COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Interim Evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 2014-2017 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 on interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the Internal Security Fund
Date: 2018-06-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, aid to refugees, fund (EU), integration of migrants, migration control, public safety, right of asylum

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.6.2018 SWD(2018) 339 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Interim Evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 2014-2017 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   on interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the Internal Security Fund {COM(2018) 464 final} - {SWD(2018) 340 final} - {SWD(2018) 341 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

5 

3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... 0 
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 2 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 
1 
BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 5 
2 
Baseline ..................................................................................................................................... 5 
2.1 
Description of AMIF and its objectives .................................................................................. 10 
2.2 
IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 17 
Description of the implementation processes .......................................................................... 17 
3.1 
Description of the implementation status ................................................................................ 18 
3.2 
4  METHOD ........................................................................................................................................... 24 
Short description of the methodology ..................................................................................... 24 
4.1 
Evaluation questions ............................................................................................................... 25 
4.2 
4.3 
Limitations and robustness of findings .................................................................................... 25 
ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 27 
How effective has AMIF been so far ...................................................................................... 27 
5.1 
How efficient has AMIF been so far ....................................................................................... 37 
5.2 
How much simplification and reduction of administrative burden has AMIF brought so far . 40 
5.3 
How relevant has AMIF been so far ........................................................................................ 42 
5.4 
How coherent and complementary has AMIF been so far ...................................................... 45 
5.5 
5.6  What is the EU added value of AMIF so far ........................................................................... 48 
5.7 
How sustainable are the actions implemented under AMIF so far .......................................... 51 
CONCLUSIONS AND ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION ............................................ 53 
Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................... 53 
6.1 
Efficiency ................................................................................................................................ 53 
6.2 
Simplification and reduction in administrative burden ........................................................... 54 
6.3 
Relevance ................................................................................................................................ 54 
6.4 
Coherence and complementarity ............................................................................................. 54 
6.5 
EU added value ....................................................................................................................... 55 
6.6 
Sustainability ........................................................................................................................... 55 
6.7 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 56 
ANNEX 2: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS .......................................................................... 57 
ANNEX 3: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 60 
ANNEX 4: THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................................................................... 63 
ANNEX 5: COSTS AND BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AMIF ................................................. 66 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABBREVIATIONS 

AMIF 

CEAS 

CIPS 

Asylum Migration and 
Integration Fund 

Common European 
Asylum System 

Specific programme 
Prevention, 
Preparedness and 
Consequence 
Management of 
Terrorism and Other 
Security-related Risks 

DCI 

Development 
Cooperation Instrument 

DG HOME  Directorate-General for 

EAFRD 

EASO 

EBF 

EIF 

Migration and Home 
Affairs 

European Agricultural 
Fund for Rural 
Development 

European Asylum 
Support Office 

External Borders Fund 

European Fund for the 
Integration of third-
country nationals 

EMAS 

Emergency assistance 

EMFF 

European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund 

EMN 

ERF 

European Migration 
Network 

European Refugee 
Fund 

EU 

European Union 

against Organised 
Crime 

ISF 

Internal Security Fund 

ISF-BV 

ISF Borders and Visa 

ISF-P 

ISF Police 

Eurostat 

Statistical office of the 
European Union 

RDPP 

Regional development 
and protection 
programme 

RF 

European Return Fund 

SOLID 

General programme 
Solidarity and 
Management of 
Migration Flows 

SFC2014 

Shared Fund 
Management Common 
System of DG HOME 

TCN(s) 

Third-country 
national(s) 

UNHCR 

United Nations High 
Commissioner for 
Refugees 

ERDF 

ESIF 

European Regional 
Development Fund 

European Structural 
and Investment Funds 

ESF 

European Social Fund 

EUTF 

FEAD 

FTE 

IOM 

European Union 
Emergency Trust Fund 
for stability and 
addressing root causes 
of irregular migration 
and displaced persons 
in Africa 

Fund for European Aid 
to the Most Deprived 

Full-time equivalent 

International 
Organisation for 
Migration 

ISEC 

Specific programme 
Prevention of and Fight 

List of countries 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CH 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Switzerland 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Germany 

DK 

Denmark 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IS 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Iceland 

IT 

LI 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

NO 

Italy 

Lichtenstein 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Norway 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

TK 

UK 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Turkey 

United Kingdom 

1 

 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  staff  working  document  (SWD)  presents  the  main  findings  of  the  interim  evaluation  of  the 
Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF or ‘the Fund’) for the programming period 2014-
2020, specifically covering the years 2014-2017. The evaluation assesses AMIF’s current progress 
towards meeting its objectives. The findings will inform the legislators and all stakeholders of its 
achievements  so  far,  provide  the  evidence  base  for  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to 
address weaknesses and take corrective measures to minimise their impact, and inform the design of 
future funds. 

Background 

AMIF  was  designed  to  promote  the  efficient  management  of  migration  flows  and  the 
implementation,  strengthening  and  development  of  a  common  EU  approach  to  asylum  and 
immigration.  During  the  implementation  period  under  review,  the  migration  conditions  changed 
drastically due to the sudden and unexpected increase in migratory pressure on the EU’s southern 
and south-eastern borders. 

AMIF’s general objective is to be achieved through: (i) (asylum) strengthening and developing the 
Common European Asylum System by ensuring that EU legislation in this field is efficiently and 
uniformly applied; (ii) (legal migration and integration) supporting legal migration to EU States in 
line  with  labour  market  needs  and  promoting  the  effective  integration  of  third-country  nationals; 
(iii) (returns)  strengthening  fair  and  effective  return  strategies,  which  contribute  to  combating 
irregular  migration  and  emphasise  the  sustainability  and  effectiveness  of  the  return  process;  and 
(iv) (solidarity) making sure that EU States which are most affected by migration and asylum flows 
can count on solidarity from other EU States. 

Additionally, the Fund provides special financial incentives for EU States to support (i) the Union 
resettlement  programme,  which  focuses  on  common  EU  priorities  and  (ii)  a  similar  financial 
mechanism  for  transferring  people  under  international  protection  from  an  EU  State  with  high 
migratory pressure to another with lower migratory pressure. It also provides financial resources for 
the activities and future development of the European Migration Network. 

Resources mobilised by AMIF 

The Fund’s total initial allocation was estimated at EUR 3 137 million, divided as follows: 

  EUR  2 752  million  for  national  programmes  managed  by  Member  States  under  shared 

management;  and 

  EUR 385 million for the European Migration Network as well as Union actions and emergency 

assistance managed either directly or indirectly by the Commission. 

This  budget  was  substantially  increased  through  top-ups  in  order  to  support  (i)  relocation  and 
resettlement, (ii) integration and return, and (iii) the resources linked to the revision of the Dublin 
Regulation  as  well  as  to  show  solidarity  and  share  the  burden  with  the  most  affected  Member 
States.  By  the  end  of  2017  it  amounted  to  a  total  of  EUR 6 888  million,  an  increase  of  120  %. 
Currently, EUR 4 567 million is allocated to support asylum and solidarity, and EUR 2 305 million 
is allocated for legal migration and integration. The support provided through emergency assistance 
increased significantly as well, from a total of EUR 160 million to EUR 1 028 million. 

2 

 
Main lessons learnt 

An interim evaluation has obvious limitations, as the first projects only (barely) started three years 
ago. Migration, integration and solidarity are long-term endeavours creating an impact that can only 
be captured in a very partial manner after such a short period. A monitoring system with indicators 
to systematically track impact (particularly for integration) is also found to be wanting. 

Based on the interim evaluation, the following main conclusions could be drawn: 

AMIF  has  played  an  important  role  in  improving  asylum  systems  and  strengthening  reception 
capacity  in  the  Member  States,  and  as  a  result  of  the  migration  crisis  the  area  of  asylum  was 
specifically  prioritised  in  many  countries.  The  Fund  also  paid  special  attention  to  the  most 
vulnerable, particularly the unaccompanied minors. 

So  far,  the  results  of  AMIF  have  been  achieved  at  a  reasonable  cost in  terms  of  both  human  and 
financial  resources,  thanks  to  an  effective  management  and  control  system  that  ensured  the  Fund 
was  correctly  implemented  and  irregularities  were  prevented.  Overall,  most  of  the  innovative 
measures  (e.g.  simplified  cost  options,  multiannual  programming)  are  considered  to  be  especially 
positive by beneficiaries and appear to have achieved simplification. 

Despite the large increase in value of the emergency assistance, and the emergency situation on the 
ground, AMIF continues to be highly relevant since it has proven to be sufficiently broad and all-
encompassing  in  responding  to  these  different  needs.  Most  national  programmes  are  still  in  line 
with the Fund’s general objectives and the Member States’ needs. 

AMIF  has  also  proven  that  it  can  be  complementary  to,  as  well  as  consistent  and  strategically 
aligned with other financial instruments (especially ISF-BV, ESF, ERDF, EAFRD, EMFF, FEAD, 
EUTF, and DCI) and relevant key EU policy strategies. Overall, AMIF has generated important EU 
added  value,  despite  the  relatively  small  amount  of  funding  it  receives,  taking  into  account  the 
important  challenges  brought  about  by  the  crisis  that  occurred  during  this  period.  The  main  EU 
level benefit derives from the transnational dimension of certain actions but also EU level burden-
sharing,  supported  in  particular  by  the  emergency  assistance  and  the  relocation  mechanism. 
Sustainability has been thoroughly accounted for by AMIF through check mechanisms set in place 
at programming and implementation stages across most instruments, although to a lesser extent by 
the emergency assistance due to the nature of the actions.  

However, there appears to be room for improvement, especially regarding the internal coherence of 
the  fund  (among  AMIF’s  management  modes)  as  beneficiaries  are  not  very  aware  of  the  projects 
carried  out  within  the  AMIF  framework.  Similarly,  the  administrative  burden  appeared  to  be  the 
main factor that undermined the Fund’s efficiency, including some control measures that appeared 
too stringent even if AMIF has led to simplification relative to the past. On the other hand, there is 
limited evidence of increased capacity to develop, monitor and evaluate asylum systems, and, while 
the EU resettlement programme has made big progress so far, there has been limited contribution 
towards  establishing,  developing  and  implementing  national  resettlement  programmes.  Finally, 
regarding  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  that  AMIF  created,  in  line  with  the  Better 
Regulation guidelines, further improvements need to be made, for example, in the definition of its 
indicators and the collection of data.  

3 

 
 
1  INTRODUCTION 

This  Commission  staff  working  document  presents  the  interim  evaluation  of  AMIF  in  line  with 
Article 57  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  514/20141,  the  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
2017/2072, and the Better Regulation guidelines3. 

Member States submitted to the Commission an interim evaluation report on the implementation of 
actions  and  progress  towards  achieving  the  objectives  of  their  national  programmes  by 
31 December  2017.  On  the  basis  of  these  reports,  the  Commission  must  submit  an  interim 
evaluation  report  on  the  implementation  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  513/2014,  Regulation  (EU)  No 
515/2014  and  Regulation  (EU)  No  516/2014  to  the  European  Parliament,  to  the  Council,  to  the 
European Economic and Social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions by 30 June 2018. 

The purpose of this interim evaluation is: 

1) to ensure transparency and accountability in AMIF’s implementation; and 

2)  to  help  make  the  future  implementation  of  EU  financial  instruments  in  the  fields  covered  by 
AMIF  more  relevant,  effective,  efficient,  and  sustainable,  and  enable  them  to  provide  EU  added 
value. 

This evaluation looks at the progress made in implementing the programmes, and assesses whether 
corrective  actions  are  needed  to  make  sure  that  the  programmes  are  delivered  as  planned.  It  will 
also  contribute  to  the  preparation  of  the  next  generation  of  funding  instruments  (under  AMIF’s 
successor) in the framework of the post-2020 multiannual financial framework. 

This evaluation covers all EU Member States except Denmark which does not participate in AMIF. 
The evaluation covers the period from 1 January 2014 until 30 June 20174, reporting on the actions 
supported under the national programmes of the participating countries, including specific actions 
and technical assistance, Union actions including emergency assistance and the European Migration 
Network actions. 

1   Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 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 L 150 of 20 May 2014). 

2   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  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 L 33 of 8 February 2017). 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines_en 

3  
4   Wherever possible and if data was available, the period until 31 December 2017 was taken into account. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
2  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1  Baseline 

Ensuring a high level of freedom and security within Europe has been at the top of the EU policy 
agenda  since  the  Tampere  Council  Conclusions  in  1999.  Policies  such  as  migration,  security  and 
management of the external borders became a strategic priority at EU level through the priorities set 
by  The  Hague  programme5  and  the  Stockholm  programme  and  its  action  plan6.  These  policies 
covered  areas  such  as  legal  migration  and  integration,  asylum,  irregular  migration  and  return 
(migration),  prevention  of  and  fight  against  terrorism  and  organised  crime,  police  cooperation 
(security)  and  management  of  the  external  borders  and  visa  policy,  as  well  as  the  external 
dimension of these policies. 

The overall aim of these policies is to create an area without internal borders where EU citizens and third-
country nationals (TCNs): 

  may enter, circulate, live and work; 
  bring new ideas, capital, knowledge and innovation; and 
 

fill gaps in national labour markets, confident that their rights are fully respected and their 
security assured. 

Cooperation with third countries and international organisations is crucial to achieving this goal. Home 
affairs policy priorities should also be seen in the context of the flagship initiatives presented in the Europe 
2020 strategy7 which aim to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 

To  ensure  fair  responsibility-sharing  concerning  common  migration  and  asylum  policies,  the  EU 
has started to provide financial support to strengthen the area of freedom, security and justice, and 
to  increase  financial  solidarity  among  the  Member  States.  In  this  light,  under  the  2007-2013 
programming  period,  the  general  programme  ‘Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows’ 
(SOLID)8  was  put  in  place,  with  a  total  contribution  of  almost  EUR 4  billion,  to  support  the 
development  of  common  policies  in  the  areas  of  asylum,  return  and  integration,  external  borders 
and visa. 

The SOLID programme’s legal base has been built up through four separated financial instruments, 
following the way in which the different policy areas are regulated in the Treaties9: the European 
Refugee  Fund  (ERF),  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  third-country  nationals  (EIF),  the 
European Return Fund (RF) and the External Borders Fund (EBF)10. The ERF, the EIF and the RF, 
which have become AMIF11, have supported the following objectives: 

5   Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The Hague Programme: Ten 
priorities for the 2005-2010, The Partnership for European renewal in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice 
(COM(2005) 184 final — Official Journal C 236 of 24.9.2005). 

6   Adopted  by  the  European  Council  on  2 December  2009  (document  no 17024/09),  provides  a  framework  for  EU 
action on the issues of citizenship, justice, security, asylum, immigration and visa policy for the period 2010-2014. 
Action Plan COM(2010) 171final of 20/04/2010. 

7   COM(2010) 2020 final of 3/03/2010. 
8   COM(2005) 123. 
9   Policies  on  border  checks,  asylum  and  immigration  are  subject  to  Title  V  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union 

(Articles 67-80) and subsequently to Chapter 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon (Articles 62-63b). 
Decision No 574/2007/EC (EBF), Decision No 573/2007/EC (ERF), Decision No 575/2007/EC (RF) — OJ L 144 
of 6.6.2007; Council Decision 2007/435/EC (EIF) — OJ L 168 of 28.6.2007. 

11   The EBF became the Borders and Visa component of the future Internal Security Fund. 

5 

 
                                                            
  support and encourage Member States efforts in receiving, and in dealing with the consequences 
of receiving refugees and displaced persons, taking account of Community legislation on those 
matters (ERF); 

  support Member States efforts in enabling third-country nationals of different economic, social, 
cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic backgrounds to fulfil the conditions of residence and to 
facilitate their integration into European societies (EIF); 

  contribute  to  developing  and  implementing  national  integration  strategies  for  third-country 
nationals in all aspects of society, in particular taking into account the principle that integration 
is a two-way dynamic process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and Member States 
residents (EIF); and 

  support  Member  States  efforts  to  improve  the  integrated  management  of  return  in  all  its 
dimensions  and  provide  for  joint  actions  to  be  implemented  by  Member  States  or  national 
measures that pursue EU objectives under the solidarity principle, accounting for EU legislation 
in this field and in full compliance with fundamental rights (RF). 

The four funds were implemented under shared management through annual national programmes, 
and under direct management by means of Community actions and Specific actions.  

Moreover, to boost security, the EU provided financial support to deal with and combat terrorism, 
organised crime,  different types  of trafficking  and security risks potentially affecting EU citizens. 
The  programme  ‘Security  and  Safeguarding  Liberties’  was  put  in  place  (with  almost  EUR 800 
million  in  funding)  and  consists  of  two  separate  financial  instruments,  each  following  a  different 
legal basis set out in the Treaties12: Specific programme ‘Prevention of and Fight against Organised 
Crime’  (ISEC)  and  Specific  programme  Prevention,  Preparedness  and  Consequence  Management 
of Terrorism and other Security-related risks (CIPS)13. 

The SOLID programme, together with the CIPS and ISEC, were replaced by AMIF and the Internal 
Security Fund (ISF Borders and Visa and ISF Police) in April 2014. The main driver for creating 
the  two-pillar  structure  was  to  contribute  to  the  simplification,  rationalisation,  consolidation  and 
transparency of funding in the field of asylum and migration. 

The table below shows the development (in size and scope) of the funds in the home affairs area, 
how  they  evolved  over  time,  leading  up  to  the  development  of  the  current  generation  of  funds, 
namely AMIF and the ISF. 

Table 1: Summary overview of home affairs funds and programmes during 2007-2013 and 2014-202014 

General 
Programme 

Policy 
area 

Fund / Specific Programme 
Budget, Participation & Objectives 

Previous Funds (2007-2013) 

Current Funds (2014-2020) 

12   Law enforcement, police cooperation and crime prevention are subject to Title VI of the Treaty on European Union 
(Articles  29-42).  Preparedness  and  consequence  management  of  terrorism  refers  to  civil protection measures, set 
out in the Treaty establishing the European Community (Article 3(1)(u)). 

