Priority 4 represented 14% of the 
total  number  of  projects  funded  by  the  RF  under  the  2011-2013  annual  programmes  and 
represented just 2% of the total final eligible costs.  

As  for  the  evolution  of  the  needs,  the  continued  relevance  of  the  RF  was  ensured  by  its 
flexibility: the possibility of adjusting actions during the eligibility period of each AP enabled 
the  provision  of  a  response  to  the  changing  migration  flows  and  emergency  situations 
observed during that period. For instance, Italy indicated that they revised their AP in order to 
reallocate funds from the organisation of a communication campaign to forced return actions, 
in response to the emergency situation arising from instability in Northern Africa during the 
evaluation period.  

Finally  among  the  shortcoming  raised  by  beneficiaries,  including  by  beneficiaries  of 
Community action grants, regarding the relevance of Specific Objective a)/Priority 1 was that 
the  RF's  target  audience  was  not  sufficiently  broad  as  it  did  not  include  some  categories  of 
migrants,  such  as  those  residing  legally  on  the  territory  of  Member  States  but  wishing  to 
return  to  their  country  of  origin.  This  has  been  addressed  in  the  subsequent  funding 

64     BG, CY, EE, HU, LT, PL, SK. 
65     AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, FR, HU, LU, MT, PT, SK, UK. 
66     88% of the stakeholders consulted through the survey also mentioned the need to facilitate voluntary return 
through  AVR(R)  programmes  or  reintegration  measures  (European  Commission  (2016)  External  Ex-post 
evaluation of the European Return Fund 2011-2013, Annex C). 

67     AT, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK. 
68     For example, the Benelux countries preferred to negotiate multilateral readmission agreements. 
69     SE and AT.  
70     AT, CY, LT. 

20 

 
 
                                                            
instrument, AMIF, as  the target group has  been expanded to include third-country nationals 
enjoying  the  right  to  stay,  legal  residence  and/or  international  protection  or  temporary 
protection who wish to voluntary return to their country of origin. 

In addition, some Member States provided examples of needs that were not addressed by the 
Fund. Estonia and Spain provided examples of needs which could not be addressed through 
RF  funding,  such  as  the  upgrading  of  IT  systems  (EE),  increasing  the  accommodation 
capacity of detention centres (EE), and the initial reconstruction of detention centres (ES)71. 
This  has  been  addressed  in  the  AMIF  which  covers  'the  establishment,  maintenance  and 
improvement  of  accommodation,  reception  or  detention  infrastructure,  services  and 
conditions'72 and 'the setting up of administrative structure and systems, including IT tools'73. 

8.2  Effectiveness 

EQ1:  To  what  extent  did  the  RF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the 
objectives defined in the Articles 2 and 3 of Decision No 2007/575/EC and to the priorities 
defined by the strategic guidelines (Decision No 2007/837/EC? 

Main  Conclusion:  Globally,  the  evaluation  found  that  the  RF  was  mainly  effective  in 
reaching  the  objectives  laid  down  in  the  legal  basis,  although  the  degree  of  effectiveness 
varied  greatly  across  the  different  types  of  priorities  and  actions  and  some  problems  were 
encountered by Member States, RAs or beneficiaries. 
Several  sources  suggest  that  the  overall  contribution  of  the  RF  to  the  achievement  of  the 
Fund's objectives was positive. The global results and achievements of the RF were assessed 
as  positive  by  23  Member  States74  and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  results  of  a  survey  of 
beneficiaries under Member States' Annual Programmes (APs).75 The large majority (93%) of 
projects carried out by respondents to the survey were implemented as planned, and 80% of 
these did not encounter major implementation obstacles. Over 90% of respondents considered 
that  reaching  planned  results  and  objectives  was  highly  effective.  Areas  in  which  the  RF 
made  a  significant  contribution  were  ensuring  a  better  balance  between  voluntary  and 
forced returns; the development of an integrated management approach and system; providing 
support to Member States dealing with situations of particular pressure; and the enhancement 
of Member State return capacity. The RF also made a positive contribution to the provision of 
support to Member States in emergency situations requiring urgent action, in particular given 
the limitations of the distribution key to cope with changing migratory pressure. 
At  a  project-specific  and  action-specific  level,  some  problems  or  limitations  regarding 

71 

In  2012  the  purchase,  construction  or  renovation  of  detention  centres  became  eligible  under  the  RF,  see 
Article  1  of  Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  No.  2012/718  of  20  September  2012  amending 
Decision  2008/458/EC  laying  down  rules  for  the  implementation  of  Decision  No  575/2007/EC  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Return Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 
as  part  of  the  General  programme  Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows  as  regards  Member 
States’  management  and  control  systems,  the  rules  for  administrative  and  financial  management  and  the 
eligibility of expenditure on projects co-financed by the Fund, OJ L 326, 24.11.2012, p. 17–18 

72     Article 11(f) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 
73     Article 11(g) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 
74    AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK 
75     European Commission (2016) External Ex-post evaluation of the European Return Fund 2011-2013, Annex 

C. 

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
effectiveness were found. The RF had a moderate impact on the enhancement of Member 
State cooperation, the implementation of EU standards and best practices, the development of 
innovative (inter)national tools for return management, and the improvement of cooperation 
with  third  countries.  The  RF  had  a  limited  impact  on  the  improvement  of  cooperation 
between different governance levels at the national level. The effectiveness of the RF in these 
different areas is discussed in more detail below in response to the relevant specific evaluation 
questions. 

8.2.1  Specific  Objective  a):  The  contribution  of  the  Fund  to  the  introduction  and 

improvement of integrated return management 

EQ2: To what extent did the actions under the RF 2011-2013 contribute to the development 
of  integrated  return  management  and  in  particular  to  the  balance  between  forced  and 
voluntary  returns  and  to  the  setting  up  of  a  return  procedure  based  on  the  situation  of  the 
potential returnees? 

Main  conclusion:  The  RF  has  contributed  to  the  development  of  an  integrated  return 
management  system  (under  specific  objective  (a)  of  the  RF  Decision  and  Priority  1  of  the 
Strategic  Guidelines)  to  a  large  extent,  although  the  planned  numbers  of  returns  were  not 
always  achieved.  This  was  mostly  due  to  changing  migratory  pressures,  to  difficulties  in 
planning  a  realistic  number  of  returns  that  could  be  attained,  as  well  as  to  scheduling 
constraints and limited cooperation with partners countries and potential returnees. The fund 
was moderately effective in the implementation of forced returns and assistance to vulnerable 
groups, in particular unaccompanied minors.  However, it contributed to raising the standards 
of  the  return  management  system  as  a  whole.  The  RF  has  particularly  contributed  to  the 
achievement  of  a  better  balance  between  voluntary  and  forced  return,  with  a  considerable 
increase in voluntary returns in 2011-2013.  

The  RF  has  been  effective  in  supporting  the  development  of  an  integrated  return 
management system (Specific Objective a)/ Priority 1) at both the national and EU levels. 

At the national level, most Member States76 stressed the important contribution that the RF 
made  by  introducing  and  enhancing  the  implementation  of  integrated  return  management. 
Member  States  highlighted  the  positive  impact  of  the  RF  in  terms  of  contributing  to  the 
planning  and  strategy  of  an  integrated  return  management  system  (BE  and  HU77);  the 
comprehensiveness and coherence of national activities in the area of return (EE and ES); the 
governance  of  return  activities  and  the  possibility  to  manage  them  in  an  integrated  manner 
(IT). Some  Member States  highlighted specific challenges in relation to the development of 
an  integrated  return  management  system78.  Bulgaria  for  instance  saw  the  development  of 
integrated  return  management  as  a  long-term  process  which  could  not  be  completed  in  the 
period 2011-2013.  

76     AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, EE, FR, HU, IE, IT, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK and UK. 
77  For  instance,  in  HU  the  MAP  drafted  for  the  purpose  of  implementing  the  RF  at  the  start  of  the  funding   

period had, to a high extent, played the role of an integrated return management plan. 

78  BG, CZ. 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
In  addition,  nine  Member  States79  specifically  mentioned  the  importance  of  the  RF 
contribution  to  reintegration  support  as  a  complement  to  their  Assisted  Voluntary  Return 
programmes.  Reintegration  services  provided  with  the  support  of  the  Fund  included,  for 
example:  complementary  financial  support  (AT,  HU,  IT,  PL);  pre-departure  trainings  to 
improve the skill set of returned (DE, HU, IT); assistance in identifying and seizing potential 
(self-) employment opportunities (DE, IT, PL); assistance in obtaining travel documents and 
transit to target locations (PL). 

At  EU  level,  the  Community  actions  2010-2013  funded  several  return  and  reintegration 
programmes, such as  the European Integrated Approach on Return towards Third Countries – 
(EURINT),  the  European  Reintegration  Instrument  (ERI),  and  the  European  Reintegration 
Network  – ERIN)  which helped to fill gaps in national return  policies by enabling practical 
cooperation among Member States and between Member States and third countries. 

The Fund has proven to be effective in contributing to the different components of integrated 
return management.80 Below, the RF's contribution to each component is assessed. 

  The promotion of voluntary return over forced return 

The share of voluntary returns out of the total number of returns has gradually increased in the 
EU  over  the  past  years.  In  2013,  it  is  estimated  that  around  40%  of  returns  were  voluntary 
departures, from just 14% in 200981. To promote the voluntary return of persons, in particular 
persons  who  are  under  no  obligation  to  leave  the  territory,  provision  should  be  made  for 
incentives  for  such  returnees,  such  as  preferential  treatment  by  providing  enhanced  return 
assistance.  This  kind  of  voluntary  return  is  both  in  the  interests  of  a  dignified  return  of 
returnees, as well as of the authorities in terms of cost-effectiveness.  

The  RF  was  particularly  effective  in  contributing  to  a  better  balance  between  forced  and 
voluntary  returns.  While  Member  States  had  a  propensity  to  finance  forced  return  over 
voluntary  return  operations82, the financial contribution of the RF sought to  bring a balance 
between these through the provision of a slightly higher allocation to voluntary returns83. This 
was  not  necessarily  followed  by  a  general  shift  in  approach  or  policy  at  Member  State 
level….However, in terms of outcomes, the number of persons returned voluntarily under the 
RF was significantly higher than the number of unilateral forced returns in 2011 (73% higher) 
and  2013  (157%  higher)84.  Currently,  all  the  Member  States  that  made  use  of  the  RF  over 

79  AT, BE, DE, FI, HU, IT, MT, PL, UK. 
80     For  a  definition  of  integrated  return  management  and  of  its  components,  see  Article  3(2)  of  Decision  No 
575/2007/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  May  2007  establishing  the  European 
Return Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General Programme ‘Solidarity and Management of 
Migration Flows’. 
81     (COM(2015)453). 
82   For the wider return area spending on forced return accounted for a higher ratio than spending on voluntary 

return (33% versus 20% respectively).  

83   Under the RF, allocated spending on voluntary returns was slightly higher than on forced return (36% versus 

32% respectively). 

84   Overall, the number of persons returned voluntarily gradually doubled over the years, from 21,057 in 2011 
to 45,077 in 2013. Data taken from the National Evaluation Reports, see also European Commission (2016) 
External Ex-post evaluation of the European Return Fund 2011-2013, Annex B. Data was not available for 
CY, HR, and SE. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
2011-2013  have  at  least  one  Assisted  Voluntary  Return  (and  Reintegration)  programme 
(AVRR) in place.85  

Despite  these  positive  outcomes,  a  few  Member  States86  reported  that  their  RF-funded 
the  planned  number  of  persons  returned. 
projects  on  AVR(R)  had  not  reached 
Underperformance was attributed to difficulties in estimating the number of voluntary returns 
accurately  at  the  moment  of  drafting  the  annual  programmes  (EE,  ES);  insufficient 
cooperation  with  the  International  Organisation  for  Migration  (IOM);  or  the  time  taken  to 
develop an outreach programme and to build trust with potential returnees (UK). 

The  RF  was  moderately  effective  in  supporting  the  implementation  of  forced  returns. 
Over  68  000  forced  returns  were  implemented  with  RF  support  in  2011-2013  out  of  an 
estimated 195 117 conducted by Member States through unilateral forced return operations.87 
In  six  Member  States88  the  outputs  achieved  with  forced  returns  were  lower  than  planned. 
Reasons mentioned for this were the impact of changing migration pressures which made it 
difficult  to  predict  the  number  of  implemented  returns  (EL,  PL,  ES);  a  lower  number  of 
returns eligible under the RF (CY); problems in identifying returnees held in detention centres 
due to the high numbers involved and to delays in the procurement process which hindered 
the organisation of charter flights (EL); and a lack of cooperation from countries of origin (FI, 
EL, UK). Nevertheless, overall, while the actions supported by the Fundmay not have directly 
contributed  to  increase  the  number  of  third-country  nationals  returned,  they  were  found  to 
have raised the standards of the forced return management system as a whole.  For example, 
authorities  in  Hungary  emphasised  the  importance  of  providing  professional  escort  services    
(including  medical  escorts)  whilst  authorities  in  Poland  expressed  the  view  that  capacity-
building measures in the areas of forced return and detention had led to improvements in the 
quality of the return management system. For the next programme of funding, Article 12 of 
the AMIF Regulation now seeks to foster a continued improvement of EU standards in this 
area89. 

  A  return  procedure  based  on  the  situation  of  the  potential  returnees 

(assistance to vulnerable persons in particular) 

The effectiveness of RF actions in the set-up of a return procedure based on the situation of 
the potential returnees varied across Member States on a case-by-case basis. With regards 
to  the  provision  of  assistance  to  meet  the  potential  needs  of  vulnerable  persons  in  the 
framework  of  return  procedures,  on  average  4  000  vulnerable  persons  were  assisted  during 
their voluntary return each year with a short spike in 2013 when this number reached 5 
610.90 Belgium, Hungary and  Sweden had particular success stories in this  area  for specific 

85   This does not include Croatia, as it only participated from 2013 onwards, upon accession to the European 

Union. 