13   COM/2005/0124 final (GPSSL); Decision No 2007/124/EC 7 (CIPS), Decision 2007/125/JHA (ISEC) — OJ L 58, 

24.2.2007. 

14   Impact  assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  regulation  to  establish  AMIF  (SEC(2011)  1358  of 

15.11.2011). 

6 

 
                                                            
 
 
European Refugee Fund (ERF III) 
EUR 614 million15, All Member States except DK 

  Support  and  encourage  Member  States  in  receiving 

refugees and displaced persons 

  Emergency  measures  to  address  sudden  mass  influx  of 

migrants and asylum seekers 

European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country 
Nationals (EIF) 
EUR 825 million, All Member States except DK 

  Support  the  integration  of  non-EU  immigrants  into 

European societies 

European Return Fund (RF) 
EUR 676 million, All Member States except DK 

  Improve return management 
  Encourage  development  cooperation  between  Member 

States and countries of return 

External Borders Fund (EBF) 
EUR 1 820 million, All Member States (including RO & BG 
and the Schengen associated states from 2010) except the 
UK and IE 

  Financial solidarity among Schengen countries 
  Manage  efficient  controls  and  the  flows  at  the  external 

borders 

  Improve management of the consular authorities 

Specific programme Prevention of and Fight against 
Organised Crime (ISEC) 
EUR 600 million, All Member States 

  Crime  prevention,  law  enforcement,  witness  protection 

and support, victims protection 

Specific programme Prevention, Preparedness and 
Consequence Management of Terrorism and Other 
Security-related Risks (CIPS) 
EUR 140 million, All Member States 

  Protection  of  citizens  and  critical  infrastructure  from 

terrorist attacks and other security incidents 

Asylum Migration and Integration 
Fund (AMIF) 
EUR 3 137 million (initial) 
All Member States except DK 

  Strengthen and develop all aspects of 

the Common European Asylum 
System (CEAS) 

  Support legal migration to the 
Member States and promote 
effective integration of third-country 
nationals 

  Strengthen fair and effective return 

strategies and contribute to 
combating illegal immigration 

  Strengthen solidarity and 

responsibility-sharing between 
Member States, particularly those 
most affected by the migratory flows 

Internal Security Fund (ISF) 
EUR 3 764 million (initial) 

ISF Borders and Visa 
All Member States except IE and  the 
UK plus the Schengen associated 
states CH, IS, LI and NO 

  Ensuring a high level of security in 
the EU and facilitating legitimate 
travel 

  Visa and support integrated border 

management 

ISF Police 
All Member States except DK and the 
UK 

  Ensure a high level of security in the 
EU, fight against crime, manage 
risks and crisis 

Asylum 

Integratio
n of legally 
residing 
TCNs, legal 
migration 

Return  

Integrated 
border 
managem
ent and 
visa  

Prevention 
of and 
fight 
against 
organised 
crime 

Combating 
terrorism 
and other 
security-
related 
risks 

General 
programme 
Solidarity and 
Management 
of Migration 
Flows 

(93 % to 96 % 
shared 
management
; remainder 
under 
centralised 
direct 
management
) 

General 
programme 
Security and 
Safeguarding 
Liberties 
(centralised 
direct 
management
) 

The share of funding for home affairs in the EU budget was relatively small but steadily growing — 
in  the  period  2007-2013  it  amounted  to  EUR 6.45  billion16  or  0.77 %  of  the  total  EU  budget, 
covering  not  only  the  financing  of  programmes,  but  also  the  funding  for  large-scale  IT  systems 
(VIS, SIS, EURODAC)17 and the agencies. The spending during this period has been characterised 
by heavy ‘back-loading’ (deferment of payments until the end of the financial periods), increasing 
from EUR 500 million in 2007 to EUR 1.5 billion in 2013. 

15   After adoption of EASO; takes account of Decision No 458/2010/EU amending the ERF basic act. 
16   Figures provided are commitment appropriations (including all budget amendments 2007-2010 and 2011 budget). 
17   VIS — Visa Information System, is a database containing information, including biometrics, on visa applications 
by  TCNs  requiring  a  visa  to  enter  the  Schengen  area.;  SIS  —  Schengen  Information  System,  used  to  find 
information  about  individuals  and  entities  for  the  purposes  of  national  security,  border  control  and  law 
enforcement; EURODAC — European Dactyloscopy is the EU fingerprint database for identifying asylum seekers 
and irregular border-crossers. 

7 

 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The external dimension of home affairs policies was not covered by the SOLID funds themselves 
but  mainly  through  the  thematic  programme  ‘Cooperation  with  Third  Countries  in  the  Area  of 
Migration  and  Asylum’18  and  other  thematic  programmes  (approximately  EUR 135  million  per 
year). 

Results  from  previous  evaluations  and  stakeholder  feedback  confirm  that  these  instruments  have 
been generally effective and that EU funding has added genuine value14. Nevertheless, the EU has 
been facing a number of policy challenges, schematically collected in the table below. 

Table 2: Overview of challenges faced by Member States and the EU in the area of home affairs to be addressed in the period 2014-
202014 

Asylum 

Legal 
migratio
n and 
integrati
on 

Irregula
r 
immigra
tion and 
return 

  The  number  of  asylum  applications  varies  significantly  between  Member  States  with  some  receiving 
higher  numbers  than  their  systems  can  handle  when  trying  to  process,  support  and  protect  asylum 
applicants, some of whom are particularly vulnerable such as unaccompanied minors, women, and victims 
of violence (including torture), and when trying to prevent the trafficking of human beings 

  At the EU level, the development and implementation of the CEAS was supported primarily by the ERF, 
which was created to promote solidarity and responsibility-sharing between Member States (including the 
voluntary transfer of beneficiaries of and applicants for international protection — ‘relocation’). The ERF 
also  provided  an  additional  financial  incentive  (EUR 4 000  per  person.)  to  Member  States  who  resettle 
vulnerable groups and people from countries and regions whose designation is based on Member States 
voluntary pledging). 

  Because the allocations for resettlement were taken from  the total ERF  envelope (12 %), the increasing 
involvement  of  Member  States  in  resettlement  operations  reduced  the  allocations  available  for  other 
actions under the annual programmes. 

  The  ERF  also  did  not  provide  any  additional  financial  incentive  to  Member  States  for  the  intra-EU 
transfer  of  beneficiaries  of  and  applicants  for  international  protection  (‘relocation’).  Such  operations 
would have used the available allocations, therefore limiting other actions and have been supported by the 
Community  actions  (e.g.  European  Relocation  Malta  (EUREMA)  relocating  260  beneficiaries  of 
international protection from Malta to 10 other Member States). 

  The ERF could not financially support the regional protection programmes (RPP) to increase the capacity 
of  areas  which  are  close  to  regions  of  origin,  or  which  are  areas  of  transit,  in  order  to  protect  refugees 
through the three durable solutions of repatriation, local integration and/or resettlement. 

  An estimated 20.2 million TCNs were living in the EU in 2010, i.e. 4 % of the total population. Compared 
to EU citizens, migrants generally experience lower labour market participation rates, attain a poorer than 
average education and have reduced social mobility, all leading to social difficulties, the cost of which is 
ultimately borne by the society as a whole. Better integration would help EU’s economy meet the 2020 
strategy objective of increasing the employment rate of the population aged 20-64 from the current 69 % 
to at least 75 % by 2020. 

  The integration activities were shared between the ERF (mainly reception and introductory schemes for 
refugees  and  people  benefiting  from  other  forms  of  international  protection),  the  EIF  (reception  and 
introductory schemes for the legally residing migrants) and the ESF (European Social Fund, focusing on 
complementary support on access to labour markets). 

  There  was  need  to  more  effectively  target  specific measures  or  specific groups  of  migrants who  cannot 

easily be reached by mainstream instruments. 

  The  EIF  could  not  provide  financial  support  for  developing  the  EU  ‘Global  Approach  to  Migration’ 

(GAM), in particular the negotiation, signing and implementation of mobility partnerships. 

  Because  of  its  clandestine  nature,  it  is  very  difficult  to  determine  the  scale  of  irregular  immigration. 
Estimates vary significantly, with 4.5 million and 8 million irregular migrants living in the EU in 2009. 
Approximately  500 000  of  these  are  apprehended  annually,  most  of  whom  are  over  stayers  choosing  to 
remain  for  economic  reasons.  Critically,  due  to  the  free  movement  of  people  in  the  Schengen  area,  the 
burden of dealing with irregular immigration does not necessarily fall on the country of entry but rather on 
the destination Member States, with some receiving numbers disproportionate to their capacity to detect, 
regularise or return such migrants. 

  Assisted  return  is  also  significantly  more  cost-effective  than  forced  returns  or  deportations  (more  than 
66 % less expensive than forced returns when reintegration assistance is taken into account). As a result, 
Member States felt the need for a comprehensive and sustainable approach to the return process with pre- 

18   Under budget heading 4 ‘EU as global player’. 

8 

 
                                                            
and post-return (reintegration measures). 

  There  has  also  been  a  need  for  increased  cooperation  and  coordination  in  return  operations  as 
acknowledged  by  the  increased  budget  of  Frontex  that  is  dedicated  to  joint  return  operations  (from 
EUR 5.2 million in 2009 to EUR 10 million in 2011). 

  The  RF  did  not  provide  financial  incentives  to  help  third  countries  cope  with  the  financial  burden  of 
readmitting  irregular  migrants  (in  the  framework  of  readmission  agreements),  either  in  terms  of 
reintegrating  their  own  nationals  or  onward  readmission  of  third-country  nationals  to  their  countries  of 
origin. 

The four different SOLID funds complemented each other and provided a holistic approach to the 
EU asylum and migration system. However, there were drawbacks, identified by the interim and ex 
post evaluations, by the special reports of the European Court of Auditors19, as well as during the 
Commission’s  impact  assessment  accompanying  its  proposals  for  the  2014-2020  generation  of 
home affairs funds14. 

Those drawbacks included:  

  a  lack  of  proper  flexibility  and  high  administrative  burden  on  both  the  Commission  and  the 

Member States due to the annual programming; 

  a lack of effective monitoring and evaluation systems and common indicators with measurable 

targets; and 

  delays in providing evaluation reports at Member States and Commission level, which carried 

the risk that activities were not suitably strengthened where they were most needed. 

This staff working document also analyses the extent to which the recommendations that came out 
of the ex post evaluations of SOLID have been taken into account in AMIF (see table below). 

Table 3: Overview of findings and recommendations that have shaped AMIF 

Ex post evaluations of SOLID 

What has AMIF addressed and how 

  Formulation  of  national  priorities  was  too  broad 
terms  of 
with  a  complex  architecture 
articulation 
speciﬁc 
general 
objectives,  and  between  general  objective  and 
specific priorities 

in 
and 

between 

  Limited flexibility due to the annual programming 
that does not allow the funds to be adapted to the 
objectives  and  the  changing  needs  of  Member 
States 

  Eligibility 

that 

prevented 

limitations 

the 
implementation  of  some  actions  that  could  have 
addressed  the  identified  needs  (e.g.  the  scope  of 
the  target  group  which  did  not  include  TCNs 
residing  legally on  the  territory of  Member  States 
but  wishing  to  return  to  their  country  of  origin 
under  the  RF  or  the  limited  interpretation  of  the 
‘newly arrived’ target group in the EIF) 

  Simpliﬁcation  of 

the  architecture  — 

four  specific 

objectives supported by additional national objectives 

  Shift  towards  multiannual  programme  to  offer  more 
ﬂexibility  and  significantly  reduce  administrative  burden 
towards a more results-driven management of the fund 

  National  programmes  (national  programmes)  based  on 
outcomes of a policy dialogue between the Commission and 
the Member States to ensure priorities are relevant 

  More  emphasis  on  strategic  programming  through  follow-
up  of  those  Member  States  facing 
implementation 
difficulties, and a mid-term review on the situation of each 
Member States to allow for adaptation 

  A  single  fund  to  cover  all  migration  matters  which  is 
expected  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  placed  on 
Member States and the Commission 

  Expansion  of  the  target  group  to  include  third-country 
nationals  enjoying  the  right  to  stay,  legal  residence  and/or 
international  protection  or  temporary  protection  for  people 
who wish to voluntarily return to their country of origin 

19   ECA (2012) Special report No 22, Do the European Integration Fund and the European Refugee Fund contribute 
effectively to the integration of third-country nationals? & ECA (2014) Special report No 15, The External Borders 
Fund has fostered financial solidarity but requires better measurement of results and needs to provide further EU 
added value. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
  Distribution  key  updated  regularly  (Member 
States  found  it  too  burdensome,  and  was  still  not 
able to respond to the EU’s needs on convergence, 
solidarity,  CEAS  development  and  unforeseen 
crises 

  Lack of efficiency in supporting less experienced 
Member  States  or  those  facing  difficulties  in 
implementing  their  management  and  monitoring 
systems 

  Limited solidarity and responsibility-sharing 
  Absence  of  common  monitoring  and  evaluation 

mechanisms 

  Limited comparability of data 

  High administrative burden 

  Distribution  key  for  the  allocations  revised,  although  it  still 
does  not  completely  address  the  significant  changes  in 
migration flows across Europe 

  Burden-sharing is incentivised through a 90 % co-financing 

rate in national programmes (specific actions) 

  An  emergency  mechanism  that  focuses  on  pressing  issues 

and where needs are the largest 

  An  obligatory  common  indicator  that  requires  Member 
States  to  have  established  monitoring  and  evaluation 
systems  with  formally  designated  bodies  before  receiving 
funds 

  Member  States  provide  more  information  on  the  coherence 

and complementary of the funds 

  For a detailed analysis, see sub-chapter 5.3  

2.2  Description of AMIF and its objectives 

In a nutshell 

AMIF  co-finances  national  and  EU  actions  that  aim  to  promote  the  efficient  management  of 
migration flows, as well as implement, strengthen and develop a common EU approach to asylum 
and migration,  such  as  receiving asylum seekers and refugees, the resettlement and integration of 
third-country nationals and the return of those ordered to leave EU territory. 

2.2.1  AMIF 

The legal basis of AMIF is Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 (the Specific Regulation)20, adopted by 
the European Parliament and the Council. The legal basis for each of these institutions to act in this 
area is set out in Articles 78(2), and 79(2) and (4) TFEU. In addition, general provisions for both 
AMIF and the ISF are laid down in Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 (Horizontal Regulation)1. These 
two  are  then  complemented  by  many  delegated  and  implementing  regulations,  including  the 
Commission’s  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2072  on  the  common  monitoring  and  evaluation 
framework (CMEF Regulation). 

AMIF’s aim is to promote the efficient management of migration flows and implement, strengthen 
and  develop  a  common  EU  approach  to  asylum  and  immigration.  All  Member  States,  with  the 
exception  of  DK21,  contribute  to  implementing  AMIF.  Considering  the  evolving  needs  and 
challenges  related  to  the  migration  crisis  and  security  concerns,  its  budget  was  substantially 
increased;  its  initial  allocation  has  been  more  than  doubled.  The  following  analysis  on  AMIF’s 
needs should be read in correlation with the answer to the evaluation question on relevance in sub-
chapter 5.3. 

Needs addressed by AMIF 

20   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 of 20 May 2014). 

21   The Danish opt‐out from measures under Title V TFEU is now governed by Protocol No 22 attached to the Treaty. 

10 

 
 
                                                            
The overview of challenges faced by Member States and the EU in the area of home affairs in the 
previous  period  2007-2013  and  presented  in  Table  2  above,  could  be  translated  in  the  following 
needs that AMIF tries to address: 

  Asylum:  the  need  for  a  joint  approach  to  guarantee  high  standards  of  protection  for  refugees, 
while ensuring fair and effective procedures throughout the EU and preventing them from being 
abused; 

  Legal migration and integration: a uniform application of the EU legal framework for legal 
migration,  taking  into  account  the  integration  needs  of  third-country  nationals  and  legal 
residents; 

  Return: a harmonised application of fair and effective return strategies which could contribute 

to combating irregular migration; 

  Solidarity:  a  common  approach  to  solidarity  and  responsibility-sharing,  in  particular  towards 

those Member States most affected by migration and asylum flows. 

AMIF’s general and specific objectives 

As set out in Article 3 of the Specific Regulation, the general objective of the Fund; ‘…shall be to 
contribute to the efficient management of migration flows and to the implementation, strengthening 
and development of the common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection 
and the common immigration  policy, while fully respecting the rights and principles enshrined in 
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’. This objective further breaks down in 
four specific objectives on asylum, legal migration and integration, return, solidarity: 

Specific Objective 1: Developing the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) 

‘strengthen and develop all aspects of the CEAS, including its external dimension’ 

The EU had been working on creating a CEAS since 1999, with a view to granting fair and equal 
treatment  to  asylum‐seekers  across  the  EU.  The  backbone  of  the  CEAS  is  provided  by  five 
legislative acts: 

  The  EURODAC  Regulation  establishes  an  EU  asylum  fingerprint  database  to  help  Member 

States process applications. 

  The Dublin II Regulation identifies the Member States in charge of handling an asylum request, 
which  is  in  principle  the  first  EU  country  that  the  applicant  enters.  It  also  governs  relations 
between Member States in this field. 

  The Reception Conditions Directive (RCD) sets common standards for asylum seekers’ living 

conditions (e.g. access to food, housing and healthcare). 

  The  Asylum  Procedures  Directive  (APD)  establishes  common  standards  in  procedural  rules, 

including safeguards and guarantees. 

  The Qualification Directive (QD) sets common grounds for granting asylum in order to avoid 
different outcomes concerning a given request, depending on the Member States that handles it. 

Strengthening  and  developing  all  aspects  of  the  CEAS,  including  its  external  dimension,  has 
become a priority and is based on three pillars: 

  bringing  more  harmonisation  to  standards  of  protection  by  aligning  the  asylum  legislation  of 

Member States; 

11 

 
  effective and well-supported practical cooperation; and  

 

increased  solidarity  and  sense  of  responsibility  among  EU  Member  States  as  well  as  between 
EU and third countries22.  

Member  States  are  asked  to  dedicate  20 %  of  their  share  of  the  Fund  towards  supporting  the 
efficient and uniform application of the CEAS.23 

In  light  of  this,  AMIF  supports  the  reception  and  asylum  system  by  focusing  on  third-country 
nationals,  including  refugees,  asylum  seekers  and  resettled  third-country  nationals.  AMIF  funds 
actions  aimed  at  strengthening  Member  States’  capacity  to  develop,  monitor  and  evaluate  their 
asylum  policies  and  procedures  or  actions  aimed  at  resettling  and  transferring  applicants  for,  and 
beneficiaries of, international protection, and other ad hoc humanitarian admission. 

Specific Objective 2: Supporting legal migration to the EU and promoting the integration of non-
EU nationals 

‘support legal migration to the Member States in accordance with their economic and social needs, such as 
labour market needs, while safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and to 
promote the effective integration of third-country nationals’ 
There were 20.7 million non-EU-nationals residing in the EU in 2016, representing 4 % of the EU-
28 population24. Their integration is thus  considered a cornerstone EU objective and constitutes a 
necessary  part  of  the  EU’s  goal  of  promoting  economic  growth,  social  cohesion  and  sustainable 
development in a climate of safety and security. Member States need to allocate 20 % of the Fund 
to supporting national integration strategies and actions to enable local authorities and civil society 
to  engage  in  the  process  of  encouraging  integration  and  mutual  trust.23  Similarly,  AMIF  supports 
legal migration to the EU in line with Member States labour market needs. 

Specific  Objective  3:  Combating  irregular  migration  by  strengthening  fair  and  effective  return 
strategies 

‘enhance fair and effective return strategies in the Member States which contribute to combating illegal 
immigration, with an emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of 
origin and transit’ 

Under this objective, AMIF supports actions that strengthen fair and effective return strategies and 
contribute  to  combating  irregular  migration,  with  an  emphasis  on  the  sustainability  and 
effectiveness of the return process. Some of these actions include: 

  strengthening the capacity to develop effective and sustainable return policies; 

 

improving operational cooperation between the authorities involved in the return process; 

  supporting  cooperation  between  third  countries  and  Member  States,  including  strengthening 

third countries’ capacities to conduct readmission and reintegration activities; and 

 

running  information  campaigns  in  third  countries  aimed  at  raising  awareness  of  the  risks  of 
illegal immigration. 

22   European Commission, COM(2008) 360 Final Policy Plan on Asylum: an integrated approach to protection across 

the EU. 

23   Article 15 of the Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 
24   Eurostat Migration and migrant population statistics (2017) indicate that in 2015, 4.7 million people immigrated to 

one of the EU-28 Member States, of which, 2.7 million were citizens of non-EU member countries. 

12 

 
                                                            
Specific  measures aim to: 

  develop and improve alternatives to detention; 

  provide social assistance, information or counselling, legal aid and language assistance; 

  prepare return operations; 

  exchanging  information  on  the  situation  in  countries  of  return,  best  practice,  and  shared 

experiences; 

  pool resources between Member States; 

  assist with voluntary return; 

 

improve  facilities  and  services  for  migrants 
accommodation and reception upon arrival; and 

  provide specific assistance for vulnerable persons. 

in 

third  countries  ensuring 

temporary 

Specific  Objective  4:  Strengthening  a  mechanism  of  solidarity  to  cope  with  migration  and  the 
migrant crisis among Member States, particularly those most affected 

‘enhance  solidarity  and  responsibility-sharing  between  the  Member  States,  in  particular  towards 
those most affected by migration and asylum flows, including through practical cooperation’ 

At the core of the fund is the willingness to ensure a solidarity mechanism between Member States 
most  affected  by  migration  and  asylum  flows  and  other  EU  States.  For  example,  Member  States 
receive  a  lump  sum  for  each  person  who  is  effectively  resettled  on  their  territory  from  a  third 
country  under  the  Union  resettlement  programme,  as  well  as  for  each  time  they  accept  someone 
who is under international protection from another EU Member States. 

Finally, AMIF financially supports the European Migration Network (EMN), which provides data 
on migration and asylum to facilitate policy making in EU institutions and state authorities. 

Target group and beneficiaries of AMIF 

The target group for AMIF actions include25: 

 

 

 

those who enjoy refugee status or subsidiary protection status within the meaning of Directive 
2011/95/EU (Qualification Directive); 

those who have applied for one of the forms of international protection referred to in the above 
point and have not yet received a final decision; 

those who enjoy temporary protection within the meaning of Directive 2001/55/EC (Temporary 
Protection Directive); 

 

those who are being or have been resettled in or transferred from an Member States; 

  TCNs  who  are  residing  legally  or,  where  appropriate,  are  in  the  process  of  acquiring  legal 

residence in an Member States; 

  TCNs  who  have  not  yet  received  a final  negative  decision on  their  request to  stay,  their  legal 
residence and/or international protection in an Member States, and who may choose to make use 
of voluntary return; 

25   Horizontal Regulation and the Specific Regulation Chapter II, Art. 5. 

13 

 
                                                            
  TCNs  enjoying  the  right  to  stay,  legal  residence  and/or  international  protection  within  the 
meaning  of  Directive  2011/95/EU,  or  temporary  protection  within  the  meaning  of  Directive 
2001/55/EC in an Member States, and who have chosen to make use of voluntary return; 

  TCNs  who  are  present  in  an  Member  States  and  do  not  or  no  longer  fulfil  the  conditions  for 
entry  and/or  staying  in  an  Member  States,  including  those  TCNs  whose  removal  has  been 
postponed in accordance with Directive 2008/115/EC (Return Directive); 

  People  from  a  country  or  region  designated  for  the  implementation  of  a  regional  protection 

programme; 

  People from a country or region which has been identified in the UNHCR resettlement forecast 
and  where  EU  common  action  would  have  a  significant  impact  on  addressing  the  protection 
needs; and 

  People belonging to a specific category falling within the UNHCR resettlement criteria. 

This means that the Fund’s beneficiaries — those implementing the actions supported by the Fund 
—  range  from  national,  federal,  regional  or  local  public  authorities  to  international  organisations, 
non-governmental organisations in civil society, humanitarian organisations, private and public law 
companies, education and research organisations. 

Eligible actions 

The  eligible  actions  under  AMIF  are  listed  in  Articles  5  to  13,  Article 20  and  Annex  II  of  the 
Specific Regulation. These include: (i) providing support services and assistance, (ii) setting up and 
improving  administrative  structures,  (iii)  training  for  staff,  (iv) establishing  and  developing 
reception,  accommodation  and  transit  centres,  (v) information  for  local  communities,  (vi)  actions 
concerning  resettlement  and  humanitarian  admission  programmes,  and  (vii) setting  up  of 
transnational cooperation networks and pilot projects, etc. 

The eligible actions under technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission and the technical 
assistance  at  the  initiative  of  the  Member  States  are  listed  in  Articles  9  and  20  of  the  Horizontal 
Regulation.  These  include:  (i) expenditure  relating  to  preparing,  selecting,  appraising,  managing 
and  monitoring  the  programme,  actions  or  projects  or  audits  and  on-the-spot  checks,  (ii) 
strengthening 
information  and  dissemination,  and  (iv) 
computerised systems for managing, monitoring and evaluating the programme, etc. 

the  administrative  capacity,  (iii) 

Financial allocations, top-ups and management modes 

AMIF  is  implemented  through  (i) shared  management  in  shared  responsibility  with  the  Member 
States,  (ii) direct  management  by  the  Commission  or  indirect  management  by  an  entrusted  third 
party, and (iii) the EMN that disseminates objective and reliable data on migration and asylum. A 
more detailed description can be found in sub-chapter 3.1 on page 18. 

The total resources for AMIF’s implementation period 2014-2020 have been initially estimated at 
EUR 3 137 million26, so divided: 

  EUR 2 752  million  or  88 %  of  the  total  amount,  managed  by  Member  States  under  the 
framework of multiannual national programmes (shared management) and of which EUR 360 
million dedicated to specific actions for the Union resettlement programme; 

26   From the budgetary point of view, this amount was divided into two budgetary lines: asylum and solidarity with 
EUR 1 457 million (46 %), legal migration and integration with EUR 1 663 million (53%) and technical assistance 
for the Commission with EUR 16.8 million. 

14 

 
                                                            
  EUR 385  million  or  12 %,  managed  by  the  Commission  under  annual  work  programmes 
focusing on Union actions, Emergency assistance (EMAS), the EMN and technical assistance of 
the Commission (direct or indirect management). 

In response to the unforeseen needs provoked by the migration crisis of 2015 and 2016, this budget 
was substantially increased through top-ups to support the relocation and resettlement, integration 
and return, the revision of the Dublin Regulation, channelled through the national programmes, the 
Union  actions  and  EMAS  and  in  order  to  show  solidarity  and  share  the  burden  with  the  most 
affected  Member  States.  By  the  end  of  2017,  these  top-ups  increased  the  AMIF  budget  from 
EUR 3 751 million to the current total of EUR 6 888 million, representing an increase of 120 %. 

As a result, current AMIF resources are approximatively as follows27: 

  EUR 5 391 million or 78 % allocated for the national programmes; 

  EUR 462 million or 7 % for the Union actions other than EMAS; 

  EUR 1 029 or 15 % for EMAS. 

2.2.2  AMIF’s intervention logic 

The table below, based on the legal basis, presents the key aspects of the functioning of the  Fund, 
including  the  policy  areas  that  it  covers  and  the  specific  needs  and  objectives  that  it  seeks  to 
address, all in correlation with the EU resources allocated. In setting out the causal links between 
AMIF’s activities, outputs, results and impacts, the intervention logic helps to make clear what the 
Fund is aiming to achieve, how it will achieve it and with what. 

27   The sum of this is slightly inferior to the financial programming (EUR 6 888 million) because by the date the report 

was drafted some budget adjustments were still ongoing. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                            
16 

 
 
 
3  IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

3.1  Description of the implementation processes 

AMIF  is  implemented  either  directly  by  the  Commission  (direct  management),  by  the  Member 
States (shared management), or indirectly by entrusting the budget implementation to a third party28 
(indirect management). 

For  shared  management,  at  the  beginning  of  the  programming  period,  all  Member  States  had  a 
policy dialogue with the Commission to enable the national programmes to be the prepared. Based 
on  the  outcome  of  these  dialogues,  the  Member  States  proposed  their  multiannual  national 
programmes.  The  Commission  examined  these  programmes,  consulted  relevant  agencies  and 
eventually approved each national programme. 

To implement their national programmes, Member States had to set up a management and control 
system29. The Commission follows the implementation under shared management by examining the 
annual implementation reports and accounts submitted yearly by the Member States. 

Member States are expected to submit two national evaluation reports: an interim evaluation report 
by  the  end  of  2017  and  an  ex  post  evaluation  report  by  the  end  of  2023.  The  Commission  takes 
these reports into account in its interim and  ex post evaluations of the Fund which are sent to the 
European Parliament, to the Council of the EU, to the European Economic and Social Committee 
and to the Committee of the Regions by 30 June 2018 and 20 June 2024 respectively. 

In light of the interim evaluation reports submitted by the Member States, and developments in EU 
policies and in the Member States, a mid-term review of the situation is planned for the middle of 
the programming  period,  i.e.  2018 (Art. 15 of the Horizontal Regulation).  Based on the outcome, 
national programmes can be revised and additional available resources can be allocated to those. 

Within  the  national  programmes,  Member  States  are  required  to  allocate  a  minimum  of  20 %  of 
their  total  allocation  of  the  Fund  to  asylum  and  reception,  i.e.  strengthening  and  developing  all 
aspects of the CEAS, and 20 % to integration, i.e. in support of legal migration and integration of 
TCNs30.  Member  States  may  depart  from  those  minimum  percentages  only  where  (i)  a  detailed 
explanation  is  included  as  to  why  allocating  resources  below  this  level  does  not  jeopardise  the 
achievement of the objective, and (ii) if the Member States is not faced with structural deficiencies 
in the area of accommodation, infrastructure and services. 

A  small  part  was  initially  allocated  to  Member  States  so  they  could  (i)  transfer  beneficiaries  of 
international  protection,  (ii)  implement  the  Union  resettlement  programme,  and  (iii) implement 
specific  actions  (actions  implemented  under  the  national  programmes,  although  they  respond  to 
specific EU strategic priorities). 

In the case of resettlement, the allocation is based on pledging (the number of people identified by a 
Member States  to  be  resettled, to  take place  every two years).  The funding for specific  actions is 
allocated based on proposals submitted by the Member States, when the Commission invites them 
to do so. In order to respond to the migration crisis, show solidarity and share the burden with those 

28   These  parties  can  be  countries  or  the  bodies  they  have  designated,  international  organisations  and  their  agencies 

(Article 58(1) of Regulation no 966/2012). 
29   Horizontal Regulation (EU) 514/2014, Section 2. 
30   Art 15 1.(a) of the Horizontal Regulation. 

17 

 
                                                            
under  the  most  pressure,  the  Council  adopted  two  decisions31  on  relocating  asylum  seekers  from 
Italy and Greece to other Member States where their asylum applications would be processed (see 
also sub-chapter 3.2.1 below). 

A  small  amount  of  money  equal  to  5.5 %  of  the  total  national  allocation  plus  EUR 1  million  is 
reserved in the national programmes for technical assistance. 

Moreover,  each  Member  States  needs  to  establish  a  partnership  with  relevant  stakeholders 
including, other public authorities, international organisations, NGOs and social partners, in order to 
prepare, implement, monitor and evaluate the national programmes. Stakeholders meet regularly in 
a monitoring committee set up to follow the national programme’s implementation32. 

The share of the budget managed by the Commission is subject to annual work programmes (annual 
work programmes) for Union actions. This share comprises: 

  grants (awarded on the basis of open or restricted calls for proposals or directly); 

  procurement (awarded on the basis of calls for tender or framework contracts); and 

  delegation agreements (actions that are entrusted to third parties). 

The  projects  selected  receive  in  co-financing  a  maximum  of  90 %  of  the  eligible  costs.  EMAS  is 
considered a specific type of Union action. 

In addition, the EMN plays an essential role in better equipping the EU to respond to the challenges 
on  migration  and  asylum,  by  providing  policymakers  and  the  wider  public  with  up-to-date, 
objective, reliable  and  comparable information  in  these  areas.  Dissemination  of  information  takes 
place  primarily  via  the EMN  website  and  publications.  The  Commission  coordinates  the  EMN in 
cooperation with national contact points (EMN NCPs) appointed by the EU countries plus Norway. 
In  their  own  countries,  the  EMN  NCPs  form  national  networks  with  a  wide-range  of  relevant 
stakeholders. 

3.2  Description of the implementation status 

3.2.1  Shared management 

The  AMIF  instrument  to  undergo  the  biggest  increase  in  total  resources  allocated  is  shared 
management,  having  increased  from  EUR 2 752  million  (Regulation  516/2014)  to  EUR 5 391.5 
million  by  the  end  of  2017.  Of  these,  EUR 3 004  million  was  programmed  and  spent  during  the 
2014-2017 period, almost three times compared to the originally envisaged amount of EUR 1 404 
million. 

The  recent  top-ups  to  the  budget  for  shared  management  were  earmarked  to  support  the  two 
relocation  schemes  adopted  to  support  Italy  and  Greece  (EUR 651  million),  the  EU  resettlement 
programme  (EUR 679  million)  and  the  resettlement  —  legal  admission  from  Turkey  (EUR 193 
million). The current EU allocation for shared management is shown in the diagram in Figure 1. 

Member States agreed in July 2015 to resettle over 22 000 people in need of international protection 
during the period 2015-2017. They also agreed in March 2016 under the EU-Turkey Statement to 

31   Council Decision 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international 
protection  for  the  benefit  of  Italy  and  of  Greece  and  Council  Decision  of  2015/1601  of  22 September  2015 
establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece. 

32   Article 20 of the Horizontal Regulation. 

18 

 
                                                            
resettle  up  to  54 000  Syrian  refugees  from  Turkey  (in  exchange  for  Syrians  being  returned  to 
Turkey). As of the end of 2017, 25 980 people had been resettled under both EU schemes. 

Figure 2 shows the number of people pledged by the Member States to be resettled under the EU 
resettlement  programme  and  from  Turkey  (legally  admitted),  as  compared  to  the  actual  rate  of 
people being effectively resettled, by the end of 2017. In total all 27 participating Member States 
have  pledged  to  resettle  under  the  EU  resettlement  scheme  and  12  of  them  have  also  pledged  to 
resettle under the legal admission scheme. The graph omits the seven Member States that have only 
pledged to resettle under the EU resettlement programme and who have yet to resettle anyone (MT 
— 14, SK — 100, CY — 138, BG — 160, HR — 350, EL — 354, PL — 900). 

Figure 1: AMIF contribution to the shared management (national programmes) as of end 2017 

19 

 
 
Figure 2: Number of people as pledged to be resettled under the EU resettlement programme and under the legal admission scheme, 
with rates of people effectively resettled, by the Member States, as of end of 2017 

Another  way  to  look  at  how  the  Fund  has  been  implemented  over  2014-2017  is  by analysing  the 
rate  of  implementation33  together  with  the  level  of  payments  made  to  the  responsible  authorities. 
These rates can reflect the ability of central and local authorities to prepare, finance and supervise 
the use of the Fund towards achieving its objectives. Possible reasons that help to explain why the 
level  of  payments  is  still  relatively  low  include:  (i)  late  approval  of  most  of  the  national 
programmes  and  thus  the  lack  of  completed  projects;  (ii)  complexity  and  length  of  public 
procurement  rules  that  delayed  implementation;  (iii)  administrative  burden  (i.e.  reporting  on  the 
accounts) that delayed implementation; and (iv) low pre-financing rates, hampering Member States 
commitment and the resulting payments34. 

However, the implementation rate shows that Member States are actually much more advanced in their 
implementation on the ground and that the difference is expected to be claimed in the financial records 
over the following years. 