86   CZ, EE, ES, MT and the UK. 
87     Data  was  not  available  for  BG,  CY,  DE,  IE,  SE.  See  European  Commission  (2016)  External  Ex-post 

evaluation of the European Return Fund 2011-2013, Annex B. 

88     CY, EL, ES, LU, PL and UK. 
89     Article 12 of the AMIF Regulation provides that actions on AVR(R) and removal operations should receive 
support,  with  an  emphasis  on  the  standards  laid  down  in  EU  law.  It  excludes  the  funding  of  coercive 
equipment. 

90   See  European  Commission  (2016)  External  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Return  Fund  2011-2013, 

Annex B, Figure 41. 

24 

 
 
 
                                                            
projects, meeting or even exceeding set targets.91 Other projects were less successful, such as 
in Belgium92 and Estonia93. A shortcoming of the RF regulatory framework in this area was 
the lack of coverage of the costs related to the reception of unaccompanied minors (UAMs). 
This was seen by authorities in France as a particular weakness since this group could not be 
returned.94 Under  AMIF, according  to Regulation  (EU) No 516/2014  Article  15(1)(b),  EUR 
360 million, may be allocated to Member States wanting to implement actions in the area of 
return  which  entail  intra-EU  cooperation.  One  type  of  Specific  Action  which  may  be 
implemented  is  'Joint  initiatives  aimed  at  restoring  family  unity  and  reintegration  of 
unaccompanied minors in their countries of origin'.95 
Complementing  national  initiatives,  ten  Community  actions  and  one  Emergency  action 
concerned the provision of assistance to vulnerable persons. The Emergency action aimed to 
address the needs of unaccompanied minors in Greece96, while Community actions included 
projects monitoring the return of minors to Kosovo and Albania,97 enhancing the capacities of 
EU Member States and third countries to promote durable solutions for UAMs,98 enhancing 
the AVR(R) of migrants  with a chronic medical condition,99 or  coordinating approaches  for 
the reintegration of victims of trafficking (CARE).100 

  The  Contribution  of  the  RF  to  Cooperation  between  Member  States  and 

Third Countries 

EQ4: To what extent did the actions under the RF 2011-2013 contribute to the cooperation 
between Member States and third countries in return management?  

The RF had a moderate impact in this area, partly due to a lower share of projects in this 
area:  eleven  Member  States  reported  not  having  carried  out  any returns  in  cooperation  with 
third countries.101 Despite this, available data from six Member States which did implement 
projects  in  this  area  shows  that  the  number  of  persons  returned  forcefully  further  to 
cooperation with third countries increased from 8 665 in 2011 to 11 709 in 2012, and 11 715 
in  2013.102  This  is  supported  by  the  reports  of  12  Member  States  highlighting  that  the  RF 

91    For details regarding these success stories, see ibid, pp. 50-51. 
92   Belgium, for instance, only managed to assist one unaccompanied minor (UAM) in returning to Morocco in 
2011-2013, instead of the ten initially planned, under a project implemented by IOM. Another UAM-related 
project (STAVR(R)), implemented by Caritas, also failed to achieve its set targets as the preparatory work 
of a case was underestimated and the project period proved to be too short. 

93   In Estonia, the number of vulnerable persons assisted in their return was three in 2011 but zero in both 2012 

and 2013 due to the fact that no vulnerable persons applied for support. 
Interview with the French RA. 

94  
95   Other types of Specific Actions, as outlined in Annex II to the AMIF Regulation, also include 'Joint return 
operations'  and 'Joint reintegration projects in  the  countries  of origin with  a view  to  sustainable return, as 
well as joint actions to strengthen third countries' capacities to implement Union readmission agreements'. 

96   Project HOME/2011/RFXX/CA/EA/4002. 
97    Project HOME/2011/RFXX/CA/1004. 
98     Project HOME/2011/RFXX/CA/1007. 
99    Project HOME/2011/RFXX/CA/1014. 
100   Project HOME/2012/RFXX/CA/1015. 
101   AT, BE, EL, EE, ES, HU, IT, NL, PT, SK, SI. 
102   See  European  Commission  (2016)  External  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Return  Fund  2011-2013, 
Annex B, Figure 40. Data is not available for 11 Member States (BG, CY, CZ, DE, FI, HR, IE, LT, LU, LV, 
SE). 

25 

 
 
 
                                                            
helped  to  improve  their  relationship  with  third  countries,  speeding  up  identification 
procedures, and increasing the number of both voluntary and forced and voluntary returns103.  

Member  States  reported  some  factors  which  undermined  the  effectiveness  of  the  actions 
implemented  in  this  area,  such  as  the  reluctance  of  some  authorities  in  partner  countries  to 
cooperate  in  the  field  of  return  and  reintegration,  the  short  timeframe,  and  unrealistic 
expectations sometimes set for the projects, given that the establishment of contacts and the 
agreement of mutual goals with third countries took a significant amount of time. 

For these reasons, some Member States preferred to participate in Community actions such as 
the  European  Initiative  on  an  Integrated  Return  Management  Network  (EURINT)104  and 
European  Return  Liaison  Officers  (EURLO)  Networks105,  which  facilitated  a  multilateral 
approach  to  return  and  were  more  attractive  to  third  countries,  focusing  on  improving 
operational  cooperation  rather  than  on  concluding  cooperation  agreements  per  se.  Some 
Member  States106  implemented  cooperation  activities  within  the  framework  of  AVR(R) 
programmes  and  involved  not  only  the  authorities  of  third  countries,  but  also  international 
organisations and other local partners. The subsequent fund gives importance to Community 
actions in this area.107 

  Cooperation  between  all  stakeholders  at  different  levels  of  each  Member 

State 

EQ7. To what  extent  did the actions under  the RF 2011-2013 contribute  to  the cooperation 
between different levels (national, regional, local and urban)? 

The  projects  implemented  under  the  2011-2013  APs  focused  on  developing  modes  of 
cooperation between different levels of public authorities in this field and fell under objective 
a)/Priority 1108. These projects aimed to enable officials to swiftly gain information on return 
experiences  and  practices  elsewhere  and,  when  possible,  to  pool  resources.  These  projects 
made  a limited contribution  to  cooperation between different levels of  authority in the 
Member States because it was only seen as relevant or desirable by a small number of 
Member States. This  finding  is  supported by the responses to  a  survey of the beneficiaries 
conducted by external evaluators: while 26% of respondents found that projects implemented 
under  the  RF  had  contributed  to  this  goal  "Fully"  or  "Fairly",  33%  replied  they  had 
"Somewhat" contributed, 20% replied "Not at all" while 20% found this goal less relevant to 

103   BE, BG, CY, FU, DE, IT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO and SE. 
104   EURINT sought to contribute to the development and sharing of Member State best practices in the area of 

return. 

105   EURLO aimed to foster operational cooperation with countries of origin through the appointment of Return 

Liaison Officers in key countries. 
106   EL, FI, MT, NL, PT, SE and UK. 
107   Under  AMIF,  according  to  Regulation  (EU)  No  516/2014  Article  15(1)(b),  EUR  360  million,  may  be 
allocated  to  Member  States  wanting  to  implement  actions  in  the  area  of  return  which  entail  intra-EU 
cooperation. 

108   Article 4.1 d) of RF Decision. 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
their  projects.109  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  in  the  vast  majority  of  Member  States  it  is  a 
national-level  authority  who  has  ultimate  control  over  return  policy  and  implementation,  so 
that cooperation with other levels of authority is seen as less necessary (according to NERs). 
Given  such  low  perceived  relevance,  projects  under  this  action  were  only  implemented  in 
Belgium, Germany, Italy and Sweden. 

Despite this limitation, the projects implemented in the four Member States led to increased 
collaboration.  In  the  cases  of  Germany  and  Italy,  these  cooperation  projects  facilitated  the 
pooling of resources for return. 

In  addition,  RF  funding  allocated  under  other  priorities  provided  the  opportunity  to  fund 
actions of local stakeholders, such as NGOs and authorities, which led to improvements in the 
capacity  of  stakeholders  at  a  local  level,  and  thus  ultimately  to  an  increase  in  the  resources 
available at the national level (e.g. NL). In several Member States (BE, CZ, EL, FR, LT, PO, 
RO,  UK)  funding  was  used  to  increase  the  capacity  of  local  NGOs  and  civil  society 
stakeholders  implementing  or  contributing  to  AVR(R),  or  of  judiciary  and  law  enforcement 
stakeholders, many of them operating at regional or local levels. 

8.2.2 

 Specific Objective b) Contribution of the RF to Cooperation between Member States 
in Return Management 

EQ3: To what extent did the actions under the RF 2011-2013 contribute to the cooperation 
between Member States in return management? 

Main conclusion: The RF has been moderately effective in supporting cooperation between 
Member  States,  as  demonstrated  by  a  low  share  of  projects  implemented  under  Specific 
Objective  b).  A  positive  impact  of  the  RF  in  this  area  can  be  seen  in  the  increase  in  joint 
return  operations  and  cooperation  partnerships  agreed.  In  addition,  Community  actions, 
particularly  the  European  Re-integration  Instrument  (ERI),  the  European  Reintegration 
Network (ERIN) and the European Integrated Approach  on Return towards Third Countries 
(EURINT) also contributed to enhancing cooperation. Room for improvement was identified 
in  enhancing  joint  return  mechanisms,  which  has  been  addressed  under  the  successor  fund, 
AMIF. 

The RF has been moderately effective in supporting cooperation between the Member States 
in return management (Specific Objective b) / Priority 2). This is demonstrated by the fact 
that the lowest share of projects was implemented under this specific objective, representing 
5% of the number of projects implemented under shared management and 1% of the final RF 
contribution.  Nine  Member  States  did  not  implement  any  projects  under  this  Specific 
Objective under the 2011-2013 annual programmes.110 However nine Member States111 found 
that their actions under this priority had enhanced their cooperation with other Member States. 

The  main  results  of  the  improvement  of  the  cooperation  between  Member  States  were  as 
follows: 

109   See  European  Commission  (2016)  External  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Return  Fund  2011-2013, 

Annex C, Figure 88. 

110   ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, LU, SE, SK and UK. 
111   BE, BG, DE, EE, IE, IT, NL, PL and SI. 

27 

 
 
                                                            
 

 

 

increase  in  the  number  of  RF-funded  joint  return  operations  carried  out  (from  17  in 
2011 to 22 in 2013, with a total of 57 carried out over the evaluation period). 
increase in the number of persons returned via joint return operations (from 86 in 2011 
to  284  in  2013,  with  a  total  of  539  persons  returned  through  joint  return  operations 
over the evaluation period).112  
Increase in the number of new cooperation partnerships agreed with third countries in 
the  field  of  return  management  (from  23  in  2010  to  34  and  43  in  2012  and  2013 
respectively, with a total of 124 over the evaluation period).113  

As  mentioned  above,  the  effectiveness  of  the  RF  was  inhibited  by  the  limited  number  of 
projects  implemented  in  this  area;  on  several  cases,  this  was  a  result  of  cancellations  of 
projects which had been initially planned.114 Member States reported that they had given more 
importance to other priorities because of a lack of capacity to implement actions in this area 
(HR,  LT);  or  because  similar  actions  were  funded  through  other  sources  (e.g.  Frontex  or 
national sources) (ES, HU). 

Nevertheless,  the  impact  of  the  RF  on  intra-EU  cooperation  goes  beyond  the  effects  of  the 
actions funded under specific objective b). Some Member States that gave less importance to 
actions  under this  specific objective nonetheless expressed the view that the RF overall had 
greatly  contributed  to  improving  their  cooperation  with  counterparts  by  enhancing  the 
exchange  of  experience.115  Community  actions  such  as  ERI/ERINT  and  EURINT116 
contributed  to  enhancing  cooperation.  The  success  of  these  initiatives  is  evidenced  in  the 
increase  in  the  number  of  partners  taking  part  in  the  relevant  networks:  from  five  Member 
States  participating  in  ERI,  to  seven  participating  in  ERIN,  and  over  twenty  cooperating  in 
EURINT. 

Further  intra-EU  cooperation  could  be  fostered  by  enhancing  joint  return  mechanisms  to 
increase the number and scale of Joint Return Operations. An increase in the involvement of 
FRONTEX  in  return  operations  would  also  foster  Member  State  cooperation,  which  would 
particularly  benefit  those  Member  States  with  limited  diplomatic  and  consular  networks. 
Under  AMIF,  a  separate  budget  has  been  earmarked  for  the  implementation  of  specific 
actions focusing on the cooperation between Member States, such as 'Joint return operations', 
'Joint reintegration projects in the countries of origin with a view to sustainable return, as well 
as  'joint  actions  to  strengthen  third  countries'  capacities  to  implement  Union  readmission 
agreements',  and  'Joint  initiatives  aimed  at  restoring  family  unity  and  reintegration  of 
unaccompanied minors in their countries of origin'117. 

112   See  European  Commission  (2016)  External  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Return  Fund  2011-2013, 
Annex  B.  It  should be noted  that the NERs do not specify  whether  the  data  includes  or  excludes  Frontex 
Joint Return Operations and that data is not available for 12 Member States (CY, CZ, DE, ES, FR, EL, HR, 
LT, LU, LV, SE, UK). Data from Italy has been considered not reliable and disregarded. 