A good example of this is presented in Figure 3, which shows the implementation rates for 2016 (dark 
green) against the payments made in 2016 (light green) and the implementation rate for 2017 (dark red) 
against the payments made in 2017 (light red). While the payments show the amounts spent and verified 
during the first 4 years (light green and light red), the implementation rates show the actual 
implementation on the ground in the Member States (dark green and dark red), meaning there is an 
important acceleration of the activities as well a certain lapse of time between the activities taking place 
and the registration of the respective financial expenditure linked to them. With 3 more years to go, this 
might indicate that for a few Member States the full use of their allocation is easily within reach, while for 
others this could still be done with an increased effort. 

33   Implementation  shows  the  level  of  grant  contracts  signed  by  a  responsible  authority  (amount  committed  by  the 
Member  States)  against  the  allocation  available  for  the  2014-2020  period  of  that  same  country.  The  level  of 
payments is the amount cleared (accounts) by the Commission to a responsible authority against the Member States 
allocation for the seven-year period. 

34   Conclusions of the AMIF-ISF Committee Questionnaire, 2016 and interviews with Commission's officials. 

20 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 3: National programmes — Implementation rate (dark green 2016 & dark red 2017) with levels of payments (light green 2016 
& light red 2017) 

The following graph shows an increasing trend in the Fund payments made in 2015, 2016 and 2017 to the 
Member States. The total amount of payments made is EUR 103 million for 2015, EUR 363 million in 2016 
and EUR 602 million in 2017 and the global amount for the whole period 2015-2017 is of EUR 1 068 million. 

Figure 4: Payments made to Member States accounts in 2015, 2016 and 2017 

3.2.2  Direct management 

Union actions 

By the end of 2017, EUR 462 million had been allocated through direct and indirect management to 
Union actions and EMN activities covering the entire programming period 2014-2020, out of which 
EUR 336 million was spent during 2014-2017 (EUR 44 million in 2014, EUR 49 million in 2015, 
EUR 51  million  in  2016  and  EUR 193  million  in  2017).  Around  24 %  was  assigned  to  projects 
covering the specific objectives of asylum and solidarity whereas the remaining 76 % was assigned 
to projects covering the specific objectives of legal migration and integration and return. 

21 

 
 
 
By the end of June 2017, four calls for proposals were launched (summarised in Figure 5)35 and 42 
Union actions projects had been awarded funding, most of them on a multiannual basis. Of the 42 
Union  actions  financed  by  AMIF,  the  majority  concerned  integration  (13  projects),  followed  by 
projects related to preventing trafficking in human beings (8), and asylum (6). 

Figure 5: Number of Union actions per call during 2014-2017 

Additionally,  the  Commission  funded  14  projects  via  the  direct  award  method,  which  range  from 
funding  for  the  regional  development  and  protection  programmes  (RDPPs)  and  the  Readmission 
Capacity Building Facility, to funding for the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), , 
the  International  Organisation  for  Migration  (IOM)  and  the  UNHCR,  the  European  Reintegration 
Network (ERIN), various information campaigns, OECD studies, and a pilot project on resettlement 
and alternative European models to providing protection to refugees. 

Emergency assistance 

EMAS  is  the  AMIF  instrument  to  have  the  second  greatest  increase  in  total  resources  allocated, 
having passed from an initial programmed amount of EUR 95 million for 2014-2017 to EUR 929 
million  (or  from  160  to  1 029  million  for  the  entire  programming  period)  distributed  as  follows: 
EUR 126  million  in  2015;  EUR 406.5  million  in  2016;  EUR 396  million  in  2017;  and  EUR 50 
million, EUR 25 million and EUR 25 million respectively for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020. 

A total of 45 emergency actions were funded under AMIF during 2014-2017. Most of these actions 
were implemented in 2015 and 2016, during the height of the migration crisis (24 actions in 2016, 
13 in 2015, 7 in 2014 and 1 in 2017). See Figure 6 and Figure 7 for the distribution of actions per 
country, and, where relevant, for distinguishing between the actions carried out by Member States 
and  by  international  actors  (the  IOM,  the  UNHCR  and  the  European  Asylum  Support  Office 
(EASO)), as well as the amounts awarded and payments made so far (implementation rate). 

The EMAS instrument was used to respond to immediate emergency needs, including (i) providing 
basic  needs  like  food,  shelter  and  medical  care  to  refugees,  (ii) providing  reception  services  and 
support to unaccompanied minors, (iii) the strengthening of asylum services’ capacity to be able to 
cope with large numbers of applications, and (iv) providing support to asylum seekers returning to 
their country of origin and the relocation schemes. Such activities were most pressing in frontline 
countries  like  Greece,  Italy  and  Bulgaria,  where  the  sudden  influx  of  migrants  during  2015-2016 
was most notable. 

35   ASYL  2014  —  Asylum  Action  Grants;  INTE  2015  —  Actions  in  the  area  of  Integration;  THBX  2015–  Actions 
addressing Trafficking in Human Beings, in particular the integration and the safe and sustainable return of victims 
of trafficking in human beings; and FRTM 2015 — Actions in the area of Monitoring of Forced Return. 

22 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 6: Number of EMAS grants awarded by Member States and implementing actor 

Figure 7: Emergency assistance by Member States and per year (source: European Commission) 

European Migration Network 

Funding to the EMN is allocated to the Member States national contact points annually. The budget 
for  the  implementing  EMN  activities  totalled  EUR 6.2  million  for  2014,  EUR 13.4  million  for 
2015-2016,  and  EUR 23.9  million  for  the  2017-2018.  As  of  30 June  2017,  a  total  of  EUR 15.2 
million had been spent on EMN activities over the 2014-2017 period. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
4  METHOD 

4.1  Short description of the methodology36 

This interim evaluation assesses how the Fund has worked so far and intends to inform the national 
authorities, the EU institutions, the stakeholders and the general public about the key achievements 
and limitations of AMIF37. The evaluation includes the analysis of the legal basis in relation to the 
needs  and  actions  implemented  and  the  key  changes  implemented  under  AMIF  relative  to  its 
predecessors, as well as the outlook for the remaining implementation period 2017-2020. This is the 
summative dimension. 

The evaluation identifies several lessons learnt to inform the Commission and the Member States on 
how they could address weaknesses and overcome obstacles, to ensure that during the second half 
of the implementation period corrective measures are taken and their impact is minimised. This is 
the formative dimension (see also the key findings in Chapter 6). This forward-looking aspect of the 
evaluation will also contribute to preparing the next generation of funding instruments, post 2020. 

This  interim  evaluation  of  AMIF  has  been  carried  out  by  an  external  expert  group  and  has  been 
coordinated  by  the  HOME  Funds  Evaluation  Team  in  Unit  E3  of  the  Commission’s  Directorate-
General  for  Migration  and  Home  Affairs  with  the  support  of  an  Inter-Service  Steering  Group 
comprising other Commission services, which has met four times on 24 October and 15 December 
2017 and on 1 February and 8 March 2018. 

The external study of the interim evaluation started in September 2017 and has been guided by Terms of 
Reference adopted by the Commission. It has been based on the following data sources. 

  Legal  acts  of  the  funds  including  the  Specific  Regulations,  the  Horizontal  Regulation, 

implementing and delegated acts, CEAS directives and regulations; 

  Joint EU resettlement programme and respective reports; Commission reports to the European 

Parliament and the Council on the application of various directives and regulations; 

  National  programmes  of  the  participating  Member  States;  management  and  control  systems, 

annual implementation reports and annual accounts; and national interim evaluations; 

  Union actions: 

o  Commission annual work programmes; 

o  grant agreements signed with awarded beneficiaries; and 

o 

interim and final reports of the beneficiaries having implemented Union actions; 

  Emergency assistance: 

o  Commission annual work programmes for emergency assistance; 

o  grant agreements signed with awarded beneficiaries; and 

o 

interim and final reports of the beneficiaries having implemented EMAS actions; 

  European Migration Network reports and studies; 

  Reports  of  the  Commission’s  monitoring  visits  (shared  and  direct  management);  audit  reports 

drafted by Member States’ audit authorities or by or on behalf of the Commission; 

36   A detailed description of the methodology has been added in Annex 2. 
37   For the implementation period 2014-2017. 

24 

 
                                                            
  Ex post evaluations: 

o  Ex  post  evaluations  2011-2013  of  the  European  Refugee  Fund,  of  the  European  Fund 
for the Integration of third country nationals, and of the European Return Fund; and 

o 

 Ex post evaluation of the framework programme ‘Security and Safeguarding Liberties 
(2007-2013)’, composed of the two programmes — CIPS and ISEC; 

  Relevant EU strategies, action plans, communications, recommendations; other relevant studies 

originating in the academic sector or produced by other institutions; 

  Reports and statistics from EU Agencies operating in the justice and home affairs/migration and 

security area; DG Migration and Home Affairs statistics; Eurostat; 

  Consultations of stakeholders. 

4.2  Evaluation questions 

In line with the Better Regulation guidelines, this interim evaluation addresses evaluation questions 
structured around the five evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and 
EU  added  value,  as  well  as  the  criteria  of  complementarity,  sustainability  and  simplification  and 
reduction of administrative burden introduced by the Horizontal Regulation38. 

An  overview  of  the  answers  to  the  evaluation  questions  can  be  found  in  Chapter  5,  while  the 
complete list of questions as set in the legal base can be found in Annex 4. 

4.3  Limitations and robustness of findings 

As  not  enough  time  has  lapsed  since  the  programming  period  began  and  the  Fund  is  still  being 
implemented,  the  interim  evaluation  is  neither  expected  nor  able  to  produce  a  full  picture  of  the 
programme’s results and impacts. Therefore it cannot draw final conclusions, Most projects, many 
of which are multiannual, are still ongoing, therefore assessing them is very challenging — projects 
completed under the national programmes at the time of this evaluation represent only 8 % of the 
projects started while 25% of the funding allocated has been used. 

Whereas for some actions, effects may be expected within a short-term period, such as an increased 
capacity in the reception facilities, this period is too short for many results and wider impacts to be 
seen. Some actions have many incremental and short-term effects — easier to capture and to report 
on  —  whereas  long-term  actions  (such  as  integration  of  third  country  nationals  or  the  solidarity 
among  Member  States)  might  produce  more  significant  effects  in  the longer  term  (e.g.  10  years). 
These  effects  are  more  difficult  to  capture  through  the  usual  indicator  systems,  which  stop 
collecting data at the end of the projects’ life. 

Concerning the indicators, there is a lack of benchmarks to compare performance, mainly because 
AMIF  and  the  ISF  are  the  first  home  affairs  programmes  to  have  a  common  monitoring  and 
evaluation framework (CMEF)  and a set of indicators (a list  of 18 common output indicators  has 
been provided by the Horizontal Regulation, while the CMEF Delegated Regulation sets a list of 24 
common  result  and  impact  indicators).  At  the  same  time,  the  stakeholders  deem  that  the  relevant 
indicators can be further improved. 

There  has  been  a  lack  of  quality  in  the  data  and  in  the  Member  States  annual  implementation 
reports, partly because the CMEF and all the guidance arrived later in the process (early 2017). 

38   Regulation (EU) No 514/2014. 

25 

 
                                                            
Limitations  also  include  issues  related  to  data  availability  and  the  measurability  of  impacts  (for 
example, most of AMIF’s indicators focus on outputs). Often these context indicators are not linked 
to  the  Fund’s  specific  objectives  (e.g.  unemployment  rate).  Therefore,  it  is  really  difficult  to 
attribute the observed changes to the Fund. Measuring, for example, the sustainability of effects of 
actions may not be entirely possible because many of the actions are still being implemented, and 
there  is  no  consistent  monitoring  of  long-lasting  effects  (instead,  the  likelihood  of  actions 
continuing has been assessed). 

Concerning  the  open  public  consultation  provided  for  in  the  Better  Regulation  guidelines,  the 
Commission  has  worked  on  the  future  multiannual  financial  framework  in  clusters  setting  up  a 
streamlined  consultation  that  covered  both  forward  and  backward  looking  questions  on  the 
programmes.  Launching  a  specific  consultation  for  the  mid-term  evaluations  could  have  created 
confusion  and  not  provided  much  added  value  compared  to  the  broader  exercise.  In  this  context, 
350  answers  and  52  position  papers  or  contributions  have  been  received.  The  open  public 
consultation for the interim evaluation was therefore replaced by a targeted consultation (involving 
beneficiaries  of  Union  actions)  which  has  finally  been  used  to  contextualise  the  findings.  This 
consultation only received input from 17 participants. 

These  limitations  have  been  mitigated  to  the  extent  possible,  by  transparently  providing  the  data 
sources,  all  of  which  are  made  publicly  available.  The  analysis  of  the  evidence  has  allowed  the 
Commission services to identify data availability and quality problems that could be dealt with over 
the  course  of  the  interim  evaluation.  Conclusions  are  then  drawn,  where  possible,  based  on  the 
triangulation of evidence from various data sources. Whenever possible, the ex post evaluations of 
the preceding SOLID programmes have been used as a benchmark. 

26 

 
 
5 

 ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1  How effective has AMIF been so far 

This  evaluation  question  aims  to  provide  an  insight  into  whether  AMIF  is  on  track  to  meet  its 
objectives.  The  Fund  has  four  specific  objectives:  (i)  one  linked  to  CEAS  and  its  external 
dimension,  (ii)  one  to  legal  migration  and  integration,  (iii) one  to  return  and  combating  illegal 
immigration, and (iv) one to solidarity. 

Contextual  factors  in  the  first  half  of  the  programming  period  have  significantly  influenced  the 
effectiveness of AMIF: the unprecedented and unforeseen influx of migrants and asylum seekers in 
2015  and  2016  put  a  severe  strain  on  several  Member  States  asylum  and  reception  systems,  and 
continue to affect legal migration, integration and return policies. The EU sought political solutions 
that  would  manage  the  humanitarian  crisis  through  mechanisms  aiming  to  alleviate  the  pressures 
experienced.  AMIF’s  implementation  was  delayed  because  of  these  events39.  Within  this  difficult 
context,  AMIF  proved  to  be  an  important  instrument  in  handling  the  situation,  by  providing 
emergency  support  in  the  short  term  and  building  up  the  capacity  of  the  asylum,  integration  and 
return systems in the long term. The findings show that progress varies across AMIF instruments, 
specific objectives and Member States, but when considered together, they have offered a holistic 
approach that has contributed to the Fund’s overall objectives. 

These exogenous factors, and most notably the migration crisis itself, have demonstrated the extent 
of the flexibility of the Fund and of the EU budget as a whole, as well as the great potential of the 
EU  in  terms  of  solidarity  and  burden-sharing.  However,  they  have  also  transformed  the  Fund  in 
such a way that almost everything that has been re-prioritised or negatively prioritised during these 
past  3  years  could  be  explained  by  emerging  urgent  needs  resulting  from  the  crisis.  As  a 
consequence,  the  interim  evaluation  views  the  Fund  as  being  very  different  from  what  it  was 
initially intended to be (its volume has more than doubled), having been continuously working in 
crisis-mode until now. 

5.1.1  Effectiveness in strengthening CEAS and its external dimension40 

In a nutshell 

AMIF  has  played  an  important  role  in  improving  asylum  systems  and  strengthening  reception 
capacity  in  the  Member  States.  Due  to  the  migration  crisis,  the  area  of  asylum  was  especially 
prioritised in many countries. The Fund also paid special attention to the most vulnerable, including 
unaccompanied minors, and refugees and asylum seekers in difficult regions like the north and the 
Horn of Africa. 

However, there is limited evidence of increased capacity to develop, monitor and evaluate asylum 
systems, and, while the EU resettlement programme has been making big progress so far, there is 

39   15  Member  States  —  AT,  BE,  DE,  EE,  EL,  ES,  FI,  FR,  HR,  IT,  LT,  LU,  LV,  MT  and  SI  —  stressed  in  their 
evaluation reports that the migration crisis posed challenges in the implementation of their national programmes. 
40   Progress made towards strengthening and developing the asylum procedures; Progress made towards strengthening 
and developing the reception conditions; Progress made towards a successful implementation of the Qualification 
Directive;  Progress  made  towards  strengthening  Member  States  capacity  to  develop,  monitor  and  evaluate  their 
asylum  policies  and  procedures;  Progress  made  towards  the  establishment,  development  and  implementation  of 
national resettlement programmes and strategies, and other humanitarian admission programmes. 

27 

 
                                                            
limited  contribution  towards  establishing,  developing  and  implementing  national  resettlement 
programmes. 

AMIF instruments contributed in varying degrees to strengthening the CEAS, but mainly through 
the following: 

  There was a focus on aspects of the CEAS such as asylum procedures and reception conditions 
(areas prioritised, not least due to the migration crisis), but also to a lesser extent resettlement. 

  Collaboration  on  common  standards  on  asylum  was  enabled.  Beneficiaries  of  Union  actions 
have underlined how regional or supra-regional collaboration and exchange actions, lead, in the 
long  run,  to  common  standards  in  the  area  of  migration  (particularly  true  for  countries 
experiencing higher refugee flows for the first time and whose systems are not developed). 

  There  was  increased  reception  capacity  during  the  unprecedented  migration  crisis. EMAS  has 
been a very effective way of providing reception accommodation, basic services and additional 
capacity (the effectiveness of EMAS remains relative to the country’s initial preparedness and 
capacity for dealing with emergency situations). 

  Solidarity between Member States was demonstrated, with the EMAS instrument having proved 
it can provide important added value, particularly where it was only a fraction of the national 
budget. 

AMIF’s contribution to developing and improving reception and asylum systems in the Member 
States  is  visible across  instruments, with  national  programmes,  EMAS,  and  Union  actions  having 
played the main role, while the EMN has mostly and indirectly contributed to the wider debate on 
the topic. Evidence shows that the actions resulted in strengthened reception systems, strengthened 
accommodation (infrastructure) capacity, and better services being provided. 