113   Ibid. Data is not available for Member States that indicated N/A and 0 for the reference period 2011-2015 
(MS  missing:  AT,  BG,  CY,  DE,  EE,  ES,  HR,  IE,  LT,  LU,  LV  NL,  PT,  SI,  SK,  UK).  Therefore  the  data 
reflects the evolution in 11 Member States. 
114   BG, CY, ES, FI, HR, HU, RO, SI, SK and UK. 
115   Information    taken  from    interviews  with  the  RAs  of  Bulgaria,  Malta,  Romania  and  Slovenia,  from  the 

United Kingdom case study and from France's ex-post evaluation report. 

116   See footnote 104. 
117   Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 Article 15(1)(b) and Annex II.  

28 

 
 
 
                                                            
8.2.3  Specific  objective  c):  The  Contribution  of  the  RF  to  the  Implementation  of  EU 

Standards and Best Practices in Return Management 

EQ6:  To  what  extent  did  the  actions  under  the  RF  2011-2013  contribute  to  the 
implementation of EU standards and best practices in return management?  

Main conclusion: The RF had a moderate impact on the implementation of EU standards and 
best practices given the relatively low amount of funding and low number of actions carried 
out  under  this  specific  objective  compared  to  actions  under  other  specific  objectives. 
Particularly effective actions in this area concerned the improvement of detention conditions, 
the monitoring of returns, and the training on and exchange of best practices. Under AMIF, 
several provisions seek to ensure the continued and enhanced compliance of return practices 
with EU standards and best practices. 

The  RF  had  a  moderate  impact  on  the  implementation  of  EU  standards  and  best  practices 
given the relatively low amount of funding and low number of projects carried out in this area 
under  specific  objective  c)/priority  4  compared 
to  projects  under  other  specific 
objectives/priorities.  Actions  implemented  under  Priority  4  received  2%  of  RF  programmed 
funding and financed 14% of the total number of RF actions under the 2011 to 2013 APs. Six 
Member  States118  did  not  implement  at  all  actions  in  support  of  the  implementation  of  EU 
standards  and  best  practices  on  return  management  during  the  evaluation  period.  This  was 
either  due  to  cuts  in  national  funding  which  meant  that  the  focus  was  shifted  to  other 
priorities, or because this type of project was already directly or indirectly financed by other 
EU or national funds. 

Even if a low amount of funding was allocated to this Priority, the majority of Member States 
expressed  positive  views  on  the  contribution  made  to  their  efforts  in  the  implementation  of 
EU common standards and best practices on return119. Furthermore, 60% of respondents to an 
online  survey120  considered  that  their  project  had  "Fully"  or  "Fairly"  contributed  to  the 
development of research and best practices in the field of return.121  

The main results achieved under this specific objective were as follows: 

 

 

improvement of detention conditions as well as the provision of legal assistance and 
other  services  such  as  psychological  and  social  support  and  access  to  education  for 
detained children122,  
Investments  in  alternatives  to  detention  for  families  by  providing  special  housing 
facilities123,   

118   AT, CY, CZ, ES, IE and UK. 
119   BE,  BG,  DE,  EE,  EL,  FI,  HR,  HU,  IE,  IT,  LT,  LV,  LU,  MT,  PL,  RO,  SE,  SI,  SK  (views  expressed  in 

Member State ex-post evaluation reports or interviews with RAs). 

120   There  were  a  total  of  24  respondents  to  this  survey,  most  from  non-governmental  or  civil  society 

organisations and international organisations. 

121   See  European  Commission  (2016)  External  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Return  Fund  2011-2013, 

Annex C. 

122   Particularly in BE, CZ, HU and SI. 
123   BE. 

29 

 
 
                                                            
 

Improvement  of  the  monitoring  of  forced  returns  to  ensure  compliance  with  Article 
8(6) of the Return Directive124,  

  measures related to research, training and the exchange of best practices125, such as the 
provision of training to officials working in detention centres (e.g. EE, HU), to escorts 
participating in forced return operations (e.g. IT, LV), to judges and prosecutors (e.g. 
HU) and to legal aid providers (e.g. LV).  

Under Community actions, the Forced Return Monitoring project (FReM), implemented in 
2012,  set  the  foundation  for  the  establishment  of  a  pool  of  independent  return  monitors, 
trained to help ensure that the rights of returnees are respected in forced return operations. It 
contributed  to  an  increased  coordination  of  stakeholders  involved  in  return  and  encouraged 
Member  States  to  update  their  policies  on  forced  returns  in  accordance  with  the  Return 
Directive.126 

In order to further ensure an enhanced implementation of EU standards and best practices in 
the field of return management, it is provided in the legal base of AMIF that this Fund should 
support  measures  accompanying  return  procedures,  including  the  funding  of  alternatives  to 
detention, the provision of assistance and legal aid, specific assistance for vulnerable people, 
and  the  establishment,  maintenance  and  improvement  of  accommodation,  reception,  or 
detention facilities.127 It is also provided that actions relating to assisted voluntary returns and 
to  removal  operations  in  general  should  be  particularly  supported  with  an  emphasis  on  the 
standards laid down in EU law128. 

8.2.4  Effectiveness of the principle of solidarity: The Contribution of the RF to the Support 

Services Provided to Member States in Emergency Situations 

EQ7a: To what extent were the RF 2011-2013 actions, and in particular the RF Community 
actions,  effective  in  providing  support  services  to  Member  States  in  duly  substantiated 
emergency situations requiring urgent action in the field of return management?  

Main conclusion: A generally high absorption rate and the positive perceptions of Member 
States  suggest  that  RF  actions  made  a  positive  and  often  crucial  contribution  to  supporting 
Member  States  in  emergency  situations  in  the  field  of  return  management  in  particular  in  a 
framework  in  which  the  distribution  key  based  on  historical  data  showed  its  limitations  to 
cope with changing migratory pressures. 

As  shown  in  Section  6.1,  the  distribution  key  of  the  annual  allocation  of  funds  to  APs  was 
designed  in  such  a  way  that  it  helped  support  Member  States  most  affected  by  migratory 
pressure and bearing the heaviest burden in the area of return of irregular migrants. In 2011, 
an  assessment  on  the  annual  distribution  of  resources  in  the  Member  States  for  the  SOLID 

124   Particularly in EE, FI and PL. 
125  Particularly in EE, HU, IT, LV and SE. 
126  Particularly AT, BE, EL, HU and LU. 
127   Regulation (EU) No 516/2014, Article 11. 
128   Regulation (EU) No 516/2014, Article 12(c) and Article 12(d). 

30 

 
 
 
                                                            
Funds  concluded  that  the  key  helped  confirm  "the  purpose  of  the  Fund  as  an  instrument  of 
financial solidarity for return management in the EU"129.  

However  the  distribution  key,  and  in  particular  the  reference  period  of  the  data  on which  it 
was  based,  showed  its  limitations  in  the  context  of  the  crisis  and  the  following  unforeseen 
circumstances.  The  yearly  revision  of  the  allocation  of  EU  funds  to  the  annual  national 
programmes has been key to ensure that the funds available have targeted the most affected 
Member States. However, given the fact that the allocations provided in a given year to the 
Member States were calculated on the basis of data from previous years (See Section 6.1), the 
funding could not – for obvious practical reasons – take into account sudden and unforeseen 
circumstances. Consequently, the use of emergency measures proved to be crucial for those 
Member States which were subject to acute and urgent migration pressure. Hence, Emergency 
measures partially counter-balanced the limitations of the distribution key. 

For  example,  in  late  2013,  when  Bulgaria  was  faced  with  increased  migration  flow  mainly 
due to the crisis in Syria, the AP2013 was being implemented. The financial allocation to the 
2013  AP  of  Bulgaria  was  based  on  the  number  of  return  decisions  issued  during  the  years 
2009 to 2011 (1 465 (2009), 1 705 (2010), 1 355 (2011)). Bulgaria's allocation for the 2013 
APs was among the smallest. However, the number of third country nationals ordered to leave 
increased to 5 260 in 2013 and to 12 870 in 2014. The emergency allocation of around half a 
million130 implemented in 2014131 helped support Bulgaria in time of emergency situation as 
the annual allocation could not take into consideration these unforeseen circumstances.  

In total six Emergency Assistance projects were financed under the 2010 to 2013 Community 
Action Annual Work Programmes, with the aim of providing support services in cases of duly 
substantiated emergency situations132. Overall, the absorption rate of these projects was very 
high, ranging from 93% for the AVR project implemented for Bulgaria (above), to 100% for a 
project  aimed  at  returning  irregular  migrants  implemented  in  Italy  and  a  project  on 
identification capabilities in Ceuta and Melilla for Spain. A project on AVR(R) of UAMs in 
Greece is the exception, where only 56% of the granted EU contribution was implemented133. 
The high absorption rates suggest that the EU funding provided was really needed and that the 
project beneficiaries had the capacity to implement it. The Italian project can be considered a 
success  story,  as  the  objectives  of  its  two  emergency  actions  were  exceeded,  and  1  636 
irregular migrants were returned to their countries of origin. 

129   Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  "The  application  of  the  criteria  for  the  distribution  of 
resources among the Member States under the External Borders Fund, the European Fund for the Integration 
of third-country nationals and the European Return Fund", COM (2011) 448. 
130    EMAS grant of 543 589 EUR while the 2013 AP allocation was 841.694 EUR. 
131   The  one  year  grant  (January  2014  to  December  2014)  allocated  to  the  International  Organisation  for 
Migration  (IOM)  aimed  at  developing  and  implementing  a  programme  facilitating  the  voluntary  return  of 
TCNs to the countries or origin.  

132   See  European  Commission  (2016)  External  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Return  Fund  2011-2013, 

see section 6.1.8 for an overview of emergency assistance projects funded under RF 2011-2013. 

133    The project notably aimed at developing 350 individual reintegration plans for UAMs but only 133 could be 
achieved. This is due to several factors such as the difficulty to identify UAMs, security restrictions for IOM 
staff  in  the  areas  in  the  country  of  origin  to  conduct  effective  family  tracing  exercises  and  lack  of 
cooperation from the family regarding the return of the minor.  

31 

 
 
                                                            
Responses  from  RAs  suggest  that  Emergency  Assistance  grants  was  seen  as  an  essential 
means  of  providing  support  to  Member  States  in  emergency  situations.  The  RA  of  Spain 
indicated, for example, that the funding received as Emergency Assistance had been essential 
to cope with the migratory crisis in Ceuta and Melilla.134 RAs also highlighted that the design 
of the funding mechanisms for this kind of project was particularly appropriate for emergency 
situations,  as  it  offered  high  flexibility  to  national  authorities  thanks  to  the  provision  of 
advance funding and the dispensation from programming requirements. 

8.2.5  Specific  objective  d):  The  contribution  of  the  RF  to  Specific  Innovative  Tools  for 

Return Management 

EQ5: To what extent did the actions under the RF 2011-2013 contribute to specific innovative 
(inter)national tools for return management?  

Main conclusion: Overall, the RF made a moderate contribution in this area, leading to the 
development of several innovative tools at both national and EU levels. The number of return 
cases addressed or affected by the use of new return management tools or initiatives in 2011-
2013 increased from 2 543 in 2011, to 21 181 in 2012 and 33 274 in 2013. However, some 
projects  implemented  in  this  area  under  priority  3  were  not  effective,  either  because  they 
failed  to  provide  solutions  to  problems  faced  or  involved  methods  which  had  already  been 
used  before  and  thus  could  not  truly  be  considered  innovative.  With  AMIF,  under  shared 
management  Member  States  define  the  objectives  of  the  calls  for  proposals,  so  they  may 
choose  to  implement  projects  focused  on  innovation  if  they  see  a  need  for  this.  Several 
innovative tools or projects may also be financed under Union actions.135 

Under  shared  management,  all  Member  States  except  five136  implemented  actions  under 
Priority  3,  which  represented  18%  of  all  actions  funded  and  13%  of  total  RF  funding.  The 
Netherlands  and  the  United  Kingdom  also  used  funding  from  other  priorities  to  innovate  in 
their  return  practices.  Although  in  several  Member  States137  the  allocated  funding  under 
Priority 3 clearly contributed to the development of tools which were original within an EU-
wide  context,  most  actions  tended  to  focus  on  addressing  national  problems  and  were  thus 
innovative at a national level but not necessarily so at an EU level.138  

Actions in this area had a positive effect. The EU total number of return cases addressed or 
affected  by  the  use  of  new  return  management  tools  or  initiatives  in  2011-2013  increased 
from  2  543  in  2011,  to  21  181  in  2012  and  33  274  in  2013.139  Additionally,  the  number  of 
new  return  management  tools  or  initiatives  introduced  across  the  EU  increased  from  29  in 
2011, to 160 in 2012 and 186 in 2013. The number of persons returned thanks to such new 

134    Reported in an interview with the Spanish RA. 
135  Regulation (EU) No 516/2014, Article 20(b) includes under 'Union actions' linked to innovation, such as 'the 
setting-up of transnational cooperation networks and pilot projects, including innovative projects, based on 
transnational  partnerships  between  bodies  located  in  two  or  more  Member  States  designed  to  stimulate 
innovation and to facilitate exchanges of experiences and best practices'. 

136   EE, HR, LV, PT and UK. 
137   BE, FI, FR, IE, IT, MT, NL and SE. 
138   IT, NL, SE. 
139   See  European  Commission  (2016)  External  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Return  Fund  2011-2013, 

Annex B. Data is not available for BG, CY, DE, ES, FR, HR, IE, and LU. 