The strengthened asylum procedures have been achieved through increased capacity in Member 
States  (local)  authorities,  by  covering  Member  States  costs  related  to  asylum  procedures  (mainly 
EMAS and national programmes41), or by facilitating the design of new approaches towards asylum 
procedures. For example, between 2013 and 2017, the number of people in target groups provided 
with Fund assistance (in reception and asylum systems) increased from 18 944 to 184 122, and of 
these,  the  share  of  people  benefiting  from  legal  assistance  has  risen  from  1 %  (120)  to  27 % 
(49 202)42. 

AMIF  (mainly  national  programmes  and  EMAS)  has  strongly  strengthened  those  reception 
conditions that were put under extreme pressure in 2015 and 2016, thus making it one of the most 
important topics for many Member States, and becoming one of the Fund’s most visible results so 
far. This was achieved through:  

 

increasing the reception accommodation infrastructure capacity across Europe43; 

41   AT, EL, PL and the UK have reported significant progress; BE, DE, EE, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, NL, PT, RO, SE 
and SL have reported moderate progress; CZ and IE had no projects financed concerning asylum procedures; CY, 
FI, LU, LV, MT and SK did not carry out an assessment. 

42   Additionally, the number of people trained by the Fund in asylum-related topics increased from less than 1 000 in 
2015 to 7 031 in 2017. Despite a peak of 433 462 pending cases with a duration of 6 months, in 2016, the share of 
final positive decisions at appeal stage has remained fairly constant over time (22%) (source: SFC2014). 

43   The yearly capacity set up as a result of projects supported under the Fund increased significantly from 1 109 in 
2013 to over 7 000 in 2016 and 2017. The largest number was set up in FR — 1 500 new places per year between 
2014 and 2017, BG — 4 200 places in 2016, and ES — 4 934 places in 2017. 

28 

 
                                                            
 

increasing  the  capacity  of  local  authorities  to  deal  with  the  high  number  of  applicants  (for 
example, concerning registration and first help); and 

  developing  already  existing  reception  centres  and  improving  the  services  provided  through, 
among  other  things,  additional  staff  (with  a  special  focus  on  health  care  and  psycho-social 
assistance). 

As a result, asylum seekers benefited from a more dignified, safe and healthy environment upon and 
after arrival. 

The  number  of  places  adapted  for  unaccompanied  minors,  an  especially  vulnerable  migrant 
group and one which was particularly focused on in some Member States, also rose from a low 183 
places in 2014 to 17 070 places in 2017, most of them in Italy (13 194 in 2017). 

AMIF contributed moderately towards improving the implementation of the recast Qualification 
Directive,  mainly  through  increasing  staff  and  hiring  experts  (national  programmes),  training 
employees working in the asylum process (EMAS) and harmonising the asylum procedures such as 
setting forensic standards for medical examinations (Union actions and the EMN)44. These actions 
have contributed to strengthening legal certainty in a few Member States (CY, FI, HR, HU, PT and 
SE)  as  indicated  by  the  convergence  of  first  instance  and  final  instance  recognition  rates  for 
applications  from  the  same  third  country  of  origin  in  these  same  Member  States45.  In  other 
participating Member States there is no clear convergence. 

Concerning resettlement, the EU resettlement programme has received increasing support from the 
Fund.  While  the  ERF  lacked  incentives  to  encourage  Member  States  to  engage  in  resettlement 
projects,  and  its  ex  post  evaluation  recommended  that  intra-EU  transfers  be  incentivised  and  a 
specific  budget  be  dedicated  for  resettlement  projects  and  programmes,  Member  States  agreed  in 
July 2015 to an EU resettlement scheme for 2015-2017 for 22 000 people in need of international 
protection and in March 2016 to an EU-Turkey Statement agreement that the EU would accept up 
to  54 000  Syrian  refugees  from  Turkey  in  exchange  of  returning  to  Turkey  all  irregular  migrants 
who  crossed  from  Turkey  to  the  Greek  islands46.  By  the  end  of  2017,  almost  26  000  people  had 
been resettled under both EU schemes (see Figure 8 below and more details in sub-chapter 3.2.1, on 
page 19). 

Today, 81 % of the 27 Member States who used AMIF are implementing today resettlement, in a 
way  or  another,  compared  to  only  15 %  in  the  previous  funding  period.  Notably,  there  is  an 
essential  difference  between  the  specific  objective  ‘Solidarity’  that  promotes  capacity  building  in 
Member States for resettlement (with a long-term effect) and the EU resettlement programme that 
financially incentivises Member States to resettle people (with immediate visible results). 

However, findings from the evaluation show limited evidence of increased capacity in the Member 
States  to  develop,  monitor  and  evaluate  asylum  systems  and  procedures,  as  well  as  limited 

44   On the other hand, when looking at the common indicators (SO1 I6 — Convergence of first instance/final instance 
recognition rates by Member States for asylum applicants from a same third country), the Fund’s contribution is not 
clear, although we can observe an increased convergence over time in some countries (CY, FI, HR, HU, PT and 
SE); in others we observe either an increasing divergence (AT, IE and SK), a change in direction (BG and LV) or 
an up and down movement — divergence and convergence — over time (BE, DE, EL, ES, LT, NL and the UK). 
45   There is either an increasing divergence (AT, IE and SK), a change in direction (BG and LV) or an up and down 
movement over time — first experienced a divergence in 2014 and/or 2015 and a convergence in 2016 (BE, DE, 
LT, NL and the UK). 

46   The aim of the agreement was to break the business model of the smugglers and to offer migrants an alternative to 

putting their lives at risk (hence the name legal admission agreement). 

29 

 
                                                            
progress  towards  establishing,  developing  and  implementing  national  resettlement  programmes47 
(mainly through the EMN) and strategies48. Among the participating countries the results under this 
objective  provide  a  mixed  picture,  because  (i)  Member  States  were  focusing  on  other  types  of 
actions in order to respond to the crisis, and, (ii) as the supporting evidence remains limited, many 
of the results of the work undertaken until now have yet to materialise fully49. 

Figure 8: Overview of the EU resettlement programme 2014-2017 

Finally, along with other sources, the Fund contributed to developing an external dimension, most 
notably through two RDPPs (one in the north of Africa and one in the Horn of Africa). These were 
initiatives from the EU, Member States and other partners (international organisations) designed to 
help  host  communities  in  third  countries  protect  refugees,  and  strengthen  the  capacities  of  local 
authorities in managing migration. 

AMIF has so far funded grants under the 2015 and 2016 annual work programmes to each of the 
two RDPPs. In total, 16 actions in various countries50, have received up to EUR 30 million from the 
Fund.  Actions  focused  on:  (i)  child  protection,  (ii)  reducing  the  risk  of  sexual  and  gender-based 
violence  including  medical  or  psychological  assistance,  (iii)  advocacy  and  awareness  raising,  (iv) 

47   BE,  FR,  IT,  LT,  SK  and  the  UK  have  reported  significant  progress;  EE,  ES,  HU,  LV  and  RO  have  reported 
moderate progress; IE reported no progress; CY, CZ, EL, PT, SL had no relevant projects carried out; AT, DE, FI, 
HR, LU, MT, NL, PL and SE made no assessment; BG did not report. 

48   AT,  BE,  ES, FR,  HU, IT  and  the UK have  reported  significant  progress; CZ,  DE, FI  and LV reported  moderate 
progress; no Member States reported no progress, although BG, HR, IE, LU, NL, PT and RO made no assessment, 
while CY, EE, EL, LT, MT, PL, SE, SK and SL had no relevant project financed by AMIF implemented in this 
area. 

49   Worth  mentioning  the  European  resettlement  Network  and  the  Facilitating  Resettlement  and  Refugee  Admission 
project,  aimed  at  providing  support  to  new  resettlement  countries  and  at  supporting  the  cooperation  among 
resettlement practitioners. 

50   Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Sudan, Tunisia. 

30 

 
 
                                                            
vocational training for young people, (v) improving protection for refugees and asylum seekers, and 
(vi) improving the refugee registration and status determination processes. 

Positive results from the support provided by the Fund include:  

 

 

the  medical  support  and  non-food  items  provided  to  migrants  which  aim  to  address  specific 
vulnerabilities  at  disembarkation  ports  and 
their 
rescue/interception at sea; 

in  detention  centres, 

following 

the  ‘case  de  passage’  (guesthouse)  set  up  in  Agadez  in  Niger  that  provides  temporary 
accommodation to asylum seekers and evacuees from Libya;  

  officials trained; 

  asylum seekers registered and provided with legal assistance and with health services; and 

reduced first instance Refugee Status Determination51 in the region. 

 
5.1.2  Effectiveness in supporting legal migration and in promoting effective integration52 

In a nutshell 

AMIF has made good progress on integration issues, where mainly short-term integration measures 
have  been  prioritised  over  long-term  measures,  while  limited  progress  has  been  made  on  legal 
migration  so  far,  likely  due  to  the  contextual  factors.  The  results  of  those  measures  are  not  yet 
visible, as integration is a long-term process. 

The  context  of  the  past  3  years  has  been  dominated  by  factors  such  as  the  high  influx  of  asylum 
seekers, coupled with limited labour market demand and very specific sectoral gaps that could be 
addressed  by  legal  migration.  This  has  thus  translated  into  national  programmes  that  have  not 
prioritised legal migration, and in turn have made little progress in supporting it53. Legal migration, 
whose main support comes from the EMN with research and knowledge sharing but also the Union 
actions54, may gain a stronger focus in the remaining programming period, because applications for 
family reunification may increase. 

51   Refugee  status  determination  means  an  examination  by  a  government  authority  or  UNHCR  of  whether  an 
individual  who  has  submitted  an  asylum  application  or  otherwise  expressed  his  or  her  need  for  international 
protection is indeed a refugee  – that is, whether his or her situation meets the criteria specified in the applicable 
refugee definition. A person does not become a refugee by virtue of a recognition decision by the host country or 
UNHCR, but is recognised because he or she is a refugee. In other words, the recognition decision is declaratory: it 
acknowledges  and  formally  confirms  that  the  individual  concerned  is  a  refugee.  (UNUNHCR,  Refugee  Status 
Determination. Identifying Who is a Refugee, http://www.refworld.org/docid/43141f5d4.html) 

52   Progress made towards supporting legal migration according to the economic and social needs of Member States; 
Progress  made  towards  promoting  the  effective  integration  of  third-country  nationals;  Progress  made  towards 
safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of Member States; Progress made towards building capacity 
on integration and legal migration. 

53   DE, HR, IT and PL proclaimed significant progress; BG, FR, LU and LV reported moderate progress; SE described 
no progress; AT, BE, CZ, EL, ES, FI, IE, LT, MT, PT, RO and SK (almost half of the Member States) did not carry 
out any project within this area and finally, CY, EE, HU, NL, SL and the UK made no assessment of the Fund’s 
contribution. 

54   The most visible contribution from the EMN to legal migration has been through ad hoc queries (28% of all ad hoc 
queries  in  2016),  covering  topics  such  as:  family  reunification,  conditions  to  grant  residence  permits  and  their 
period of validity, and student permits. EMN studies and ad hoc queries were said to be influential also at national 
level: EMN experts from the ad hoc query writing teams became part of working groups on the revision of EE’s 
quota system or the new legislation on residence permits for foreign investors in FI. Concerning the Union actions, 

31 

 
                                                            
The  number  of  target  group  people  who  participated  in  pre-departure  measures  supported  by  the 
Fund has been negligible in some Member States (HU, IE, LV) or nearly non-existent in the vast 
majority of countries between 2013 and 2017, accept for DE (725 072 in 2015, which fell to 8 880 
in  2017)  and  CY:  (0  in  2016  to  13 000  in  2017).  However,  when  analysing  progress  on  legal 
migration, it is relevant to take into account the increased number of TNCs that have obtained long-
term resident status (see also paragraphs below). 

As regards integration, AMIF prioritises short-term (e.g. civic orientation) over long-term measures 
(e.g. integration in the labour market, which would be eligible under the European Structural and 
Investment  Funds  (ESIF)).  The  need  for  the  first  measures  was  already  urgent  in  many  Member 
States,  due  to  the  high  influx  experienced.  Since  integration  is  by  definition  a  long-term  process, 
results are still difficult to capture, if any are available at all. 

While the labour market integration is highly dependent on demand and the skill profile of migrants 
(labour market offer), the unprecedented high number of asylum seekers has led to growing gaps in 
unemployment and educational levels and increased the risk of social exclusion between TCNs and 
host  country  nationals.  It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  AMIF  has 
helped  mitigate  this,  but  the  progress  made  is  visible,  with  1 432 612  TCNs  receiving  integration 
assistance through the Fund so far (675 251 in DE and 411 560 in ES). 

Complementary  to  AMIF’s  efforts,  ESIF  funds  also  achieved  progress  in  2015  and  2016,  seeing 
1 831 733  people  (mostly  in  FR,  DE,  ES,  IT  and  BE)  with  migrant  or  minority  background 
participating in integration projects related to social inclusion, educational and vocational training 
or  sustainable  quality  employment.  The  projects  on  social  inclusion  have  seen  853 000  people 
participating  (553  000  in  2016,  most  of  whom  are  in  FR,  DE,  BE,  NL  and  ES).  Some  674 000 
people participated in projects on sustainable quality employment (the majority in FR, IT and ES), 
while some 304 000 people participated in projects on educational and vocational training (of which 
219 000 in 2016, the majority in DE followed by BE, FR, ES and IT)55. 

AMIF’s main contribution towards promoting the effective integration of TCNs has come through 
national programmes strengthening public service organisations through the training of personnel, 
complementary  activities  such  as  language  courses  and  civic  orientation  information56.  For  most 
Member  States,  the  principal  form  of  support  was  education,  training,  democratic  participation 
courses and preparatory actions to  facilitate access to the labour market. The proportion of TCNs 
who received long-term residence status also increased from 30 % in 2013 to 44 % in 201657. 

Union  actions  also  contributed  to  integrating  TCNs  effectively,  with  activities  focusing  on 
providing  information  including  labour  market  related  training  or  networking,  capacity  building, 
identifying victims of trafficking and protection support. 

As  regards  supporting  cooperation  among  Member  States,  as  recommended  by  the  ex  post 
evaluation of the EIF, Union actions have been the strongest instrument in this area, enabling cross-

these have seen the amounts dedicated to legal migration constantly increasing over the years (see also sub-chapter 
5.3). 

55   Data of the European Commission updated on 27 February 2018 and accessed through the open data portal of the 

ESIF funds at https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/. 

56   DE, EE, IT, SE and SK noted significant progress; AT, BE, CZ, ES, FR, LT, LV, NL and RO reported moderate 
progress; BG and PT reported no progress; EL and HR did not implement any AMIF-funded project with this aim; 
CY, FI, HU, IE, LU, MT, PL, SL and the UK made no assessment.. 

57   The highest shares can be found in EE (87%), SE (76%), ET, CZ, IT and DE (60%). 

32 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                                     
country  collaboration  on  certain  themes,  while  only  a  minority  of  national  programmes  (and  one 
specific action) have been used for this objective58. 

Capacity  building  on  integration  and  legal  migration  is  another  aspect  on  which  moderate 
progress  was  reported  to  have  been  made  through  national  programmes,  and  indirectly  through 
EMN activities. Successful examples implemented by the Member States included: 

 

 

 

the strengthening of the existing territorial capacity through pooling resources and using digital 
tools to set up collaborative platforms mapping integration actors in a given territory (FR); 

the  creation  of  networking  structures  between  relevant  institutions  and  stakeholders  to  share 
experience and create synergies (DE); 

the  use  of  immigration  mentors  or  ‘living  examples’  of  successfully  integrated  persons  (PL); 
and 

  study visits and events promoting multiculturalism. 

5.1.3  Effectiveness  in  enhancing  fair  and  effective  return  strategies  which  contribute  to 

combating illegal immigration59 

In a nutshell 

The  need  for  fair,  sustainable  and  effective  return  strategies  has  been  an  objective  of  growing 
importance in most Member States, and despite both the voluntary and forced return rates steadily 
increasing with the Fund’s support, findings show that AMIF could only bring limited contributions 
to the effective implementation of return strategies. 

The need for fair, sustainable and effective return strategies, especially in light of the high influx of 
asylum  seekers,  has  been  an  objective  of  growing  topical  importance  in  most  Member  States. 
national programmes have contributed to return60 by supporting measures accompanying assisted-
voluntary return procedures, with a steady increase of pre- or post-return reintegration assistance to 
individuals. specific actions, Union actions and EMN61 activities have also increased awareness of 
return issues across the EU including knowledge on effective return strategies. 

The return rates across Europe between 2014 and 2016 could also be explained by the high influx of 
asylum seekers and, subsequently, the rising number of applications handled. In addition, return is 
subject  to  major  challenges  both  at  EU  level  and  in  Member  States  as  it  is  strictly  dependent  on 
(often)  bilateral  relations  and  agreements  with  receiving  third  countries  and  on  their  authorities’ 
willingness to cooperate in the fields of return and reintegration. 

58   DE  and  IT  reported  significant  progress;  CY,  LV  and  the  UK  described  moderate  progress;  CZ,  NL  and  PT 
proclaimed no progress; BE, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, LT, LU, MT, PL, RO, SE, SK and SL reported that they 
did not carry out any project; BG, AT and FI did not make an assessment. 

59   Progress made towards supporting the measures accompanying return procedures; Progress made towards effective 
implementation  of  return  measures  (voluntary  and  forced);  Progress  made  towards  strengthening  practical 
cooperation on return measures; Progress made towards building capacity on return. 

60   BE, BG, EL, FR, NL, AT, CZ, DE, EE, ES, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, PL, RO, SE, and the UK reported significant or 
moderate progress; IE and MT reported that they did not implement relevant projects; CY, FI, LV, PT, SK and SL 
made no assessment. 

61   Return accounted for 16 % of all ad hoc queries in 2014, 21 % in 2015 and 14 % in 2016 addressing issues such as 
voluntary return and reintegration programmes, financial assistance to returnees and return to specific geographical 
countries/regions, like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Western Africa. 

33 

 
                                                            
Although there is this clear limit regarding what AMIF can contribute to return, between 2013 and 
2017,  the  number  of  returnees  in  general  and  returnees  who  received  pre-  or  post-return 
reintegration  assistance  co-financed  by  the  Fund  has  greatly  increased.  The  number  of  returnees 
whose return was co-financed by the Fund increased from 5 904 in 2014 to 39 888 in 2015 and to 
36 735  in  2017.  Of  those  returned,  the  proportion  of  non-voluntary  returns  has  increased  from  a 
quarter in 2014 to half in 2017. The two figures below show the general trends in the area of return 
— TCNs ordered to leave and TCNs effectively returned (total and to a third country). 

National programmes also contributed significantly in the area of voluntary return. The reported 
number of people who returned voluntarily (co-financed by the Fund) increased from 3 934 in 2013 
to 30 466 in 2015, falling back to 17 736 in 201762. The number of places in detention centres has 
increased from 8 466 places in 2013 to 11 000 in 201563. The number of  monitored removals co-
financed by the Fund increased from a low 10 in 2013 to a peak of 6 065 in 2016, falling back to 
4 950 in 201764. 

Figure 9: Total number of returns in the EU, 2008-2016 (source Eurostat, values in thousands) 

62   DE registered 22 482 and the UK 19 659 voluntary returns between 2015 and 2017, FR 17 830 between 2014 and 

2017. 

63   In 2017, the numbers of detention centres in the following Member States were: the UK — 3 500, EL— 2 544, FR 
— 1 554, MT — 1 208, ES — 1 179, PL — 575, BE — 572, IT — 539, LV — 128, LT — 96 and EE — 80. Of 
these, the Fund supported 20% of EL places, 23% of FR places and 100% of LV places. 

64   Nearly all of these removals have taken place in FR with more than 4 500 per year in the period 2015-2017, with a 

peak of 5 959 in 2016. 

34 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 10: Global return rates in the EU, 2014-2016 (source Eurostat, values in thousands) 

Little  EMAS  was  also  focused  on  accompanying  voluntary  return,  providing  support  in  the 
preparation of and during the return travel, as well as capacity building through helping officials to 
identify TCNs in forced return duties. 

Some steps were also taken towards improving practical cooperation between Member States on 
return  issues  (mostly  through  the  EMN  through  its  expert  group  on  return  as  well  as  through 
national programmes65, specific actions66, and Union actions). There was also improved cooperation 
between  Member  States  and  third  countries  on  dealing  with  the  trafficking  issue  (through  Union 
actions), as well as on building capacity on return (through national programmes67 and the EMN68) 
by training 8 845 people across Member States on return-related topics with the Fund’s assistance 
(4 026 people trained in 2016 and 3 001 in 2017). 

5.1.4  Effectiveness in strengthening solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member 

States69 

In a nutshell 

The  strengthening  of  solidarity  and  responsibility-sharing  between  Member  States  was  achieved 
mainly  through  EMAS  and  the  relocation  mechanisms,  and  through  the  EU  resettlement 
programmes. 

The  findings  available  suggest  that  national  programmes  made  limited  contributions  to  both  the 
transfer of asylum seekers and the transfer of beneficiaries of international protection. 

65   PL noted significant progress made; CZ, DE, SE and the UK reported moderate progress made; CY, EL, ES, FI, 
FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL and SK had not implemented any relevant projects; AT, BE, EE, MT, PT, 
RO and SL did not perform an assessment; BG did not report any information. 

66   Particularly the projects ERIN, EURINT and EURLO — see also sub-chapter 5.5 and footnote 100. 
67   EE and PL reported that significant progress was made thanks to AMIF; BE, CZ, DE, FI, HU, LU, LU, NL, SK and 
the UK reported moderate progress made; BG claimed no progress was made; AT, EL, ES, FR, PT, SE and SL did 
not complete a clear assessment; CY, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT and RO did not carry out any relevant project. 
68   The  Integrated  Return  Management  Application  (IRMA)  is  considered  by  stakeholders  to  be  an  important 
communication platform for monitoring return measures, available in all Member States plus CH and NO. E.g. in 
EL,  IRMA  replaced  the  paper-based  and  locally  established  administrative  system  with  a  central,  fully 
computerised system on return. 

69   Contribution  to  the  transfer  of  asylum  applicants  (relocation);  Contribution  to  the  transfer  of  beneficiaries  of 

international protection. 

35 

 
 
                                                            
Compared  to  the  previous  financing  period,  during  which  there  was  little  incentive  for  Member 
States to engage in solidarity activities, in AMIF, a mechanism of solidarity to cope with migration 
and migrant crisis has become a core objective. Under this mechanism Member States can receive 
lump  sums  for  people  resettled  from  a  third  country,  as  well  as  for  transferring  beneficiaries  of 
international  protection  from  another  EU  country  (see  also  the  overview  presented  in  Table  2  on 
page 10). 

The  Fund’s  contribution  to  boosting  solidarity  and  responsibility-sharing  between  the  Member 
States has been visible mainly through EMAS70 and the relocation and resettlement mechanisms put 
in place (see table below). The work carried out under these mechanisms has been deemed as a real 
and  tangible  act  of  solidarity  AMIF  relieved  the  burden  of  the  high  influx  of  refugees  through 
financial  support  to  national  authorities  as  well  as  international  organisations.  Transfer  of  asylum 
seekers71 or of beneficiaries of international protection72 remained limited.  

Table 5: Target groups that received assistance through resettlement programme (source: National evaluation reports) 

Persons having medical needs that can be addressed only through 
resettlement 
Persons in need of emergency resettlement or urgent resettlement for legal or 
physical protection needs, including victims of violence or torture 
Other persons not included in the Common EU priorities and not part of the 
defined vulnerable groups 
Refugees from Iraq in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan 
Refugees from Iraq in Turkey 
Refugees in eastern Africa/Great Lakes 
Regional Protection Programme in eastern Europe (Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine) 
Regional Protection Programme in Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Kenya, Yemen) 
Regional Protection Programme in north Africa (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia) 
Syrian refugees in the region 
Transfer 
Unaccompanied minors 
Women and children at risk 
EU Total 

513 

825 

1 560 

272 
33 
1 292 
15 
1 065 
120 
6 485 
60 
19 
2 465 
14 724 

70   Four  EMAS  projects  have  focused  on  supporting  the  relocation  procedures  in  EL  and  IT,  carrying  out  health 
assessments  and  ‘fit  to  travel’  checks,  providing  pre-departure  services  (including  pre-departure  orientation 
sessions and counselling for asylum seekers), conducting administrative procedures in accordance with the Dublin 
III Regulation and employing additional experts to support officials regarding relocation procedures. There is  no 
evidence that EMAS has contributed to the transfer of beneficiaries of international protection. 

71   Of the very few Member States that implemented any relevant projects on the transfer of asylum applicants, LU 
reported that significant progress was made; BE noted moderate progress was made; BG and EL found no progress 
was made; CY, DE, ES, FR, HR, IE, LV, SK and SL did not make an assessment. 

72   A  very  limited  number  of  Member  States  had  implemented  AMIF-funded  projects  geared  towards  transferring 
beneficiaries of under international protection: AT, BE, CY, CZ, EE, FI, HU, IT, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SL and 
the UK had not implemented relevant projects; FR, HR, IE, LV, NL and SK did not complete a clear assessment; 
EL reported no progress was made; BG, DE, ES and LU did not report any information. This is further supported 
by the analysis of common indicators (SO4R1), which reveals that there were very low numbers of beneficiaries of 
international  protection  transferred  between  Member  States  using  support  from  the  Fund:  221  individuals 
transferred in 2013 to LV, 108 in 2016 to IE and SE and 1 524 in 2017 to BE, BG, IE, LV, RO and SI. 

36 

 
 
                                                            
5.1.5  Effectiveness in supporting the Member States in emergency situations73 

In a nutshell 

AMIF,  mainly  through  EMAS,  made  significant  contributions  to  MS  in  emergency  situations. 
EMAS  has  been  a  powerful  tool  for  strengthened  solidarity  in  allowing  AMIF  to  support  MS  in 
dealing with the 2015 migratory crisis and its follow-up, thanks to a more targeted, easier and faster 
response to the migration crisis. 

The  Fund  has  made  significant  contributions  towards  helping  Member  States  cope  with  the  high 
influx  of  asylum  seekers  in  emergency  situations,  through  significant  top-ups  to  national 
programmes and EMAS. AMIF has been able to adapt and respond well in a very short time period 
to the most imminent needs (see also the data presented in sub-chapter 3.2.1). 

The Regulation sets fixed amounts for each Member States based on the funding received under the 
SOLID programme between 2011 and 2013. The purpose of the mechanism for additional funding 
is to only fund specific actions listed in Annex II and only in the context of the mid-term review, 
planned for 2018. Additional support to address emergency situations was to be addressed through 
emergency  assistance.  This  resulted  in  the  EMAS  receiving  considerably  more  funding  than 
originally envisaged through successive top-ups. 

Stakeholders  interviewed  assessed  the  EMAS  instrument  as  crucial  both  in  terms  of  its  financial 
support  to  Member  States  and  in  terms  of  displaying  solidarity  and  burden-sharing  (in  addition 
EMAS was seen as helping to kick start AMIF implementation due to the late start of the national 
programmes). In countries like SE, DE and AT, where a considerable amount of national funding is 
used  in the field of asylum and  migration, the input  of EMAS was considered to be negligible in 
financial  terms,  but  crucial  in  terms  of  its  role  in  boosting  solidarity  across  Europe.  In  other 
countries like BG, EL and IT, EMAS funds were considered important, and the same results could 
not have been achieved without them. 

Despite  EMAS  actions  representing  a  short-term  and  small-scale  approach,  most  of  them  have 
aimed  to  strengthen  capacity  in  relation  to  asylum  and  return  by  supporting  the  development  of 
effective  reception  conditions  and  asylum  processes.  Some  emergency  actions  focused  on 
(i) relocation or resettlement, (ii) providing an appropriate response to the refugee crisis regarding 
health, (iii) providing  subsistence  and aid for TCNs, (iv)  vulnerable migrants  and providing them 
with tailored assistance or helping them regarding voluntary and forced return. 

5.2  How efficient has AMIF been so far74 

This question aims to consider the relation between the inputs of the Fund (i.e. resources, budget, 
etc.) and the outputs it achieved. It tries to answer two questions: (i) to what extent the effects of the 
actions were achieved at a reasonable cost in terms of financial and human resources deployed and 
(ii) what  management  and  control  measures  were  put  into  place  to  ensure  the  Fund  was 
implemented correctly and to prevent, detect, report and follow-up on irregularities. 

73   Types of emergency actions implemented; Contribution of emergency actions to addressing the urgent needs of the 

Member States; Results of the emergency actions. 

74   Extent at which the results were achieved at reasonable cost in terms of deployed financial and human resources; 

Measures put in place to prevent, detect, report and follow-up on cases of fraud and other irregularities. 

37 

 
 
                                                            
In a nutshell 

Overall,  in  the  limits  of  available  data,  it  could  be  considered  that  the  results  of  the  Fund  were 
achieved  at  reasonable  costs  in  terms  of  both  human  and  financial  resources.  The  administrative 
burden appears to be the main factor that undermined efficiency, while possibly the low number of 
human  resources  available  increased  the  perception  of  administrative  burden.  Even  if  national 
programmes  have  been  very  slow  to  begin,  the  Fund’s  overall  implementation  appears  to  be  on 
track,  thanks  to  EMAS  bridging  the  funding  gap  and  catering  to  immediate  needs,  helped  by  the 
swift approach applied to its management. 

The  management  and  control  measures  have  also  been  appropriate  and  effective,  with  stringent 
mechanisms  to  ensure  the  Fund  is  correctly  implemented  and  that  fraud  and  irregularities  are 
prevented. However, trade-off between these procedures and the overall efficiency of the Fund was 
found. 

From the data collected by the outsourced evaluation, it appears that the results of the Fund so far 
have been achieved at a reasonable cost. Implementation of the national programmes has been very 
slow to take off, leading to an almost two-year gap in funding in some countries, and, as a result, 
the  level  or  payments  for  the  national  programmes  (accounts)  is  still  relatively  low,  though 
increasing  in  2017.  This  was  due  to  the  late  approval  (July  2014)  of  the  core  legislative  package 
establishing AMIF and its implementing rules including the changes in the management and control 
systems75 compared to the previous period. Despite the Regulation allowing Member States to start 
actions and retroactively fund projects, many took a conservative approach and chose not to make 
commitments in the absence of a fully established legal basis. 

Therefore, EMAS actions have been implemented in order to bridge the funding gap, and cater to 
immediate and urgent needs and to the migration crisis, facilitated by the flexibility of the EMAS 
instrument, and thus, making the Fund’s overall implementation to be on track. 

The late start of the national programmes resulted in challenges for evaluating the cost-effectiveness 
of the actions, since most projects are still ongoing and there is a lack of data on achieved targets 
and levels of payments. 

The administrative burden could be the main factor undermining efficiency, particularly at the level 
of  beneficiaries  —  mainly  small  NGOs  (project  level).  The  low  number  of  human  resources  (at 
project level) was a factor that most likely increased the perception of the administrative burden — 
the  low  staffing  ratio  (therefore  low  human  resource  costs)  enabled  more  funds  to  be  channelled 
towards activities. However, beneficiaries consequently perceived the overall administrative burden 
to be relatively higher, in turn causing delays in project schedules and activities. 

In  their  interviews,  several  of  the  beneficiaries  answered  that  one  factor  which  might  skew  the 
efficiency findings, (and thus the reported human resource costs might not be reflective of the actual 
work)  is  that  many  of  the  staff  involved  during  the  peak  of  the  2015  crisis  in  implementing  the 
Union actions and EMAS, and managing the EMN76, seem to be highly motivated, to the extent that 
they do more than what they are paid for. 

75   Many Member States had to enact institutional changes to revise or to re-establish their management and control 

systems, which took more time to fully enact. 

76   In connection to this, previous evaluations highlighted the fact that the budgetary allocations to Member States do 

not effectively support the implementation of the EMN’s objectives. 

38 

 
                                                            
The Commission’s human resources dedicated to managing the Fund have only slightly increased, 
despite  the  large  increase  in  value  of  the  EMAS  and  the  emergency  situation  on  the  ground 
following  the  migration  crisis,  which  have  put  an  enormous  strain  on  the  Commission  services77. 
From  this  perspective,  data  shows  that  the  resources  used  by  the  Commission  for  administering 
EMAS  were  extremely  efficient  not  only  in  terms  of  full-time  equivalents  (FTEs)  but  also  as  a 
result of quick technical procedures. No evidence was found to indicate that there is scope to further 
increase this. 

The  low  level  of  human  resources  costs  was  also  associated  with  implementing  the  national 
programmes (at the level of responsible authorities or delegated authorities), therefore creating the 
efficiency-effectiveness trade-off mentioned above. 

In terms of the number of FTEs in the responsible authority, delegated authority and audit authority 
compared  to  the  number  of  projects  implemented,  the  large  variation  found  suggests  that  the 
number of FTEs required depends on the scope and volume of the projects that Member States need 
to implement at a particular moment. Values definitely vary over time and among Member States, 
with average values going from 0.03 per project in SI to 13.3 in DE. In 2016, the value for DE was 
30 and for EL it was even higher at 41. On average across the EU, the number of FTEs per project 
rose from 0.16 in 2014 to 3.65 in 2016 (driven by EL and DE). However, this fell to 1.02 in 2017. 

In  addition  to  the  efficiency  resulting  from  the  flexibility  of  the  national  programmes  (their 
multiannuality), the AMIF’s efficiency was increased78 when: 

  beneficiaries were public agencies since they could use their own networks to involve additional 

resources on an ad hoc basis and at no cost; 

  knowledge and expertise had been gained through experience from previous projects (especially 

the SOLID programme and, in general, multiannual projects); and 

  project  staff  were  already  occupied  in  the  organisation  implementing  the  project,  were 

experienced and familiar with the topic. 

The management and control systems put in place to ensure the correct application of the legal base 
and to prevent (1), detect (2), report and follow-up (3) on cases of irregularities and fraud have been 
contributing to a cost-effective implementation, through: 

(1) Prevention: careful examination of project applications; ex ante public procurement control 
systems;  risk  analyses  by  the  responsible  authority/delegated  authority;  training  on  fraud, 
providing  guidance  tools  and  regular  communication  to  beneficiaries  and  responsible 
authority staff; and a steering group within the project. 

(2) Detection:  administrative  control  checks;  operational  on-the-spot  checks;  financial  on-the-

spot checks; and external audits. 

(3) Report  and  follow-up:  implementation  of  communication  instruments;  establishment  of 
procedures for reporting fraud; and establishment of procedures for corrective measures79. 

77   The  level  of  workload  remained  very  high  and  increased  further:  in  2015,  DG  HOME  was  responsible  for  260 
adoption  procedures  (20  oral)  and  in  2016  for  283  adoption  procedures  (60  oral)  on  the  College  agenda, 
representing a 50% increase in comparison to 2013 and 2014 (AAR 2017). 

78   From interviews with responsible authorities and beneficiaries. 
79   The presence of fraudulent activity or irregularities appears to be the exception, with only the UK having reported 
some  disallowed  payments  of  various  sizes  across  projects,  a  very  few  cases  of  potential  fraud  in  DE,  and 
indications of irregularities in PT. Many problems of deficiencies or incomplete information arose with first-time 
applicants’  reporting  due  to  a  lack  of  experience  and  human  resources  or  varying  rules  and  regulations  across 

39 

 
                                                            
Some responsible authorities and beneficiaries argue that the control measures are appropriate and 
effective,  saying  that  stringent  mechanisms  ensure  that  the  provisions  of  the  Regulations  are 
correctly applied and that fraud and irregularities are prevented. However, experience suggests that 
there is always a potential trade-off between the procedures in place to avoid irregularities and the 
Fund’s  overall efficiency,  in  the  sense  that  measures can  be  seen  as  very  effective for  preventing 
fraud,  but  they  are  not  necessarily  very  efficient  from  a  management  perspective  (on  one  hand 
AMIF  establishes  comprehensive  procedures  to  reduce  the  risk,  but  on  the  other  this  leads  to 
situations where compliance becomes time-consuming). 