32 

 
 
                                                            
tools/initiatives also increased from 2 523 in 2011 to 7 022 in 2012 (a 178% increase), and 8 
123 in 2013 (a 15% increase).140 

However,  some  projects  selected  for  funding  under  Priority  3  were  not  effective  in 
contributing to the development and/or use of innovative tools.141 For example, Lithuania and 
Romania  stated  that  their  projects  could  not  be  considered  innovative  because  they  did  not 
lead to the solution of the problems faced. In Hungary, two projects funded under Priority 3 
involved methods which had already been tested during the 2008-2010 programming cycle. 

In addition, no definition of what could be considered as innovative tool was provided to the 
Member States. 

Although  focused  on  a wider  range  of  issues,  Community  actions  generated  tools that  were 
innovative  from  an  EU  perspective.  New  standards,  guidelines  or  evidence-bases  were 
developed142,  or  new  forms  of  cooperation  between  Member  States  were  created  on  topics 
where there had previously been less or no cooperation, such as reintegration and the return of 
UAMs.143 

The  innovative  dimension  of  emergency  actions  implemented  during  the  evaluation  period 
was  also  noted  as  effective  in  addressing  unusual  migratory  pressures.  Two  emergency 
assistance  projects  carried  out  by  Spain  in  Ceuta  and  Melilla,  for  example,  included  the 
setting up of immediate identification missions in mass arrival situations, innovative practices 
to improve accommodation for migrants who had received a deportation order, and attention 
to adults and children adapted to their profiles. 

With  AMIF,  Member  States  may  choose  to  carry  out  innovative  actions.  Under  shared 
management,  Member  States  define  the  objectives  of  the  calls  for  proposals,  so  they  may 
choose  to  implement  projects  focused  on  innovation  if  they  see  a  need  for  this.  Several 
innovative tools or projects may also be financed under Union actions.144 

8.3  Efficiency 

EQ8: To what extent were the effects of the RF 2011-2013 actions achieved at a reasonable 
cost in terms of financial and human resources deployed? 

Main conclusion:  Overall, most Member States reported that RF actions implemented under 
2011-2013 APs had been achieved at a reasonable cost in terms of the financial and human 
resources  deployed.  However,  it  is  difficult  to  draw  clear  conclusions  regarding  efficiency 
because  the  quantitative  assessment  of  unit  costs  across  Member  States  is  very  limited  and 

140   See  European  Commission  (2016)  External  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Return  Fund  2011-2013, 

Annex B, Figure 53. Data is not available for BG, CY, DE, ES, FR, HR, IE, LU, and LV. 

141   As reported for projects implemented by ES, HU, LT, RO. 
142   For  example,  a  project  aiming  to  better  inform  on  durable  solutions  and  protection  for  children  (project 

reference HOME/2012/RFXX/CA/1004). 
addressing 

a  project 

example 

143   For 

the  needs  of  UAMs 

in  Greece 

(project 

reference 

HOME/2011/RFXX/CA/EA/4002). 

144    Regulation (EU) No 516/2014, Article 20(b) includes under 'Union actions' linked to innovation, such as 'the 
setting-up of transnational cooperation networks and pilot projects, including innovative projects, based on 
transnational  partnerships  between  bodies  located  in  two  or  more  Member  States  designed  to  stimulate 
innovation and to facilitate exchanges of experiences and best practices'. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                            
relies on qualitative data, due to a lack of comparability across projects, the varying reporting 
methods  used  by  Member  States,  and  the  limited  quantitative  data  available  in  NERs.  With 
these limitations in mind, the evaluation showed that unit costs of return varied greatly across 
Member States, depending on factors such as the number of returnees, the accessibility of the 
destination country of return, the number of countries collaborating in return operations and 
the  amount  of  financial  assistance  provided  to  returnees.  Several  Member  States  and 
beneficiaries provided examples of less efficient projects or actions in relation to management 
costs  and  administrative  burden.  Voluntary  return  was  found  to  be  generally  more  cost-
efficient than forced return. 

Efficiency was evaluated in terms of staff and management costs, administrative burden and 
unit costs where possible, with the available quantitative data145 supplemented by qualitative 
data146. It should be noted that the quantitative data is limited by the fact that only 20 Member 
States  provided information on management and  staff costs in  their NERs147, and that these 
reports do not distinguish between staff costs and management costs. Overall, most Member 
States148 reported that RF actions implemented under 2011-2013 APs had been achieved 
at a reasonable cost in terms of the financial and human resources deployed, but in many 
cases  individual  examples  of  less  efficient  projects  were  highlighted.  80%  of  beneficiaries 
surveyed agreed to some extent that the resources allocated were reasonable in comparison to 
similar activities149. 93% of respondents reported having realised the planned outputs, results 
and impacts within the available budget and time limits150. However 20% of respondents had 
concerns regarding the cost-effectiveness of actions funded under the RF.  

  Staff and Management costs 

Staff  and  management  costs  varied  from  one  Member  State  to  another  depending  on  the 
nature  of  the  projects,  the  profiles  of  the  staff  carrying  out  the  projects,  the  size  of  the 
implementing organisation, and Member State cost reporting practices. On average, staff and 
management  costs  represented  10%  of  project  costs  reported  for  the  period  covered  by  the 
2011-2013 AP, and ranged from representing 1%-5%151, 20%-30%152, or even up to 47% in 
Germany  and  49%  in  Belgium,  due  to  the  labour-intensive  nature  of  some  projects 
implemented in these two Member States. 

145   The  quantitative  assessment  was  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  the  financial  information  presented  in  the 
National Evaluation Reports of the Return Fund and additional clarifications received from Member States 
following a request made by the evaluation team. 

146   The qualitative assessment is based on the evidence from the National Evaluation Report’s information in 
response  to  questions  on  efficiency,  interviews  with  key  stakeholders  and  as  well  as  the  survey  of 
beneficiaries. 

147    20 Member States provided information on management costs of actions. No data was provided in National 

Evaluation Reports (NERs) for EE, ES, FI, IE, PT, SE and SI. 

148      BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, UK. 
149   See  European  Commission  (2016)  External  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Return  Fund  2011-2013, 

Annex C for an analysis of the survey results. 

150   See  European  Commission  (2016)  External  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Return  Fund  2011-2013, 

Annex C for an analysis of the survey results. 

151   NL, EL, AT, BG, IT, LV and the UK. 
152   CY, HU, LT, CZ, MT. 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
  Administrative Burden 

Although  Member  State  authorities  tended  to  perceive  costs  relating  to  administrative 
burden153  as  reasonable,  26%  of  respondents  to  a  survey  considered  that  the  administrative 
burden relating to the implementation of the Fund was excessive or not reasonable, and some 
Member States highlighted that the high administrative requirements of the Fund could have 
had  a  negative  impact  on  its  efficiency154.  For  example,  beneficiaries  in  Austria  found  the 
administrative  burden  of  the  SOLID  Funds  heavy  compared  to  other  funding  instruments; 
authorities in Estonia found it heavy compared to the actual effects of the RF interventions; 
authorities in Spain attributed the need to hire external expertise for the provision of technical 
assistance  to  the  large  administrative  burden  of  RF  programming  and  reporting  procedures; 
and  authorities  in  the  Slovak  Republic  reported  that  projects  on  a  larger  scale  had  been 
preferred  in  order  to  reduce  administrative  burden.  Sweden  pointed  out  the  negative  impact 
that the RF had on programming, mainly due to the fact that the rules on eligible costs under 
RF and their interpretation were not agreed upon in advance by the Commission and the RAs.    
Improvements were made for the 2014-2020 programming period by the creation of only one 
Fund  that  covers  all  migration  matters  (AMIF),  the  adoption  of  one  single  multiannual 
programme  and  the  alignment  of  the  eligibility  rules  on  the  national  rules  of  the  Member 
States. 

  Unit Costs 

The evaluation made a tentative comparison of assisted voluntary return versus forced return 
within  the  same  Member  State.  It  is  important  to  keep  in  mind  that  comparisons  between 
Member States must be interpreted with caution given differences in the number of returnees 
and the type of destination countries.  A few indicative conclusions may be drawn regarding 
the  factors  influencing  differences  between  Member  States  in  unit  costs  for  voluntary  and 
forced return155. A key factor was the number of persons  returned: with a higher number of 
persons  returned  through  assisted  voluntarily  return,  the  unit  cost  incurred  tended  to 
decrease156.  The  destination  country  of  return  was  another  important  influencing  factor: 
returning persons to a neighbouring Member State cost significantly less than returning them 
to a third country, given the remoteness of the latter.157  

In  terms  of  unit  costs  per  type  of  return,  several  Member  States  reported  that  unit  costs  for 
forced return were higher than those of voluntary return.158 In Hungary, for example, forced 
return  costs  more  than  twice  the  cost  of  AVR  per  returnee.  Indeed,  the  financial  assistance 

153   Administrative  burden  includes  costs  related  to  planning,  programming  and  reporting  on  the  actions 

implemented. 

154   AT, EE, ES, and SE NERs. 
155   The  main  factors  influencing  the  cost  of  voluntary  and  forced  return  were  the  number  of  returnees;  the 
accessibility of the destination country of return; the number of countries collaborating in return operations; 
and the amount of financial assistance provided to returnees. 

156   This was found to be the case for MT, RO and UK. 
157   Portugal, for example reported that only one air carrier offered charter flights to Brazil, the country to which 
it implemented most of its returns; this made return costs very high for this Member State. Estonia, on the 
other hand, reported that the use of the IOM network has provided opportunities to reduce costs, as IOM has 
contracts with travel companies that offer flexible flights at significantly cheaper prices than the common 
market prices. 
158   AT, ES, HU, UK. 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
provided to persons returning voluntarily tends to be lower than the cost of enforced returns, 
which includes escorting costs, charter flight costs, and accommodation costs.159 

However, significant differences in costs between Member States were sometimes not directly 
linked  to  the  efficiency  of  the  return  action  but  to  the  policy  and  practice  on  return 
management  at  Member  State  level.  A  good  example  of  this  is  the  large  variation  across 
Member States in the financial assistance provided to those returning voluntarily.160 

8.4  Sustainability 

EQ9:  To  what  extent  have  the  positive  effects  of  the  RF  2011-2013  actions  lasted  after  the 
interventions were terminated? 

Main conclusion: Overall, the majority of Member States found that most of the RF actions 
had  long  lasting  effects  after  the  projects  ended.  However,  there  was  no  strong  evidence  to 
demonstrate the long-term sustainability of the action as many Member States highlighted that 
further funding was required to be able to continue return activities launched with RF funding. 
This was also confirmed by the survey results (80% of the respondents). 

The  most  sustainable  type  of  actions  were  those  which  had  structural  effects,  such  as  the 
creation of new structures within return management institutions or authorities, improvements 
to the infrastructure of detention facilities, and actions which improved cooperation between 
Member States or Member States and third countries. To better measure the sustainability of 
AMIF, specific indicators and evaluation questions on sustainability have been included in the 
common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF.161 

Over half of Member States found that the majority of the RF actions had long lasting effects 
even  after  the  interventions  were  terminated162.  Member  States  reported  that  some  actions 
generated sustainable effects more than other actions:  

  capacity-building activities (training, courses, workshop, seminars) to staff working in 

 

the field of return163;  
the creation of new structures within the institutions or authorities in charge of return 
management which produces effects as long as the new structure remains in place164;  

159   Among the Member States for which data were available, Portugal was the only one to report that forced 

return is less expensive per returnee. 

160   For example, in the United Kingdom around GBP 750 - GBP 1,500 are provided per person for Facilitated 
Return  Schemes  (FRS)  and  up  to  GBP  2,000  for  AVR,  while  Bulgaria  provides  EUR  100  per  voluntary 
return,  and  Belgium  provides  EUR  700  per  adult  and  EUR 350 per  minor  with  EUR  500  complementary 
assistance for a vulnerable person. 

161   Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/207  on  the  common  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework 
provided for in Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down 
general  provisions  on  the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  and  on  the  instrument  for  financial 
support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management. 

162   BG, CY, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK, UK. 
163   CY,  EE,  IT,  LT,  MT,  PL,  SK.  For  example,  EE  indicated  that  the  majority  of  trained  officials  were  still 
employed in the relevant organisations where they continued to apply their acquired skills. The latter was 
put forward as a good indication of sustainability. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 

improvements  to  the  infrastructure  of  detention  facilities  which  by  definition  have 
long lasting effect;  
the purchase of material, depending on the product's life-span165; and 

 
  actions resulting in improved cooperation at a national level, between Member States, 

or between Member States and third countries166. 

Several Member States and respondents to an online survey indicated that further funding was 
required  to  guarantee  the  results  obtained  and  to  continue  RF  return  activities  on  the  same 
scale  and  for  the  same  duration  after  the  intervention  ended.  The  extent  to  which  further 
funding was required varied across Member States, depending on the type of activity and the 
desired  result  or  effect.  Voluntary  returns167,  the  provision  of  counselling  and  reintegration 
assistance,  and  actions  related  to  the  provision  of  assistance  to  vulnerable  persons  and  to 
support for innovative tools were found to be less sustainable as highly dependent on future 
funding. Projects covering the operational costs of return activities,  such as the procurement 
of interpretation services or legal services, were also less likely to produce sustainable results 
in  the  long-term.168  Despite  the  various  means  through  which  the  sustainability  of  the  RF 
2011-2013 actions’ output and outcomes were secured (see below), overall there is no strong 
evidence to demonstrate that the results of the projects were not  only  continued, but indeed 
proved to have sustainable positive impacts in the long-term. This was also supported by the 
survey results, which indicated that 80% of stakeholders who implemented return operations 
projects  could  not  have  achieved  the  planned  objectives  without  further  funding  or 
continuation of the project under the AMIF 2014-2020. 

Member States used different means for achieving the sustainability of RF actions, such as the 
continued use of outputs and/or continuing project activities after the closure of the project; 
the transfer of results into national legislation, policy or procedures; and the dissemination of 
project results. Other ways of increasing the sustainability of actions were through the transfer 
of  outputs  of  successful  actions  or  projects169  and  the  dissemination  of  results  at  the  end  of 
projects.  

To encourage the sustainability of future actions in the area of return, some RAs include it as 
a selection criterion of projects funded by AMIF. To measure the sustainability of this Fund, 

164  For  instance,  CY  and  SE  created  new  bodies  and  /or  organisational  structures  which  were  expected to  be 

maintained in the years following the end of the project.  

165   CY,  ES,  FR,  LT,  PL  reported  having  continued  to  use  and  maintain  purchased  equipment  such  as  cars, 
computers,  software,  the  development  of  information  systems,  websites,  reports,  leaflets,  etc.  after  the 
closure of the project. 

166   Examples of success stories in these areas were provided by DE, NL, PL, RO, and SE. 
167   CY,  EE,  IT,  MT  and  SK  stated  that  it  was  unlikely  that  their  AVR(R)  programme  would  continue  in  the 

existing format and volume without EU funding. 

168   LT,  SK.  Slovakia,  for  example,  found  the  sustainability  of  the  provision  of  services  (i.e.  legal,  social  and 
psychological help) to be weak, as it was not able to sustain such activities without additional funding (Ex-
Post  Evaluation  of  Actions  co-financed  by  the  European  Return  Fund  under  the  2011-2013  Annual 
Programmes for the Slovak Republic, p. 27). 

169   FI,  NL,  SK,  UK  reported  having  carried  out  successful  transfers  of  outputs  into,  for  example,  national 

legislation, national policy, and procedures. 

37 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
specific indicators and  evaluation questions  on sustainability have  also been  included in  the 
common monitoring and evaluation framework of AMIF.170 

8.5  Coherence and Complementarity 

EQ12a:  To  what  extent  were  the  Return  Fund  2011-2013  actions  coherent  with  and 
complementary to other EU financial instruments or from national resources of the Member 
States,  including  the  activities  of  the  European  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Operational 
Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) 
providing  EU  Member  States  with  the  necessary  support  in  organising  joint  return 
operations? 

Main  conclusions:  The  evaluation  concluded  that  actions  funded  by  the  RF  were  coherent 
and complementary to other national actions in the area of return and generally coherent with 
and complementary to other EU Funds in the area of return. However, low complementarity 
was  found  between  RF-funded  actions  and  reintegration  policies  funded  by  other  EU 
instruments,  with  a  potential  for  overlaps.  In  order  to  avoid  potential  overlaps  in  this  area, 
there  should  be  a  more  regular  and  consistent  dialogue  between  different  DGs  involved  in 
reintegration measures. In order to improve the processes of monitoring and evaluation of the 
Fund,  under  AMIF  indicators  for  the  better  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  coherence  and 
complementarity were introduced.171 Member States are also asked to outline in their AMIF 
national programmes how they ensure coherence and complementarity. 

  Complementarity and coherence at national level 

Many  Member  States172  ensured  coherence  between  the  RF  and  national  interventions, 
programmes  or  actions,  by  aligning  the  RF  Multiannual  programmes  (MAPs)  and  Annual 
Programmes  (APs)  with  the  national  priorities  included  in  national  strategies  or  action 
plans173.On the whole, actions funded via the RF were coherent with and complementary to 
national-level  interventions  in  the  area  of  return  and  no  overlaps  were  identified.  The  RF 
supported areas of return policy which generally received limited national funding or were not 
considered  as  a  high  priority  by  national  governments,  such  as  reintegration  support  or 
specific assistance to vulnerable returnees.  

  Coherence and complementarity at EU level 

Over  the  period  of  evaluation,  the  RF  supported  efforts  by  Member  States  to  implement  a 
standardised EU return policy. Several Member States174 found the RF actions to be coherent 

170   Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/207  of  3  October  2016  on  the  common  monitoring  and 
evaluation framework provided for in Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  laying  down  general  provisions  on  the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  and  on  the 
instrument  for  financial  support  for  police  cooperation,  preventing  and  combating  crime,  and  crisis 
management, OJ 33, 8.2.2017, p. 1. 

171   Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/207. 
172  AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI. 
173   CZ, FI, PL, PT, RO, SE. 
174   AT, CY, EE, EL, FI, FR, IT, NL, PL, PT, UK. 

38 

 
 
 
                                                            
with  the  EU  funding  instruments  under  the  SOLID  programme  and  other  types  of  EU 
funding175.  Despite  an  identified  potential  for  overlaps  between  the  actions  of  the  RF  and 
those  funded  through  Frontex  in  the  field  of  return,  in  practice,  complementarity  between 
these  was  found.  In  some  Member  States176,  the  RA  for  the  RF  was  also  responsible  for 
enforcing other EU Funds, which contributed to ensuring coherence between the RF and other 
EU legal, financial, or policy instruments. 

However,  limited  complementarity  was  found  between  RF-funded  actions  and  reintegration 
policies  funded  by  other  EU  instruments,  such  as  the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument 
(DCI)177 and IPA II. The risk for overlap can be nevertheless considered as relatively low, as 
there  was  a  decline  in  the  number  of  reintegration  measures  financed  by  externally-funded 
actions of the EU during the evaluation period, in contrast to the period before the evaluation, 
when the RF was in its early stages. 

The evaluation concluded that, in order to avoid potential overlaps, a more consistent dialogue 
between  different  DGs  with  a  role  in  reintegration  measures  would  ensure  a  more  unified 
approach  towards  the  application  of  EU  funding  in  this  area.  The  European  Parliament  has 
also  observed  that  the  processes  of  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  Fund,  particularly  ex-
ante  or  interim  monitoring  mechanisms,  should  be  improved  to  further  ensure  transparency 
and  accountability  of  EU  migration  Funds.178  In  this  regard,  under  AMIF  indicators  for  the 
better  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  coherence  and  complementarity  were  introduced.179 
Member States are also asked to outline in their AMIF national programmes how they ensure 
coherence and complementarity. Certain provisions of the AMIF legal basis also state that the 
Commission  and  the  Member  States  shall  ensure  the  consistency  and  complementarity  of 
actions under AMIF with European Union priorities and instruments,180 with European Union 
external action and foreign policy, as well as with development aid financial instruments181. 

175   This included EEA grants (BG, EL, RO), the Schengen and the Transition Facility (RO, BG, HR), and the 

European Social Fund (EL, RO). 
176    AT, BG, HR, HU, FR, MT, SK, UK. 
177    AT, DE. 
178   European Parliament (2015) Working Document on EU internal and external funding related to its 

migration and asylum policy, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
%2F%2FEP%2F%2FNONSGML%2BCOMPARL%2BPE-
571.741%2B02%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0%2F%2FEN. 

179    Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/207. 
180   Article  3(2),  Regulation  (EU)  No  514/2014  provides  that  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  'shall 
ensure that the support provided under the Specific Regulations and by the Member States is consistent with 
the relevant activities, policies and priorities of the Union and is complementary to other Union instruments, 
while taking into account the specific context of each Member State'.  

181   Recital 8 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 states that measures taken in relation to third countries which are 
supported by the AMIF fund 'should be taken in synergy and coherence with other actions outside the Union 
supported through Union external assistance instruments' and that when such actions are implemented 'full 
coherence  should  be  sought  with  the  principles  and  general  objectives  of  the  Union's  external  action  and 
foreign policy related  to  the country or  region  in question'.  It  further provides  that measures  under AMIF 
should,  when  appropriate,  complement  financial  assistance  provided  through  external  aid  instruments  and 
that emergency assistance provided should be consistent and complimentary to Union humanitarian policy. 
Recital 35 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 makes similar provisions. 

39 

 
 
                                                            
8.6  EU added value 

EQ13:  What  is  the  additional  value  resulting  from  the  RF  2011-2013  actions  compared  to 
what  the  Member  States  would  be  able  to  carry  out  through  investments  necessary  for  the 
implementation  of  the EU policies in the field  of  return  management  without the support of 
the RF 2011-2013 actions? 

Main conclusions: Member States were of the opinion that the Fund added value in different 
ways:  It  provided  Member  States  with  the  means  to  fund  new  actions  or  to  enhance  those 
already  in  effect  (with  the  exception  of  forced  return  activities);the  introduction  of 
reintegration  activities  in  voluntary  return  policy;  it  facilitated  the  involvement  of  new 
stakeholders in return management; and contributed to the achievement of EU standards and 
requirements182. However, there is less evidence of EU added value in the area of cooperation 
between  member  States  and  between  member  States  and  third  countries  under  shared 
management  actions.  Under  AMIF,  the  introduction  of  Specific  Actions  for  return  under 
shared  management  has  sought  to  encourage  cooperation  between  Member  States  and 
Member States and third countries in the area of return. 

The RF added value to the existing capacity and the operational activities at national level in 
five different ways: 

 

It  had  an  impact  on  the  dimension  of  projects  as  it  enabled  Member  States  to  fund 
actions which would not have been funded under national systems and/or to scale-up 
actions already in place: The RF enabled over half of Member States to fund parts of 
their  return  systems  which  would  not  have  been  possible  without  this  source  of 
funding.183 The extent to which the RF brought EU added value varied depending on 
the  national  spending  on  return.  In  some  Member  States  where  cuts  in  public 
expenditure reduced national capacity to fund return operations, the RF had a greater 
EU  added  value.184  By  contrast,  Luxembourg  and  France  (except  for  reintegration 
projects) reported that projects would also have been implemented without the RF.  

The Fund encouraged the  recourse to  voluntary return  over forced return.  Regarding 
assisted  voluntary  (AVR(R)),  eleven  Member  States185  reported  that,  despite  the 
fact  that  assisted  voluntary  return  operations  were  in  place  well  before  the  RF, 
the  RF  had  the  effect  of  developing  their  AVR(R)  system  to  an  extent  which 
would  have  not  been  possible  in  its  absence.  This  was  achieved,  for  instance,  by 
implementing  systematic  reintegration  grants,  by  monitoring  the  return  to  third-
countries,  by  building  supporting  networks  for  reintegration  and  disseminating 

182    However  these  last  types  of  actions  were  found  to  have  had  a  moderate  impact  (effectiveness)  given  the 
relatively  low  amount  of  funding  and  low  number  of  actions  carried  out  under  this  specific  objective 
compared to actions under other specific objectives.  

183   In  addition  a  survey  conducted  among  beneficiaries  of  RF  funding  shows  that  100%  of  the  respondents 
agreed  or  strongly  agreed  with  the  claim  that  the  results  of  their  projects,  specifically  in  terms  of  return 
operations carried out, would have not been possible without the RF. However, the response rate was very 
low, and therefore the conclusions were not very robust. 

184   CY, EL, FR (on reintegration), LT, SI, UK. 
185  CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, HU, IE, IT, PL, PT, SK. 

40 

 
 
 
                                                            
information  and by raising awareness  on return-related  issues.  During  the evaluation 
period,  the  number  of  voluntary  returns  overall  increased  across  Member  States  by 
114%, going from 21 057 in 2011 to 45 077 in 2013. This may be explained by the 
additional  financial  capacity  provided  by  funding  under  the  RF  over  this  period. 
Indeed,  twelve  Member  States186  reported  that  the  RF  had  increased  the  financial 
capacities of the stakeholders involved, leading to an increase in results (i.e. increase 
in  the  number  of  countries  for  AVR(R)  to  which  people  could  be  returned  and  the 
number  of  actual  returnees),  which  would  not  have  been  possible  without  the  RF 
funding.  Regarding  forced  return,  most  Member  States  reported  that  forced 
returns  as  such  would  have  been  carried  out  also  in  the  absence  of  the  RF 
probably to the same scale. In general, therefore, the RF did not add as much value 
in terms of scale of forced returns, as it did for voluntary returns.  

  With the evaluation limitations in mind (see chapter on Method), the evaluation found 
that the RF encouraged Member States to take different new approaches to return than 
they would have done have they been using national funding: Not being constrained 
by  the  same  priorities  and  short  term  objectives  as  national  funding,  the  RF 
encouraged the implementation of more varied approaches, such as the introduction of 
the  reintegration  component  in  Member  State  voluntary  return  policies.  Several 
Member States187 introduced this component for the first time under the RF and were 
of the opinion that without EU funding it would have been difficult to do so. 

  The  RF  provided  a  guaranteed  funding  stream  for  the  implementation  of  EU 
legislation  and  standards:  As  shown  in  Section  7.1,  Priority  4  was  relatively 
unimportant  in  terms  of  the  percentage  of  funding  (3%)  allocated  to  it.  However, 
fifteen Member States reported that the RF made a positive contribution to their efforts 
in the implementation of EU common standards and best practices on return188. Whilst 
most  Member  States  had  by  2011  transposed the  Return  Directive189,  several  clearly 
used RF funding to implement aspects introduced into national legislation through this 
transposition.  For  example,  some  Member  States  felt  that  the  Fund  improved  the 
quality of the standards of forced returns, in a way that would not have been possible 
by  relying  only  on  national  funding.  Czech  Republic  noted  that  legal  counselling  in 
detention  centres,  as  foreseen  by  Article  16  of  the  Return  Directive,  would  not  have 
been implemented, or implemented to a lesser extent, in the absence of the RF. No or 
very  little  support  to  vulnerable  persons,  as  per  Article  14(a)(d)  of  the  Return 
Directive, would have been provided in Estonia and Hungary.   