The  legislative  framework  establishes  a  number  of  obligations  on  the  responsible  and  audit 
authorities,  but  it  does  not  go  into  detail  in  instructing  how  these  obligations  should  be 
operationalised during implementation. Member States are left to apply their own national rules at 
their discretion. This approach seems to provide flexibility to authorities, which however go beyond 
what is just necessary for compliance80. 

Regarding  the  technical  assistance,  the  agreed  amount  set  aside  was  5.5 %  of  the  total  amount 
allocated to an Member States plus EUR 1 million81. This evaluation has found little ground for a 
proper comparative analysis of how the Member States used their technical assistance budgets and 
therefore of the appropriateness of the ceiling. 

A good way to assess the Fund’s overall cost-effectiveness is to look at the proportion of technical 
assistance  needed  to  implement  and  manage  the  national  programmes  —  payments  of  technical 
assistance  against  payments  to  national  programmes.  Nonetheless,  in  a  multiannual  financing 
environment it was not possible to establish this rate (with a certain degree or reassurance over its 
correctness), since Member States decide to submit payment claims in their accounts independently 
from the real advancement on the ground (rather it depends on when the expenses have been finally 
incurred  and  then  verified)82.  However,  this  rate  will  be  an  influential  indication  of  efficiency 
during the ex post evaluation of the Fund. 

5.3  How  much  simplification  and  reduction  of  administrative  burden  has 

AMIF brought so far83 

This question aims to analyse the innovative procedures that the Fund introduced (simplified cost 
option,  multiannual  programming,  national  eligibility  rules,  and  more  comprehensive  national 
programmes  allowing  for  flexibility)  and  to  look  at  the  extent  to  which  they  have  simplified  and 
reduced the administrative burden for the Fund’s beneficiaries. 

In a nutshell 

At this stage, there is little evidence of a significant reduction in the administrative burden, though 
AMIF  has  led  to  simplification  relative  to  the  past.  Several  new  administrative  and  managerial 

different funds (e.g. AMIF and the ESF) or differences in reporting on the controlling mechanisms (e.g. responsible 
authority and delegated authority). 

80   Based on interviews with beneficiaries and reports of monitoring missions of Commission's officials. 
81   Art 23 of the Specific Regulation in accordance with Article 20 of the Horizontal Regulation. 
82   Technical  assistance  where  procurement  contracts  are  the  norm,  can  incur  high  interim  and  final  payments  (as 
opposed  to  high  pre-financing  for  projects),  which  added  to  the  ex  post  audit  authority  verification  needs  can 
significantly influence the decision of Member States to submit these costs at a later stage. 

83   Innovative  procedures  introduced  (such  as  simplified  cost  options,  multiannual  programming,  national  eligibility 
rules, more comprehensive national programmes allowing for flexibility) in order to bring about simplification for 
the beneficiaries. 

40 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                                     
procedures were introduced, taking into account the lessons learnt from the previous funds. These 
include adopting the Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox and collecting indicators in order to 
ensure a more appropriate measure of performance. 

Overall, most of the innovative measures (e.g. simplified cost options, multiannual programming) 
are  considered  particularly  useful  by  beneficiaries  and  appear  to  have  achieved  simplification. 
Regarding the new IT tools such as the Shared Fund Management Common System of DG HOME 
(SFC201484)  and  the  eGrants  grant  management  system,  there  is  little  evidence  available  to  date 
that the implementation of these tools has led to simplification for the beneficiaries of Union actions 
and  the  EMN.  Despite  simplification  improvements,  the  national  rules  and  procedures  that  apply 
under the national programmes appear to lead to moderate to high administrative burden, therefore 
affecting efficiency. 

The  recommendations  from  the  ex  post  evaluations  of  the  SOLID  funds85  have  been  taken  into 
account,  including  those  concerning  the  designing  and  collecting  of  indicators.  AMIF  introduced 
several new administrative and managerial procedures aiming to simplify and reduce administrative 
burden  (e.g.  simplified  cost  option,  multiannual  programming,  national  eligibility  rules,  more 
comprehensive  national  programmes  allowing  for  flexibility,  new  IT  tools,  requirements  for 
collecting cost data in accordance with the Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox).  

Overall,  most  of  the  innovative  measures  adopted  under  AMIF  (for  instance  the  simplified  cost 
options,  multiannual  programming,  etc.)  were  deemed  useful  by  beneficiaries  and  appear  to  have 
achieved  simplification.  The  simplified  cost  option  was  deemed  by  the  Member  States  to  have 
reduced  administrative  burden,  and  thus  led  to  faster  procedures,  though  some  beneficiaries  still 
requests  more  training  from  the  Commission.  Multiannual  programming  was  identified  in  all 
sources of data as a particularly beneficial feature, as it offers Member States the required flexibility 
to  plan  and  adjust  the  national  programmes’  implementation  according  to  changing  needs  and 
capacities.  However  it  comes  with  some  challenges  like  setting  targets  for  7  years,  reporting 
multiple  times  per  project  or  coupling  with  the  co-financiers’  annual  commitment  capacity  since 
most have annual budgets. The single set of procedures for all areas covered by the Fund and for the 
both  AMIF  and  the  ISF  was  also  found  to  lead  to  simplification.  However,  many  of  the  national 
eligibility  rules  were  found  to  be  very  burdensome,  in  some  cases  even  a  barrier  preventing  civil 
society organisations from participating86. 

Regarding the new IT tools such as the SFC2014 and the Horizon 2020 grant management system, 
the  available  data  shows  there  is  little  evidence  available  to  date  that  these  tools  have  led  to 
simplifications  for  beneficiaries,  though  Commission's  officials  report  they  are  useful  for  their 
management  of  the  Fund.  Suggested  measures  to  help  further  in  this  regard  included  better 
communication with beneficiaries, more training opportunities and increasing the user-friendliness 
of these tools.  

Overall, and despite the improvements mentioned, the bottlenecks for creating undue moderate to 
high burden identified by the evaluation and based on the stakeholders' input were: 

84   SFC2014  is  an  IT  system  used  for  electronic  exchange  of  information  concerning  shared  fund  management 

between Member States and the European Commission. 

85   Creating the option of lump sums; improved communication by the Commission; increased financial and technical 
support; further streamlining of requirements; use of the Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox so that efficiency 
can be measured. 

86   UNHCR (2018): ‘Follow the Money’: report on the use of AMIF funding at the national level. 

41 

 
                                                            
 

reporting  requirements  that  apply  to  the  different  instruments87  remain  complex  and  overly 
strict; 

  a lack of standardisation across Member States in the shared management; 

  delays  experienced  in  evaluating  EMAS  applications  (which  also  risks  undermining  the 

emergency aspect of the instrument); and 

  data collection for the common indicators. 

In contrast, the procedures under direct management appear clear, more efficient and have reduced 
the burden compared to SOLID, probably due to higher EU level standardisation. 

5.4  How relevant has AMIF been so far88 

This question aims to determine whether the Fund’s original objectives are still relevant and how 
well they still match the current needs and problems. It also addresses the programme’s flexibility 
against changing circumstances in the wider context. 

In a nutshell 

Despite all the challenges, AMIF maintains a high relevance since it has proved to be sufficiently 
flexible,  broad  and  all-encompassing  in  order  to  respond  to  different  needs,  and  most  national 
programmes  are  still  in  line  with  the  general  objectives  of  the  Fund  and  with  the  Member  States 
needs. However,  Member States  faced changing needs during the implementation  period  that call 
for a more flexible system of the financial allocations. 

There is a high level of variety in needs across the Member States and across the different fields, i.e. 
asylum, integration and return, the volumes and scope of which have fluctuated and increased. The 
area of asylum was notably prioritised in many countries. Due to the migration crisis, the scale of 
AMIF ended up being very different to what was initially envisaged, proving that the original level 
of funding of AMIF was insufficient. 

The  evaluations  of  the  SOLID  programme  found  that  the  instruments  were  generally  designed  to 
cover a variety of needs and challenges. However, further progress in aligning priorities with needs 
was required. 

 

 

 

In  the  area  of  asylum,  there  was  resource  dispersion  and  lack  of  hierarchy  in  the  needs  to 
address, which did not allow for a focus on a few priority needs. 

In  the area of integration, the broad scope and unclearly defined direction also meant that the 
Member States were not steered systematically in drafting their annual programmes to adapt to 
changes. 

In the area of return, the categories of TCNs targeted were too narrowly defined and a need to 
include migrants residing legally but wishing to return was to be included. 

87   E.g.  reporting obligations  formalities,  detailed  requirements  for budgeting,  the  frequency  of  progress  reports  and 

mismatches in reporting frequencies. 

88   Extent  to  which  the  objectives  set  by  the  Member  States  in  the  national  programmes  respond  to  the  identified 
needs;  extent  to  which  the  objectives  set  in  the  annual  work  programmes  for  Union  actions  address  the  actual 
needs;  extent  at  which  the  objectives  set  in  the  annual  work  programmes  for  EMAS  address  the  actual  needs; 
measures put in place to address the changing needs. 

42 

 
                                                            
As  such,  AMIF  was  designed  in  a  more  holistic  manner89  to  ensure  that  comprehensive  and  new 
emerging needs can be addressed more effectively, with a more flexible approach. It proved to be 
comprehensive  enough  to  address  all  relevant  needs90.  All  AMIF’s  instruments  can  be  further 
tailored in the programming stage to be adapted to current needs (e.g. Union actions, EMAS and the 
EMN  through  work  programmes  and  national  programmes  through  contextualisation  of  national 
objectives and specific actions). This broad and comprehensive approach taken in the legal basis is 
intended to cover all relevant needs which may require EU funding support. 

It  soon  became  very  clear  that  the  areas  of  asylum,  migration,  integration  and  return  were  to  be 
faced  with  significant  and  constantly  changing  needs.  The  volumes  of  asylum  seekers,  refugees, 
migrants  in  general  and  people  in  return  processes  have  heavily  increased  compared  to  the 
anticipated numbers, putting great pressure on Member States’ reception and asylum systems, and 
integration  and  return  mechanisms.  The  scope  of  all  this  (the  diversity  of  measures  needed  to 
respond  to  the  needs  of  various  migrant  groups  —  the  elderly,  children,  women,  people  with 
disabilities etc.) also significantly increased. 

The  table  below  presents  an  overview  of  how  these  changes  in  volume  and  scope  might  have 
stretched the needs that AMIF was supposed to address. 

Table 6: Needs of AMIF during its implementation (source: Ramboll report based on academic literature) 

Asylum 
 Need to address the increased pressure on the European asylum system (irregular entries and applications for asylum 
and  international  protection  increased  dramatically  and  the  crisis  exposed  the  limitations  of  the  current  CEAS, 
including  the  lack  of  safe  and  lawful  ways  to  access  EU  territory  for  people  in  need  of  protection,  insufficient 
resettlement capacity and unequal provisions of appropriate reception conditions) 

 Need to address the issue of disproportionate burden (that the Dublin system introduced) on the asylum and reception 
systems  of  certain  Member  States  (southern  European  countries  where  the  majority  of  asylum  applications  are 
lodged) 

 Need to build the capacity of the Member States to develop, monitor and evaluate asylum policies and procedures (in 

a systematic manner to be able to respond better to urgent needs) 

 Need  to build  the  Member  States  capacity  to  ensure  effective  resettlement,  transfer  of applications  and  support  for 

international protection (including sufficient infrastructure) 

Legal migration and integration 
 Need for pre-departure measures (to support civic orientation, information and awareness raising to the host society) 
 Need for effective migrant integration, an ever greater challenge given the continuously growing number of migrants 
and the different types of migrants — first or second generation or elite migrants, elderly people, young people etc.) 

 Need to combat discrimination and public attitudes (because of increasing acts of intolerance towards migrants) 
 Need  for  transitional  cooperation  for  migrant  integration  (some  academic  sources  highlight  a  trilateral  integration 
process that includes the migrants, the host society and the country of origin whose support can facilitate integration) 

Return 
 Need  for  effective  return  (according  to  Eurostat,  nearly  500 000  TCNs  were  ordered  to  leave  in  2016,  while  the 
effective  return  rate  is  only  46 %,  a  number  that  has  not  changed  significantly  over  recent  years),  including 
reintegration measures 

 Need to increase coherence in return policy across Europe (Member States have very different return rates and return 

policies and programmes) 

 Need to systematically collect data on returns (there is lack of EU aggregate data and a very limited amount exists on 

post-return conditions, since few Member States follow-up with the returnees) 

 Need to support assisted-voluntary return programmes 
 Need to prevent the detention of minors (Member States have pledged to end child immigrant detention) 
 Need to maintain human rights in the removal process (including taking into account the negative impact on the well-

being of individuals and preventing extreme events of suicide or Sweden’s ‘resignation syndrome’ in minors) 

89   Compared to SOLID, AMIF has been provided with better objectives, increased target groups, better focus given 
by the structure of the fund, a better articulation between different delivery mechanisms which allowed to address 
EU priorities and national priorities, to name a few elements. 

90   Based on interviews with responsible authorities and beneficiaries, including of emergency assistance. 

43 

 
                                                            
There is also a high level of variety in needs across the different policy areas, and across Europe. 
However, AMIF is overall sufficiently broad and all-encompassing to deal with these needs, while 
the Fund’s measures have proven to be flexible enough to respond to these changes. 

Most  of  the  national  programmes  have  been  planned  on  needs  assessments  that  included 
stakeholder consultations. Figure 11 shows how countries perceived their needs and which area to 
focus on91. Evidence collected by this evaluation shows that the general objectives of most national 
programmes  are  still  in  line  with  the  Member  States’  needs.  However,  Member  States  faced 
changing  needs  under  specific  or  national  objectives,  not  foreseeable  during  the  planning  stage. 
This  requires  more  flexible  distribution  systems  to  adjust  financial  allocations  (and  thresholds)  to 
the new, actual needs92. Therefore, it is clear that AMIF’s allocation system was not appropriate in 
light of the crisis to cover these dynamic needs. 

The  EMAS  instrument,  the  main  objectives  of  which  in  the  2014-2016  annual  work  programmes 
were to strengthen solidarity and support humanitarian admission and assistance, adopted a flexible 
approach towards the shifting priorities to ensure emergency situations were immediately responded 
to.  Due  to  the  migration  crisis,  the  scale  of  this  instrument  ended  up  being  different  to  what  was 
initially  envisaged  and  AMIF  ended  up  being  a  different  type  of  fund  to  what  was  originally 
planned. 

In the case of Union actions, constant dialogue and contact between partners implementing projects 
was reported in almost all cases as a measure to ensure that projects swiftly adapted to actual needs. 
In terms of budget for Union actions, the amounts allocated for legal migration and integration rose 
to 51 % of the total annual work programme in 2015, and 62 % of the total annual work programme 
in  2016  (see  also  the  sub-chapter  on  implementation  in  3.2  above).  Regarding  the  EMN,  ad  hoc 
queries and regular meetings were reported as key mechanisms ensuring that the EMN’s work is in 
line with actual needs.  

Figure 11: National allocations to AMIF priority areas in relation to the overall allocation per national programme (source: SFC2014) 

91   Member States like SI, SK, IE, EE, RO and BE can also be seen as having a balanced distribution of funds among 
the three areas of asylum, integration and return, while others have dedicated more than half to one area (MT, PT, 
PL, LV, CZ, the UK and NL). 

92   Member  States  implemented  various  mechanisms  to  cope  with  these  changing  needs  such  as  flexible  national 
programmes  including  flexible  disbursements  and  even  notifications  to  inform  projects  on  recent  changes, 
supporting committees (monitoring committees, supervisory committees), exchange with funded projects to be up 
to date on developments, and direct award for necessary ad hoc implementations. 

44 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%MTHRPTPLLVCZDEFISEATITHUFRLTSISKIEUKNLELBGESCYEEROBEAsylumLegal Integration and MigrationReturnfocus on asylumfocus on legal migration and integrationfocus on return 
 
                                                            
Furthermore,  the  allocation  for  each  country  is  composed  of  a  minimum  amount  and  an  amount 
calculated based on the average of the 2011, 2012 and 2013 allocations under the ERF, the EIF and 
the RF. These were in turn calculated in accordance with the distribution criteria93 which referred to 
the proportion of target group people for each fund (admitted/residing in or pending return/removal) 
in that Member States out of the total for the EU for the same three years.  

In  2014,  in  a  number  of  Member  States  that  were  already  experiencing  a  large  increase  in  these 
target groups, this translated in a non-alignment of the distribution key with the needs. This was due 
to already outdated data and inadequately funded national programmes. Without the possibility of 
revising  the  allocations  under  national  programmes,  EMAS  became  the  only  (and  abused) 
instrument able to respond to the significantly changed situation. 

5.5  How coherent94 and complementary95 has AMIF been so far 

These  questions  look  at  the  extent  to  which  different  AMIF  actions  work  together  internally  and 
with  other  EU  actions  and  to  identify  whether  there  are  complementarities,  gaps  and  overlaps 
between different initiatives. 

In a nutshell 

Measures  were  taken  during  the  Fund’s  design,  planning  and  programming  stages  to  ensure 
coherence  and  complementarity  to,  and  be  strategically  aligned  with  other  financial  instruments 
(especially ISF-BV, ESF, ERDF, EAFRD, EMFF, FEAD, EUTF, DCI, EU Health Programme) and 
with  relevant  key  EU  policy  strategies,  in  the  case  of  Union  actions  and  the  EMN.  During  the 
implementation  stage,  the  Commission  services  actively  worked  together  and  with  the  Member 
States,  mostly  in  ad  hoc  settings,  to  ensure  that  EU  funds  with  similar  objectives  were  used  in  a 
coordinated  way.  On  a  national  level,  the  vast  majority  of  Member  States  ensured  coherence  and 
complementarity  through  the  establishment  of  coordination  mechanisms,  mainly  monitoring 
committees involving different responsible authorities. 