  The  RF  targeted  stakeholders  other  than  the  ministries  and  agencies  responsible  for 
national  return  decisions,  thus  empowering  new  stakeholders  to  contribute  to  return: 
The  Commission’s  insistence  on  empowering  a  plurality  of  beneficiaries  and  the 
partnership  principle190  provided  the  opportunity  for  new  stakeholders  (mainly, 

186  AT, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, MT, PL, PT, SK. 
187   DE, FR, HU, PL, RO. 
188   BE, BG, DE, EE, FI, HR, HU, IT, LT, LV, MT, RO, SE, SI, SK 
189    Directive 2008/115/EC of the  European Parliament  and  of  the  Council of 16  December 2008 on  common 

standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. 

190  Article 12 of Council decision 575/2007/EC.  

41 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
(small) NGOs and international organisations) to participate in the field of return. As a 
consequence, more NGOs could gain visibility and influence to ensure that (especially 
forced) returnees  were treated in ‘a humane  and dignified manner’, as established in 
the  Return  Directive.  Moreover,  since  NGOs  are  better  placed  to  communicate  with 
potential  returnees  and  encourage  voluntary  returns,  their  involvement  increased  the 
visibility  of  voluntary  return  and  thus  voluntary  return  operations.  Particular  success 
stories regarding the involvement of new stakeholders were highlighted by EE, ES, IT, 
NL, PL. 

  The  Fund  fostered  synergies  between  stakeholders  implementing  return:  The  RF 
fostered  synergies  between  stakeholders  implementing  return  (i.e.  between  national 
authorities,  between  Member  States  and  by  directly  funding  cooperation  activities 
through its Community actions). At the national level, five Member States191 reported 
that  the  RF  had  created  unprecedented  synergies  between  the  beneficiaries  of  RF 
actions and the responsible authorities. In particular, in France and Italy, networks of 
beneficiaries  were  established  that  could  implement  and  provide  feedback  to  the 
Member  States  on  their  return  strategy.  Among  Member  States,  cooperation  was 
mainly  achieved  through  the  Community  actions  since  few  actions  and  a  relatively 
low  share  of  the  allocated  funds  were  dedicated  to  the  corresponding  priorities  (see 
Section  7.1).  Cooperation  between  Member  States  was  instead  mostly  fostered 
through  Community  actions  such  as  European  Re-Integration  Instrument  (ERI), 
European  Reintegration  Network  (ERIN),  European  Integrated  Approach  on  Return 
towards  Third  Countries  (EURINT)  Network,  European  Return  Liaison  Officers 
Network  (EURLO),  Forced  Return  Monitoring  (FREM),  and  MAGNET192193.  Some 
national actions however contributed to fostering cooperation between Member States, 
especially  in  joint  return  operations  (with  Frontex’s  support)194  and  in  delivering 
trainings to practitioners. However, there is less evidence of EU added value in the 
area  of  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  third  countries.  Few  actions 
under shared management were dedicated to cooperation between Member States and 
third  countries  (See  Section  7.1).  Under  AMIF,  the  introduction  of  Specific  Actions 
for  return  under  shared  management  has  sought  to  encourage  cooperation  between 
Member States and Member States and third countries in this area.195 

191  FI, FR, HU, IE, IT. 
192  MAGNET  was  an  IOM  pilot  project  designed  to  provide  Iraqi  returnees  with  information  on  existing 
potential  job  opportunities  as  well  as  to  liaise  with  employers  in  the  Kurdistan  region  of  Iraq.  After  the 
successful  completion  of  the  pilot  phase  in  2012–2013,  MAGNET  II  was  launched  in  2014.  The  overall 
objective of MAGNET II was to contribute to the establishment of a common approach for the reintegration 
of rejected asylum-seekers – and irregular migrants when applicable – returning to the Kurdistan Region of 
Iraq  from  Belgium,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain 
and Northern Ireland. 

193   ERI,  ERIN  and  MAGNET  encouraged  cooperation  between  Member  States  on  voluntary  return  and 
reintegration;  FReM  and  EURLO  fostered  cooperation  between  Member  States  on  forced  return;  the 
creation  of  networks  under  EURINT  and  EURLO  also  gave  Member  States  more  influence  in  their 
cooperation  with  third  countries,  particularly  those  Member  States  with  limited  diplomatic  and  consular 
networks. 

194   Poland  noted  that  the  efficiency  of  forced  return  increased  thanks  to  the  joint  return  flights  organised  in    

cooperation with other Member States financed by the RF. 

195   Under  AMIF,  according  to  Regulation  (EU)  No  516/2014  Article  15(1)(b),  EUR  360  million,  may  be 
allocated  to  Member  States  wanting  to  implement  actions  in  the  area  of  return  which  entail  intra-EU 

42 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
9  Conclusion 

This report provides an evaluation of the extent to which the different RF actions contributed 
to the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, complementarity and coherence, 
and  EU  added  value  of  the  Fund.  This  chapter  summarises  these  findings  and  provides  an 
assessment  of  the  RF’s  overall  role  in  the  field  of  return  management.  For  each  of  the 
evaluation criteria as well as at a general level, conclusions and relevant lessons learned are 
presented below. 

Relevance: Overall the majority of Member States found that the RF objectives corresponded 
to their needs in the field of return management. The development of a strategic approach to 
return  management  (Integrated  return  management)  was  highlighted  as  the  most  relevant 
Priority  of  the  RF.  As  reflected  by  the  very  low  amount  allocated  by  Member  States  to 
Priority  2  'Cooperation  between  Member  States  in  return  management',  the  latter  was 
considered less relevant to most Member States' needs. The same conclusion can be drawn for 
Specific  Priority  4  on  support  for  Community  standards  and  best  practices.  As  for  the 
evolution  of  the  needs,  the  continued  relevance  of  the  RF  was  ensured  by  the  fact  that 
Member States were entitled to revise their annual programme to adjust actions according to 
their  changing  needs.  Some  shortcomings  were  identified  as  to  the  target  eligibility  rules, 
which were all addressed in AMIF. 

Effectiveness: Globally, the RF was effective in reaching its objectives, although the degree 
of  effectiveness  varied  and  some  problems  were  encountered  by  Member  States,  RAs  or 
beneficiaries. With regard to the principle of solidarity, the RF's performance in this area was 
effective.  The  distribution  key  was  found  to  have  limitations  when  faced  with  unforeseen 
crises, given that it was based on a past reference period. However, a high absorption rate and 
positive perceptions of Member States suggest that the Emergency Assistance grants played 
an  important  role  and  compensated  for  this,  allowing  the  Fund  increased  flexibility  for  the 
provision  of  often  crucial  support  in  case  of  emergency  situations.  The  RF  was  particularly 
effective  in  reaching  specific  objective  a),  making  a  significant  contribution  to  the 
introduction and improvement of an integrated return management system, to a better balance 
between voluntary and forced return, and to the enhancement of Member State return capacity 
in general, although the planned numbers of returns were not always achieved, mostly due to 
difficulties  in  planning  a  realistic  number  of  returns  that  could  be  attained,  as  well  as 
scheduling  constraints. In  addition, the effectiveness of actions aiming  to  foster cooperation 
between Member States and third countries was undermined by external factors such as the 
willingness  of  the  authorities  in  partner  countries  to  cooperate  in  the  field  of  return  and 
reintegration.  The  RF  was  moderately  effective  in  reaching  specific  objective  b),  enhanced 
cooperation between Member States within the framework of integrated return management, 

cooperation. The types of Specific Actions, as outlined in Annex II to the AMIF Regulation, include, 'Joint 
return operations', 'Joint reintegration projects in the countries of origin with a view to sustainable return, as 
well as joint actions to strengthen third countries' capacities to implement Union readmission agreements', 
and  'Joint  initiatives  aimed  at  restoring  family  unity  and  reintegration  of  unaccompanied  minors  in  their 
countries of origin' (Regulation 516/2014, Annex II articles 5). 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
largely  due  to  the  limited  number  of  projects  implemented  in  this  area.  The  Fund  was  also 
moderately  effective  in  reaching  specific  objective  c),  the  promotion  of  an  effective 
implementation of common standards on return, given the relatively low amount of funding 
and low number of actions carried out under this specific objective compared to other specific 
objectives.  Nonetheless,  particularly  effective  actions  in  this  area  were  the  improvement  of 
detention  conditions,  the  monitoring  of  returns,  and  the  training  on  and  exchange  of  best 
practices. 

Efficiency: Overall, Most Member States reported that RF 2011-2013 actions were achieved 
at a reasonable cost in terms of the financial and human resources deployed. Member States 
and survey respondents highlighted that the implementation of the actions was efficient as a 
whole, although individual examples of less efficient projects were also highlighted in many 
cases.  However,  it  has  been  difficult  to  draw  clear  conclusions  on  efficiency  due  to 
methodological  challenges  encountered  such  as  the  limited  comparability  of  available  data, 
including  the  different  types  of  projects  implemented  across  Member  States  and  reporting 
methods  used  by  them.  Furthermore,  the  evaluation  showed  that  unit  costs  varied  greatly 
across Member States, depending on factors such as the number of returnees, the accessibility 
of  the  destination  country  of  return,  the  number  of  countries  collaborating  in  return 
operations, and the policy and practice on return management at Member State level.  

Sustainability: Overall, the majority of Member States were of the opinion that most of the 
RF  actions  had  long  lasting  effects  after  the  projects  ended.  However,  there  was  no  strong 
evidence  to  demonstrate  the  long-term  impact  of  the  action  as  many  Member  States 
highlighted that further funding was required to be able to continue return activities launched 
with  RF  funding.  The  most  sustainable  type  of  actions  were  those  which  had  structural 
effects,  such  as  the  creation  of  new  structures  within  return  management  institutions  or 
authorities,  improvements  to  the  infrastructure  of  detention  facilities,  and  actions  which 
improved cooperation between Member States or Member States and third countries.  

Complementarity and coherence: The evaluation concluded that actions funded by the RF 
were coherent and complementary to other national actions in the area of return and generally 
coherent  with  and  complementary  to  other  EU  Funds  in  the  area  of  return.  However,  low 
complementarity was found between RF-funded actions and reintegration policies funded by 
other EU instruments, with a potential for overlaps.  

EU added value: Member States were of the opinion that the Fund added value in different 
ways.  It  provided  Member  States  with  the  means  to  fund  new  actions  or  to  enhance  those 
already  in  effect.  The  Fund  encouraged  the  recourse  to  voluntary  return  over  forced  return. 
Regarding assisted voluntary return (AVR(R)), Member States reported that, despite the fact 
that  assisted  voluntary  return  operations  were  in  place  well  before  the  RF,  the  RF  had  the 
effect of developing their AVR(R) system to an extent which would have not been possible in 
its absence, for instance by implementing systematic reintegration grants, by monitoring the 
return to third-countries, by building supporting networks for reintegration and disseminating 
information and by raising awareness on return-related issues. However, most Member States 
reported that forced returns as such would have been carried out also in the absence of the RF 
probably  to  the  same  scale.  Additionally,  the  Fund  facilitated  the  involvement  of  new 
stakeholders in return management and contributed to the achievement of EU standards and 
requirements. However, there is less evidence of EU added value in the area of cooperation 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
between  Member  States  and  between  Member  States  and  third  countries  under  shared 
management actions.  

Lessons learned: 

Key lessons have been drawn from the experience gained with the RF and as a result of this 
evaluation. Some corrective measures have already been adopted under AMIF:  

  The  architecture  of  the  RF  was  rather  complex,  as  it  consisted  of  one  general 
objective, three specific objectives and numerous examples of eligible actions on the 
one  hand  and  four  priorities  and  eight  specific  priorities  on  the  other  hand.  The 
priorities  were  subsequently  formulated  by the Commission  in  an  effort  to  make  the 
Fund more concrete and operational but they did not fully match the objectives.  
The architecture of AMIF was simplified as it includes four specific objectives, one of 
which is dedicated return. The specific objective related to return is then supported by 
three national objectives. 

  Some difficulties linked to evaluation limitations emerged when it came to assessing 
the overall effectiveness of the RF at EU level, given the lack of an initial baseline and 
the  fact  that  the  RF  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  did  not  allow  for  detailed 
monitoring and assessment of the performance of the Fund. Set indicators were rather 
weak and monitoring data were not fully reliable. The same goes for sustainability and 
complementarity and coherence.  
This  issue  has  been  addressed  for  AMIF,  as  the  Commission  has  included  a  list  of 
common  indicators  in  the  legal  base  of  the  instrument.  In  addition,  a  Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 2017/207 was adopted in October 2016 on the common monitoring 
and evaluation framework for AMIF (covering also ISF Police and ISF Borders and 
Visa). It provides evaluation questions and a set of indicators to be used by all MSs 
for  evaluation  purposes.  To  better  measure  the  sustainability  and  complementarity 
and coherence of AMIF, specific indicators and evaluation questions on these criteria 
have  been  included  in  the  common  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  of  AMIF. 
The  Commission  has  also  developed  a  guidance  document  on  the  monitoring  and 
evaluation framework for MSs196 and is organising regular workshops on this matter, 
and  a  common  template  for  the  evaluation  reports  to  be  submitted  by  the  MSs,  to 
ensure  consistency.  Furthermore,  regular  workshops  in  regard  to  the  guidance 
document are being organized. To raise awareness and develop skills and knowledge 
within the responsible authorities in charge of the implementation of AMIF (and also 
ISF), the Commission has set up an evaluation network composed of staff appointed 
by  MSs,  who  meet  and  discuss  regularly  with  the  Commission  on  evaluation-related 
matters. For complementarity and coherence, Member States are also asked to outline 
in their AMIF national programmes how they ensure coherence and complementarity. 

196  The Guidance on the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework was developed in the framework of 
the  evaluation  network.  It  is  a  living  document  which  is  regularly  updated,  following  discussions  with 
Member  State  authorities  and  other  stakeholders  which  are  held  during  working  group  and  evaluation 
network meetings. It is available to the Member States. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  The Fund had eligibility limitations that prevented the implementation of some actions 
that  could  have  addressed  the  identified  needs  such  as  the  scope  of  the  target  group 
which  did  not  include  third  country  nationals  residing  legally  on  the  territory  of 
Member States but wishing to return to their country of origin or the costs  related to 
detention centres or IT tools. 
This  shortcoming  has  been  addressed  under  AMIF  as  the  target  group  has  been 
expanded to include third-country nationals enjoying the right to stay, legal residence 
and/or international protection or temporary protection who wish to voluntary return 
to  their  country  of  origin.  The  scope  of  the  AMIF  also  includes  ‘the  establishment, 
maintenance,  and  improvement  of  (…)  detention  infrastructure,  services  and 
conditions’  as  well  as  ‘the  setting-up  of  administrative  structures  and  systems, 
including IT tools’.  

  Member  States  showed  little  interest  in  developing  projects  related  to  cooperation 

between themselves and with third countries.  
The Commission has decided to incentivise this area through a 90% co-financing rate 
in national programmes under the AMIF (Specific actions). 

  Although  the  costs  relating  to  administrative  burden197  were  perceived  as  reasonable 
by  most  Member  States,  26%  of  respondents  to  a  survey  considered  that  the 
administrative burden relating to the implementation of the Fund was excessive or not 
reasonable,  and  some  Member  States  highlighted  that  the  high  administrative 
requirements of the Fund could have had a negative impact on its efficiency. 
The 2014-2020 programming period saw some improvements, as a single fund covers 
all migration matters (AMIF), Member States adopt multiannual programmes and the 
eligibility  rules  are  aligned  to  the  national  ones.  Member  States  have  also  been 
encouraged to use the simplified costs options. 

197   Administrative  burden  includes  costs  related  to  planning,  programming  and  reporting  on  the  actions 

implemented. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
10  ANNEX 1 — Procedural information 

Leading DG 
Participating Units of DG HOME 

Participating DGs  

Roadmap approval 
External consulting firm 
specialised in evaluation 

DG HOME 
A2 – Legal Affairs 
C3 – Asylum 
C4 –  Migration management support  
E1 – Union Actions 
E2 – National programmes for South and East 
Europe, evaluation, AMF/ISF Committee 
E3 - National programmes for North and West 
Europe, budget, MFF, agencies 
Secretariat General 
DG BUDG 
DG JUST 
Legal service (SJ) 
December 2015 
Contract signed in April 2016 with consortium of: 
Ernst & Young Special Business Services (lead 
partner)  
Center for International Legal Cooperation 
Rand Europa Community Interest Company  

Number of steering group meetings  6 
Last deliverable handed in 
Approval of the final report by 
Steering Group 
Decide planning reference 

March 2017 
March 2017 

2016/HOME/082 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
11  ANNEX 2 — Stakeholders’ consultation 

Overview 

In  order  to  inform  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European  Return  Fund  (RF)  2011-2013, 
several  stakeholders  were  consulted  through  an  open  public  consultation  conducted  by  the 
European Commission and other stakeholder consultations conducted by the ICF Consulting 
Services ("the external evaluators") in the framework of their contract with the Commission to 
provide a study on the ex-post evaluation of the implementation of the RF. An overview of 
the consultation processes and the types of stakeholders consulted is provided in this section, 
along with the results of these consultations. The results presented here have been compiled 
and  summarised  from  the  responses  received  by  the  European  Commission  to  its  public 
consultation,  and  from  the  final  ex-post  evaluation  report  of  the  RF  submitted  to  the 
Commission by the external evaluators. The stakeholder consultations presented below have 
met  the  European  Commission's  general  principles  and  minimum  standards  for  stakeholder 
consultation. 

The Open Public Consultation Conducted by the European Commission 

The  European  Commission  held  an  internet-based  open  public  consultation  on  the  ex-post 
evaluation of the RF 2011-2013 in the form of an online questionnaire between 10 May 2016 
and  9  August  2016.  Contributions  were  sought  in  particular  from  individuals  (experts, 
beneficiaries),  local  and  national  Member  State  authorities,  intergovernmental  and  non-
governmental  organisations,  social  partners  and  civil  society,  academic  institutions, 
international organisations, and EU institutions and agencies. The final number of respondents 
was  small  (seven  participants  from  six  Member  States),  which  means  that  contributions 
cannot  be  considered  as  being  representative  of  the  targeted  stakeholders.  The  results  may 
provide additional insights nonetheless and will be presented below together with the findings 
from the other consultations. Another limitation is the fact that the information available on 
the identities of the participants is based on self-reported values which cannot be verified. 

The consultations conducted by the external evaluators 

The  external  evaluators  conducted  four  different  types  of  consultation  with  varied  types  of 
stakeholders.  This  section  provides  an  overview  of  each  consultation  and  the  consultation 
process that took place in each case, as well as possible limitations. 

1.  Targeted  consultations  in  the  form  of  interviews  with  all  Member  State 

Responsible Authorities (RAs): 

All  RAs  were  contacted  and  twenty-two  were  available  for  interviewing198.  Member  States 
were offered the possibility to part in an interview in a variety of ways, i.e. face-to-face, via 
video conference or Skype, and by telephone. The evaluation team also met and interviewed 

198  Interviews were carried out with RAs from At, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, HR, HU, IE, IT, MT, NL, PL, 

PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
stakeholders during external events when possible, such as on the margins of meetings with 
the  European  Commission  in  Brussels,  in  national  ex-post  evaluation  conferences,  and  in 
European  Migration  Network-related  meetings.  Furthermore,  evaluation  team  members  in 
charge  of  interviewing  specific  RAs  sent  interviewees  a  short  list  of  focused  follow-up 
questions in advance to ensure that the interview was conducted in an efficient manner. 

2.  Targeted  consultations  in  the  form  of  interviews  with  Member  State  RAs  and 

beneficiaries of RF funding between 2011 and 2013: 

These interviews were carried out for six Member States199, which were examined as part of 
case studies. Interviews were also conducted with twelve RF beneficiaries from the six case 
study countries: one in Hungary (IOM – Budapest), two in Italy (IOM Italia; Italian Council 
for  Refugees),  three  in  the  Netherlands  (IOM  NL;  Stichting  WereldWijd;  Stichting 
Nieuwkomers  en  Vluchtelingenwerk  Brabant  Centraal),  one  in  Malta  (IOM  Malta),  four  in 
Romania  (General  Inspectorate  for  Immigration;  Romanian  Council  for  Refugees;  Jesuit 
Refugee Service; IOM), and two in the United Kingdom (UK Border Agency Home Office; 
Refugee Action). 

3.  Targeted  consultations  in  the  form  of  interviews  with  four  beneficiaries  of 

Community Action: 

These four beneficiaries are: the Organisation of Ibero-American States (on OSS-LAC, OSS 
II),  Repatriation  and  Departure  Service  (two  interviews  focusing  respectively  on  ERIN, 
EURINT),  the  International  Centre  for  Migration  Policy  Development  (on  FREM)  and  the 
International Organisation for Migration (IOM) (on MAGNET I and II). 

4.  Targeted  consultations  in  the  form  of  a  general  survey  addressed  to  all  RF 
beneficiaries under the 2011-2013 Annual Programmes (APs): 

A  total  of  eighty  stakeholders  representing  twenty-five  Member  States  were  identified  as 
potential respondents. The survey was open to participants from 30 May 2016 to 20 July 2016 
and  received  twenty-four  responses,  of  which  thirteen  were  complete  (all  questions  were 
answered) and eleven partial. In order to mitigate the risks of a low response rate common to 
surveys, respondents were offered the possibility of answering the survey online or in Word 
format. They were also provided with a specific email address which they could use to contact 
the  evaluation  team  with  any  queries.  Initially,  there  was  a  low  response  rate  nonetheless 
(only 17 respondents of 63 potential respondents identified), so one week prior to the initial 
deadline for closure of the consultation, the evaluation team requested the Directorate-General 
Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME) to send a reminder to all respondents. The deadline 
for responding was also extended by twenty days. 

Results 

The most  relevant results of the consultations carried out by the external  evaluators and the 
European  Commission  are  grouped  in  this  section  and  presented  according  to  the following 
six  evaluation  criteria:  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  sustainability,  coherence  and 
complementarity, and EU added value. 

199   HU, IT, MT, NL, RO, UK. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Relevance 

The majority of the Member States200 consulted considered the RF's objectives to be relevant 
to their individual needs in the area of return. The most relevant priority as identified by the 
Member States was the development of a strategic approach to return management (priority 1) 
-  primarily  activities  promoting  voluntary  over  forced  return  -  especially  as  some  Member 
States201  lacked  experience  in  dealing  with  voluntary  return.  Objectives  relating  to 
cooperation  in  return  management  were  felt  to  be  particularly  relevant  by  those  Member 
States202 with little experience in this area as they encouraged the exchange of knowledge and 
best practices. More experienced Member States found them to be less relevant. 

6/7  respondents  reported  that  the  projects  funded  in  their  country  targeted  the  needs  of 
beneficiaries. For example, actions aimed at helping individuals to set up their own business 
in their country of origin made the process of reintegration smoother. However, some issues 
were highlighted. Beneficiaries consulted indicated that the RF could have been made more 
relevant if other categories of migrant were included in the target groups. 

On  the  whole,  national  programmes  were  found  to  be  in  agreement  with  RF  objectives. 
Member  States203  and  beneficiaries  were  interested  in  being  able  to  adjust  the  margins  of 
actions in accordance with their changing needs, particularly in emergency situations. 

  Effectiveness 
A  total  of  23  Member  States204  reported  that  the  RF  had  achieved  positive  results.  Projects 
were also implemented very effectively, with 93% of those put into effect by respondents to 
the survey being carried out as planned. 80% of these met with no significant difficulties in 
their implementation. Interviews carried out with RAs from the Member States show that the 
RF has been particularly effective in developing an integrated return management approach, 
with over half of the Member States205 consulted noting the significant contribution made by 
the RF to the completion of voluntary returns. The majority of Member States206 also made 
overt  reference  to  the  importance  of  the  role  played  by  the  RF  in  the  introduction  and 
improvement  of  integrated  return  management.  Although  only  2%  of  RF  funding  was  put 
towards projects contributing to the application of EU standards and best practices in the field 
of return management, and only 14% of the total number of projects related to this objective, 
a large majority of Member States found the RF to be effective in this area. The majority of 
Member  States  who  responded  reported  that  cooperation  between  all  parties  had  been 
enhanced  (Member States,  third countries and national administrations).  In  addition, several 
Member  States207  reported  that  the  RF  had  improved  their  relations  with  third  countries.  In 
some  Member  States208,  however,  results  were  lower  than  expected;  this  was  attributed  to 

200   AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, LT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK. 
201   BG, CY, EE, HU, LT, PL, SK. 
202   CY, UK. 
203   CY, EL, FR, HU, IT, LU, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK. 
204   AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK. 
205   AT, BE, CY, DE, EE, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, MT, PL, RO, SI, UK. 
206   AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, FR, HU, IE, IT, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK, UK. 
207   BE, BG, CY, FU, DE, IT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE. 
208   CY, EL, ES, LU, PL, UK. 

50 

 
 
                                                            
several challenges faced by the Member States, including lack of cooperation from countries 
of origin209 and a lower number of returns eligible under the RF.210 

The RF was effective in providing appropriate assistance to vulnerable persons in relation to 
return procedures, with Belgium, Hungary and Sweden pointing to particular successes. 

The majority of respondents to the public consultation reported that cooperation had improved 
between  Member  States,  Member  States  and  Third  Countries,  and  national  administrations. 
Actions  have  indirectly  facilitated  an  increase  in  the  number  of  both  forced  and  voluntary 
returns  of  third-country  nationals,  with  several  Member  States  reporting  that  the  RF  had 
improved their relationship with third countries. 

Efficiency 

Most of the interviews and survey responses211 indicated that RF actions were achieved at a 
reasonable  cost.  80%  of  respondents  reported  that  the  amount  of  funding  was  reasonable 
when compared to similar projects. 20% were unsure about the cost-effectiveness of actions 
funded  via  the  RF.  Those  beneficiaries  of  Community  Actions  who  were  interviewed  also 
found the projects to be cost-efficient. Several factors which affected the efficiency of the RF 
were  suggested,  such  as  the  difficulties  of  implementing  European  administrative  standards 
when working in third countries, and the obligation of applying on paper. 

Several  Member  States212  highlighted  the  administrative  burden  which  came  with  the 
implementation  of  funded  actions;  it  was  suggested  that  this  could  have  impacted  the  RF's 
efficiency.  By  contrast,  the  public  consultation  generated  generally  positive  responses,  with 
5/7  participants  reporting  that the RF  had  "generally"  and  "to  a great  extent"  had a  positive 
impact on activities dealing with return. 

Sustainability 

The  evaluation  concluded  that  the  RF  had  been  somewhat  sustainable  between  2011  and 
2013,  but  there  was  no  convincing  evidence  to  suggest  that  actions  had  brought  about  any 
long-term  impact.  However,  a  considerable  number  of  Member  States213  reported  that  most 
RF  actions  had  generated  a  lasting  impact  after  they  had  ended,  with  reference  to  several 
factors which may have improved the sustainability of RF actions, such as development and 
implementation of projects involving self-sustainable activities. However, only two Member 
States  successfully  disseminated  project  results  and  only  four  transferred  outcomes  into 
national  legislation,  both  of  which  were  reported  as  factors  which  could  have  improved 
sustainability.  

Five Member States214 reported that AVR(R) programmes were less likely to continue on the 
same  scale  without  EU  funding.  Assistance  to  vulnerable  persons  and  the  development  of 
innovative approaches were also likely to be limited in the absence of the RF. Forced returns, 

209   FI, EL, UK. 
210   CY. 
211   BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, UK. 
212   AT, BG, CZ, EE, ES, NL, SE. 
213   BG, CY, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK, UK. 
214   CY, EE, IT, MT, SK. 

51 

 
 
                                                            
however,  were  likely  to  be  carried  out  via  national  budgets  as  Member  States  have  a  legal 
obligation in this respect. 

Some  actions  were  felt  to  be  more  sustainable  than  others,  including  the  creation  of  new 
organisational structures and improvements to the infrastructure of detention facilities. 

In  response  to  the  public  consultation,  4/7  participants  suggested  that  the  improvement  of 
services and procedures would continue to a certain extent without EU financing. 

Coherence and Complementarity 

The  evaluation  found  that  actions  funded  via  the  RF  were  generally  coherent  with  and 
complementary to other EU financial instruments and national policies and needs in the area 
of  return.  RF-funded  activities  did  not  usually  overlap  with  national  actions  as  the  RF  was 
often  used  to  fund  areas  of  return  policy  which  were  in  receipt  of  limited  national  funding. 
Only 6% of survey respondents reported overlaps. 

Several  Member  States215  found  that  the  RF  was  complementary  to  other  EU  financial 
instruments.  Some216  pointed  to  particular  links  between  the  RF  and  the  EBF,  as  one 
intercepted and the other returned members of the same target group (irregular migrants). 

Austria and Finland, however, highlighted the potential for overlaps between actions funded 
via  the  RF  and  those  funded  via  the  ERF/EIF.  The  evaluation  indicates  that  there was  little 
complementarity between RF-funded actions and other EU instruments funding reintegration 
policies. 

EU Added Value 

With the help of the RF,  more than half of Member States were able to fund aspects of the 
return  system  which  would  not  otherwise  have  received  funding;  most  RF  stakeholders 
reported that the same results would not have been achieved in the absence of the RF. 100% 
of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed when asked if the outcomes of their projects 
would  have  been  possible  without  the  RF,  whilst  only  50%  reported  the  same  regarding 
structural changes and capacity-building. This suggests that the RF primarily brought added 
value  to  return  operations,  although  the  low  response  rate  means  these  conclusions  are  not 
well-founded. 

National spending on return had an impact on the EU added value of the RF. The fund had 
particular added  value  in Member States  that had  experienced  cuts in  public  expenditure.217 
Member  States  also  highlighted  innovation  as  one  of  the  RF's  contributions; those practices 
which were not in effect before the RF was introduced were considered to be innovative by 
Member States. 7/7 respondents to the public consultation felt that the RF had some impact on 
the implementation of EU return policies in their country. 

215  AT, CY, EE, EL, FI, FR, IT, NL, PL, PT, UK. 
216   AT, CY, EE, EL IT. 
217   CY, EL, FR (on reintegration), LT, SI, UK. 

52 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
12  ANNEX 3 — Methodology 

Study conducted by external evaluators   

The  evaluation  relied  on  a  supporting  study  conducted  by  an  external  company.  It  was 
decided  to  rely  on  an  external  study  so  as  to  obtain  a  robust  and  impartial  overview  of  the 
Fund. A number of elements ensured the high quality of the study: 

  A regular and transparent dialogue took place between the European Commission and 

the external evaluator; 

  The terms of reference of the contract were clearly set out and respected; 
  The Fund's management modes were clearly distinguished in the methodology; 
  The evaluation applied a mixed-methods approach in order to address the evaluation 

questions more fully and to ensure all relevant stakeholders were consulted; 
  All data sources were assessed for validity and presented data are clearly labelled. 

Communication between the European Commission and the external evaluator 

The  study's  progress  was  followed  by  an  Inter-service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  comprised  of 
officials from the Secretariat General (SG), Legal Service (SJ), DG Budget (DG BUDG), DG 
Regional  Policy  (DG  REGIO),  DG  Migration  and  Home  Affairs(DG  HOME  (particularly 
Units A2, C1, C3, E1, E2 and E3) as well as the contractor with their partners and experts. 
Four meetings took place between the contractors and the ISSG and structured feedback (in 
both  directions)  was  provided  on  a  weekly  basis  throughout  the  contract.  This  two-way 
dialogue was enriched by the active participation in the ISSG of policy and implementation 
units and shadowed by horizontal units and the Secretariat General. The final report delivered 
by the external company was subject to a Quality Assessment conducted by the ISSG.  

Management modes and phases 

Shared  and  direct  management  modes  are  clearly  distinguished  in  the  external  study's 
methodology and in the presentation of findings. Shared Management comprises actions co-
financed  by  the  RF  under  the  2011-2013  Annual  Programmes  implemented  by  the Member 
States as well as Emergency Measures. The scope of Direct Management in the study was the 
RF  Community  Actions  supported  under  the  2010,  2011,  2012  and  2013  annual  work 
programmes218. 

Another structuring feature of the external evaluation was the segmentation of the tasks into 
clearly  defined  phases  which  were  closely  observed  by  all  parties.  These  phases  had  been 
determined in the Terms of Reference. Adherence to the Terms of Reference made the study 
itself more efficient and transparent. 

Data sources and quality 

218    Actions supported under the 2008-2010 RF programmes of the Member States should be outside the scope 
of  the  evaluation.  However,  they  were  considered  when  deemed  relevant  to  the  evaluation,  in  particular 
within the context of the analysis of the complementarity and coherence criteria. 

53 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
The information analysed by the contractors can be regrouped into two categories: 

1.  Documentation  relating  to  implementation  –  legal  acts;  high-level  contextual 
documents;  programme  documents  (Annual  Work  Programmes)  and  additional 
evaluation  documents  (National  evaluation  reports  for  shared  management  and 
technical implementation reports for direct management);  

2.  Statistical data – this includes: 

o  Official statistics from Eurostat, EASO and UNHCR; 
o  Financial data extracted from ABAC for RF and all SOLID Funds in order to 

present Programmed and Net EU contributions and absorption rates; 

o  Financial data extracted from SFC2007 to present the breakdowns by Priority 

and Specific Priority;  

o  Financial  data  extracted  from  SFC2007  to  present  Programmed  and  Net  EU 

contributions and absorption rates for Annual Programmes; 

o  Financial  data  for  direct  management  were  provided  by  the  European 
Commission.  Figures  presented  are  the  sum  of  the  cost  claims  minus  the 
ineligible costs. 

Analysis 

Three different levels of analysis were undertaken by the evaluator: 

1.  Descriptive analysis, at two levels, to provide context and a basis for the development 

of other types of analysis: 

  EU  level:  Different  official  documentation,  such  as  the  Decision  establishing 
the  RF,  as  well  as  interviews  with  DG  HOME  were  analysed  and  used  to 
describe the context of the RF, such as the objectives it was aiming to achieve 
and the type of actions eligible for funding under the RF. 

  Case studies: The analysis of the data collected relating to the national actions 
as  part  of  the  case  studies  (all  programmatic  documents,  national  evaluation 
reports  and  interview  notes)  was  carried  out  and  described  according  to  the 
intervention  logic  elements,  as  well  as  all  the  evaluation  criteria  in  the  case 
study reports. The case studies were selected according to four fixed criteria to 
improve  representativeness  (Objectives,  Priorities,  types  of  intervention); 
relevance  (external  borders  and  migratory  pressure);  solidarity  (where 
investments  exceed  input)  and  coverage  of  the  evaluation  questions  in  the 
national evaluation reports. 

2.  Thematic  analysis:  For  this  analysis,  N-vivo,  a  qualitative  analysis tool, was  used  to 
encode and subsequently analyse the information from the national evaluation reports 
and relevant interviews (EU level and interviews with RAs). The encoding was done 
according to a Coding Framework which included all the different intervention logic 
elements,  as  well as  all the evaluation criteria, and allowed for the  creation of “sub-
nodes” as further themes emerged from the analysis. Through the encoding, trends and 
themes  emerged  across  the  participating  countries  under  the  different  evaluation 
criteria  and  RF  objectives  and  priorities.  In  addition,  quantitative  data  collected  was 
analysed,  such  as  the  context  and  effectiveness  indicators  from  the  final  closure 
reports submitted by the Member States (as presented in the SFC 2007 database) and 

54 

 
 
 
national evaluation  reports. This  quantitative analysis also allowed for  key  messages 
to emerge from the data (such as type of priority receiving the most funding).  

3.  Comparative  analysis:  Building  on  the  descriptive  and  thematic  analysis,  a 
comparative  analysis  was  undertaken,  comparing  the  findings  from  different 
participating countries under each of the evaluation criteria. The comparative analysis 
allowed  the  study  team  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  the  research  findings  were 
coherent.  The  case  studies  were  also  included  in  the  analysis  and  used  to  illustrate 
certain findings.  

Assessing the Impacts of the RF 

Evaluating  the  impacts  of  the  RF  at  national  level  is  more  complicated  as  it  requires 
experiment conditions with a matched control where RF was not utilised. In order to mitigate 
this,  the  study  used  information  from  the  case  studies  and  interviews,  as  well  as  the 
evaluators’ own judgment. 

Public Consultation 

Between 10 May 2016 and 9 August 2016, the European Commission also held an Internet-
based open public consultation on the RF 2011-2013 in the form of an online questionnaire. 
The types of stakeholder invited to participate in this consultation were: individuals (experts, 
beneficiaries),  local  and  national  Member  State  Authorities,  intergovernmental  and  non-
governmental  organisations,  social  partners  and  civil  society,  academic  institutions, 
international organisations, and EU Institutions and Agencies. The results of the open public 
the  evaluation  questions.  
consultation  fed 

the  analysis  developed 

to  answer 

into 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
13 

ANNEX 4 — List of evaluation questions 

Theme 1 Effectiveness

1. To what extent did the RF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the achievement of the 
objectives defined in the Articles 2 and 3 of Decision No 2007/575/EC and to the priorities 
defined by the strategic guidelines (Decision No 2007/837/EC) ? 

2. To what extent did the actions under the RF 2011-2013 contribute to the development of 
integrated return management and in particular to the balance between forced and voluntary 
returns  and  to  the  setting  up  of  a  return  procedure  based  on  the  situation  of  the  potential 
returnees? 

3.  To  what  extent  did  the  actions  under  the  RF  2011-2013  contribute  to  the  cooperation 
between Member States in return management? 

4.  To  what  extent  did  the  actions  under  the  RF  2011-2013  contribute  to  the  cooperation 
between Member States and third countries in return management? 

5.  To  what  extent  did  the  actions  under  the  RF  2011-2013  contribute  to  specific  innovative 
(inter)national tools for return management? 

6. To what extent did the actions under the RF 2011-2013 contribute to the implementation of 
EU standards and best practices in return management? 

7.  To  what  extent  did  the  actions  under  the  RF  2011-2013  contribute  to  the  cooperation 
between different levels (national, regional, local and urban)? 

7.a.  To  what  extent  were  the  RF  2011-2013  actions,  and  in  particular  the  RF  Community 
actions,  effective  in  providing  support  services  to  Member  States  in  duly  substantiated 
emergency situations requiring urgent action in the field of return management? 

Theme 2 Efficiency  

8. To what extent were the effects of the RF 2011-2013 actions achieved at a reasonable cost 
in terms of financial and human resources deployed? 

Theme 3 Sustainability 

9.  To  what  extent  have  the  positive  effects  of  the  RF  2011-2013  actions  lasted  after  the 
interventions were terminated? 

Theme 4 Relevance  

10.  To  what  extent  did  the  RF  objectives  correspond  to  needs  in  the  field  of  return 
management? 

11. To what extent did the objectives of the actions under the RF 2011-2013 correspond to the 
needs in the field of return management? 

Theme 5 Coherence and complementarity  

56 

 
 
12a.  To  what  extent  were  the  Return  Fund  2011-2013  actions  coherent  with  and 
complementary to other EU financial instruments or from national resources of the Member 
States,  including  the  activities  of  the  European  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Operational 
Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) 
providing EU Member States with the necessary support in organising joint return operations? 

Theme 6 EU added value 

13. What is the additional value resulting from the RF 2011-2013 actions compared to what 
the  Member  States  would  be  able  to  carry  out  through  investments  necessary  for  the 
implementation of the EU policies in the field of return management without the support of 
the RF 2011-2013 actions? 

57 

 
 
 
 
14 

ANNEX 5 — List of abbreviations and country codes 

ABAC  
AMIF   
AP 
AWP   
CA 
CEAS   
COI 
EAC 
EASO  
EBF 
EC 
EIA 
EIF 
EQ 
ERF 
IOM 
ISF 
ISSG 
MPI 
NGO 
RA 
RF 
SFC 
SOLID  

Accrual Basic Accounting 
Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 
Annual Programme 
Annual Work Programme 
Community Action 
Common European Asylum System 
Country of Origin Information 
European Asylum Curriculum 
European Asylum Support Office 
European Borders Fund 
European Commission 
Extended Impact Assessment 
European Integration Fund  
Evaluation Question 
European Refugee Fund 
International Organisation for Migration 
Internal Security Fund 
Inter Service Steering Group 
Migration Policy Institute 
Non-Governmental Organisation 
Responsible Authority 
European Return Fund 
System for Fund Management 
Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows 

List of country codes 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CH 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 

Austria  
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Switzerland 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Germany 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IS 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
NO 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

Croatia 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Iceland 
Italy 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Latvia 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Norway  
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Sweden 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
United Kingdom  

59