However,  room  for  improved  communication  appears  to  exist  with  regard  to  internal  coherence 
(among  AMIF  instruments)  because  beneficiaries  are  not  very  aware  of  the  actions  and  projects 
completed  within  the  AMIF  framework,  especially  with  regard  to  Union  actions  and  EMAS. 
Nonetheless,  there  is  little  evidence  of  non-coherence,  overlaps  and  duplications,  both  internally 
and externally. 

The ex post evaluations of the SOLID programme found that coordination mechanisms were put in 
place to a variable extent, and they recommended that synergetic activities be developed between 
the  Home  Affairs  funds  and  other  EU  instruments  as  well  as  between  national  projects  and 
Community actions. 

Measures  have  been  taken  during  AMIF’s  design,  planning  and  programming  stages  to  ensure  a 
coherent,  non-contradictory,  complementarity  and  strategic  alignment  with  other  financial 

93   Decision No 573/2007/EC, Decision 2007/435/EC and Decision No 575/2007/EC. 
94   Assessment  of  other  interventions with  similar  objectives; coordination mechanisms  between  the  Fund and other 
interventions with similar objectives; being consistent with and not contradictory to other interventions with similar 
objectives. 

95   Assessment of other interventions with complementary objectives; coordination mechanisms between the Fund and 
other  interventions  with  complementarity  objectives;  mechanisms  aiming  to  prevent  overlapping  of  financial 
instruments. 

45 

 
                                                            
instruments (especially ESIF) and with key EU policy strategies. Some detailed results achieved by 
ESIF show excellent complementarity to AMIF are presented in sub-chapter 5.1.2. 

The  migration  crisis  brought  changes  of  an  unforeseen  magnitude  requiring  other  EU  financial 
instruments  to  increasingly  take  up  actions  related  to  the  AMIF  area,  requiring  stronger 
coordination96  and  stronger  strategic  alignment,  especially  with  funds  that  have  an  external 
dimension.  DG  HOME  has  actively  worked,  during  the  implementation  phase,  with  relevant 
stakeholders,  other  Commission  services97  and  other  EU  financial  institutions  (especially  the 
European  Investment  Bank),  mostly  in  ad  hoc  settings,  to  ensure  that  EU  funds  with  similar 
objectives were used in a coordinated way with AMIF. The degree to which AMIF is coherent with, 
and complementary to, other EU interventions mostly results from the difference in points at which 
they  intervene,  or  the  different  angles  taken  relative  to  the  implemented  activities  –  short-term, 
medium- and long-term support, reception phase or long-term integration. 

The  Commission  provided  additional  detailed  guidance98  on  the  required coordination  to  increase 
synergies  between  AMIF  and  ISF  and  other  EU  funding  instruments  in  relation  to  reception  and 
integration  of  asylum  seekers  and  other  migrants,  including  reviewing  the  eligible  actions  and 
objectives relevant to reception and integration under the specific EU funding instruments. This was 
also translated in 2015 in ad hoc visits to all Member States affected by the Western Balkan Route, 
so  they  could  coordinate  with  the  different  authorities  and  run  a  common  needs  assessment 
exercise. 

The EU Health programme99 was used to, for example:  

  establish links between key reception areas for refugees and migrants and the health systems; 

  expand  the  use  of  the  Personal  Health  Record  and  the  Handbook  for  Health  Professionals  in 

evaluating the health status and needs of refugees and migrants; 

 

 

to ensure that health assessments and preventive measures are implemented, taking into account 
the needs of children and other vulnerable groups; and 

to  ensure  that  data  initially  collected  through  the  electronic  personal  health  record  (e-PHR)  is 
stored in a database so that it is available in transit and destination countries. 

At  national  level,  the  vast  majority  of  Member  States  worked  through  established  coordination 
mechanisms,  such  the  monitoring  committees  involving  different  responsible  authorities.  At 
programme  level,  better  cooperation  mechanisms  were  acknowledged  in  the  field  of  return  — 
integrated systems of return management  — by connecting EU funded programmes and networks 
that  focused  on  return  and  readmission  (such  as  ERIN,  EURINT  and  EURLO100  in  collaboration 

96   European  Commission  (2015)  Synergies between  the Asylum  Migration and  Integration  Fund  (AMIF)  and other 

EU funding instruments in relation to reception and integration of asylum-seekers and other migrants. 

97   As  an  example,  the  newly  established  European  Social  Fund  Transnational  Cooperation  Network  on  Migration 

brought together ESIF actors to, among others, increase synergies in the field of integration. 

98   The memo on synergies follows the Union speech delivered by the President of the Commission on 9 September 
2015  stating  that  all  means  at  EU  level  should  be  mobilised  to  support  Member  States  efforts  in  managing 
migration. 

99   Regulation  (EU)  No  282/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  March  2014  on  the 
establishment of a third Programme for the Union's action in the field of health (2014-2020) and repealing Decision 
No 1350/2007/EC (OJ L 86 of 21 March 2014). 

100  The  European  Reintegration  Network  Specific  Action  Program  (ERIN),  the  European  Integrated  Return 

Management Initiative (EURINT), and the European Return Liaison Officers network (EURLO). 

46 

 
                                                            
with  Frontex)101.  However,  these  were  not  always  sufficient  to  ensure  a  coordinated  approach  at 
project level. 

Concerning  AMIF  actions  that  relate  to  third  countries,  DG  HOME  together  with  other  DGs  and 
services  (EEAS,  DEVCO,  NEAR,  ECHO,  JUST,  EMPL)102  used  coordination  groups  at  the 
programming stage to ensure different interventions were coherent and complementary — examples 
of  such  assessments  are  the  RDPP;  the  actions  funded  by  the  EU  Trust  Fund  for  Africa;  the 
Development  Cooperation  Instrument;  or  the  Mobility  Partnership  Facilities  supported  by  Union 
actions and those by ISF Police and ISF Borders. 

Internally,  there  is  high  complementarity  between  national  programmes  and  EMAS  (which  have 
clearly supported each other) and high coherence between national programmes and Union actions 
(the Union actions being clearly designed to complement the national programmes). However, there 
is room for improvement, especially with regard to Union actions and EMAS and between the EMN 
and the other instruments, since AMIF beneficiaries are not very aware of the actions and projects 
completed  within  the  AMIF  framework  (beneficiaries  appear  to  perceive  most  coordination  as 
informal,  being  done  on  own  initiative  and  not  incentivised,  while  there  is  a  clear  need  for  more 
formalised information on project and national level). Nonetheless, there is no conclusive evidence 
of non-coherence, overlaps or duplications103. 

Figure 12: Assessment of the coherence in the national interim evaluations reports (coherence with other interventions with similar 
objectives and mechanisms to prevent overlap of financial instruments) 

Beneficiaries also found that the Union actions provided funding in very critical fields, especially 
for countries that experienced bigger refugee flows for the first time, and whose systems were not 
very  well  developed.  AMIF  funding  provided  these  actors  with  increased  independence  and 
increased  the  possibility  for  them  to  carry  out  the  intended  activities.  Had  they  only  relied  on 
national funding, the impact would not have been as significant. 

5.6  What is the EU added value of AMIF so far104 

This question aims to assess the value resulting from AMIF that is additional to that which could 
result from interventions which would have been carried out by Member States at national level. 

101   EU action plan on return, COM(2015) 453 final. 
102   European  External  Action  Service,  Directorates-General  Development  and  Cooperation,  Neighbourhood  and 
Enlargement Negotiations, Humanitarian Aid & Civil Protection, Justice, Employment Social Affairs & Inclusion. 
103   Two  examples  have  been  mentioned  in  the  interviews  with  partners  and  stakeholders:  the  IOMs  and  ERIN’s 
respective responsibilities as well as the financial support (fixed amount) given to returnees by AMIF and by DG 
DEVCO and DG NEAR efforts providing rather flexible support according to the returnee’s needs. 

104   Types  of  added  value  resulting  from  the  Fund  support  (volume,  scope,  role,  process);  Would  the  Member  State 
have  carried  out  the  actions  without  the  financial  support  of  the  Fund;  Consequences  of  an  interruption  of  the 
support provided by the Fund; Benefit at EU level resulting from the actions supported by the Fund. 

47 

 
 
                                                            
In a nutshell 

Overall  AMIF  has  generated  significant  EU  added  value,  despite  the  relatively  small  size  of  the 
funds  compared  with  the  important  challenges  imposed  by  the  crisis  that  occurred  during  this 
period105. The main EU level benefit arises from the transnational dimension of certain actions (the 
EMN and Union actions) as well as EU level burden-sharing, supported in particular by EMAS and 
the  relocation  mechanism  under  national  programmes,  both  of  which  are  solid  proof  that  the 
principle of solidarity was applied. 

AMIF  brought  significant  EU  added  value  in  terms  of  (i) ensuring  the  effective  and  efficient 
management of migratory flows at EU level (volume effects), (ii) optimising procedures related to 
migration management and increased know-how and capacity built (process effects), (iii) allowing 
Member  States  to  reach  a  wider  volume  of  migrants,  asylum  seekers,  refugees  and  TCNs  (scope 
effects),  and  (iv)  introducing  innovations  that  were  created  at  national  and  European  level  (role 
effects). 

The absence of AMIF funding would have been detrimental to the quality of the EU response to the 
migration  crisis  and  the  ability  of  the  Member  States  to  cooperate  and  implement  solutions.  The 
consequences  of  an  interruption  in  the  support  would  likely  have  important  negative  implications 
and lead to reduced scope and quality of actions implemented, delays in implementation or even an 
interruption  of  the  actions,  including  on  the  application  of  the  principles  of  solidarity,  burden-
sharing and mutual trust. 

The main EU added value of AMIF can be found in the effects of its volume, process, scope and 
role. The main EU level benefit of AMIF arises from the transnational dimension of certain actions 
supported by its instruments (in particular the EMN, Union actions and specific actions) as well as 
EU level burden-sharing, supported by the top-ups to the national programmes and by EMAS which 
are solid proof of the application of the principle of solidarity. 

Volume  effects:  Through  actions  implemented  via  the  national  programmes  and  EMAS,  AMIF 
brought important EU added value in terms of ensuring the effective and efficient management of 
migratory  flows  at  EU  level.  This  mainly  enabled  Member  States  to  reach  a  wider  volume  of 
asylum  seekers,  refugees  and  third-country  nationals  (compared  to  the  previous  period)  and/or  to 
implement actions which otherwise would not have been implemented or would not have been of a 
similar quality (adapted to the migratory crisis). EMAS was crucial to supporting and boosting the 
national capacities for dealing with the high influx of refugees in Europe, in particular in Greece, 
Italy and Bulgaria. 

Process effects: AMIF actions implemented under national programmes, Union actions,  the EMN 
and  EMAS  brought  important  EU  added  value  in  terms  of  (i) optimising  procedures  related  to 
migration  management,  (ii) improving  the  quality  of  administration  and  budgetary  processes,  (iii) 
increasing  know-how  and  capacity  of  officials,  and  (iv) building  cooperation  processes  and 
synergies between actors in the field. 

Scope effects:  The actions  implemented under national programmes  and EMAS were reported by 
the Member States to bring important EU added value in terms of: 

  extending  the  types  of  actions  implemented,  such  as:  psychological  support,  start-up  projects, 
legal  support,  organisation  of  cultural  and  sports  events,  welcoming  programmes,  language 

105   From 0.23% (initially planned) to 0.63% (after top-ups) of the EU budget appropriations for 2014-2020. 

48 

 
                                                            
training,  translation  services,  the  purchase  of  specialist  equipment  for  identifying  people,  the 
organisation  of  meetings  with  representatives  of  third  countries  to  establish  cooperation  and 
streamline return, return counselling; 

  extending the target groups reached, e.g. vulnerable people such as women, the elderly, young 
people, non-accompanied minors, people with mental health problems, and victims of modern 
slavery. 

Role  effects:  Through  actions  implemented  under  Union  actions,  the  EMN  and  specific  actions 
under the national programmes, important EU added value resulted from the innovations created at 
national  and  European  level  through  their  development  (e.g.  the  transnationality  of  the  projects 
allowed multiple beneficiaries and Member States to benefit from these innovations). 

Figure 13: Assessment of the EU added value of AMIF in the national interim evaluation reports 

The absence of AMIF funding would have been detrimental to the quality of the EU response to the 
migration  crisis  and  the  ability  of  the  Member  States  to  cooperate  and  implement  innovative 
solutions  —  most  Member  States106  believe  they  would  still  have  had  to  carry  out  some  actions 
required  to  implement  EU  policies,  even  in  the  absence  of  EU  funds.  However,  Member  States 
indicated that such actions would have been implemented only as a minimum to comply with EU 
legislation,  and  they  would  have  been  limited  in  scope  and/or  in  quality  or  would  have  been 
implemented primarily in specific areas of interest in the national context such as asylum or return. 

Some  actions  supported  under  Union  actions,  the  EMN  and  EMAS  would  likely  have  received 
financing in the absence of AMIF. However, this could have deprived other actions which would 
have been at risk of not being funded at all or suffering delays. 

An  interruption  of  AMIF  financing,  and  especially  of  the  funding  to  the  national  programmes, 
would likely result in: 

  strongly  negative  implications  (see  also  figure  below)  for  the  application  of  the  principles  of 

solidarity, burden-sharing and mutual trust between Member States; 

  a disruption of the efforts put in place including a reduction of the scope and quality (e.g. the 

number of target beneficiaries reached, the type of services provided); 

 

the AMIF’s implementation potentially being discontinued; 

  delays in implementation; 

 

 

loss of networking capacity; 

less innovative measures; 

106   AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK and the UK (22). 

49 

 
 
                                                            
  a revision of priorities; and  

 

the risk of Member States not reaching the EU/national goals. 

With  fewer  staff  and  reduced  services,  the  ability  of  the  national  authorities  to  provide  effective 
assistance to asylum seekers, refugees and other third-country nationals would be constrained. 

Figure 14: Assessment of the most likely consequences of an interruption of AMIF in the national interim evaluation reports 

5.7  How sustainable are the actions implemented under AMIF so far107 

This  question  aims  to  look  at  (a)  how  long  the  effects  of  the  actions  are  likely  to  last  after  the 
intervention ends (sustainability of effects), and (b) the extent to which the actions can be continued 
after  the  AMIF  financing  ends  (sustainability  of  actions).  The  sustainability  of  effects  was  also 
analysed at multiple levels: (i) at the level of target groups (e.g. sustainability of effects on asylum 
seekers, refugees, etc.), (ii) at the level of organisations (e.g. capacity building, development of new 
methods, etc.), (iii) at inter-organisational level (e.g. networking effects, etc.) and (iv) at policy area 
level (e.g. integration, asylum, return). 

In a nutshell 

Sustainability has been thoroughly addressed by AMIF through checks mechanisms set in place at 
programming  and  implementation  stages  across  most  instruments,  although  this  was  ensured  to  a 
lesser  extent  by  EMAS  due  to  the  nature  of  the  actions.  There  is  room  for  improvement  in 
considering sustainability criteria when designing the interventions of AMIF. 

The  sustainability  of  effects  of  actions  (effects  lasting  after  the  intervention  ends)  and  financial 
sustainability  (actions  that  could  continue  after  AMIF  financing  ends)  vary  across  different 
instruments,  Member  States  and  areas,  and  depend  on  a  holistic  approach  which,  if  adopted,  is 
likely  to  yield  long-term  effects.  The  sustainability  of  effects  on  target  groups  is  likely  to  differ 
depending  on  the  focus  areas  (integration  and  asylum  outcomes  are  likely  to  last  if  they  address 
longer-term needs, while return outcomes are more sustainable if they are based on voluntary return 
schemes and are supported by efforts for reintegration). 

107   Measures to ensure the sustainability of the results of the projects; both at programming and implementation stage; 
Mechanisms  to  ensure  sustainability  check  at  programming  and  implementation  stage;  extent  to  which  the 
outcomes/benefits of the actions are expected to continue. 

50 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  experience  from  the  previous  financing  period  showed  that  the  financial  sustainability  of 
actions could be improved, since only a few projects were successful in seeking alternative means 
of funding once the support from the SOLID programme ceased, while a few others continued to 
receive  funding  from  AMIF.  The  previous  evaluations  recommended  that,  in  order  to  avoid 
recurring  financing  of  the  same  (less  innovative)  products,  the  Commission  and/or  responsible 
authorities need to disseminate project results better and encourage Member States to systematically 
capture and transform lessons learnt into national legislation, practice and procedures. 

Sustainability  has  been  systematically  addressed  by  all  AMIF  instruments,  although  maybe  to  a 
lesser extent by EMAS due to the nature of those actions108. Measures and checks mechanisms were 
set in place at programming and implementation stages across the instruments, in particular Union 
actions and national programmes. Generally, the most effective sustainability measures depend on 
the systematic design in which they are embedded — if actions are intended to be sustainable in the 
long  term,  then  they  are  more  likely  to  have  longer  lasting  effects.  Other  measures  at  the 
programming stage can be found under Union actions and most national programmes such as (i) the 
inclusion of an evaluation criterion for applications, (ii) the investment in projects with a long-term 
perspective, (iii) the establishment of partnerships between stakeholders to encourage cooperation, 
and (iv) the adoption of rules, guidelines and even the multiannual programming. Furthermore, the 
reviews,  checks,  monitoring  and  evaluation,  and  dissemination  of  results  all  played  an  important 
role in verifying sustainability at the implementation phase. 

Findings  suggest  that  the  sustainability  of  effects  of  actions  supported  by  AMIF  varies  across 
different instruments, areas and Member States. Sustainability of effects on target groups is likely to 
differ depending on the focus areas, for example, integration and asylum outcomes are likely to last 
if they address longer-term needs (e.g. building of skills of target group, integration into the labour 
market, teaching material) rather than short-term needs (e.g. civic orientation in the host society), 
while return outcomes were reported to have lasting effects provided they were based on voluntary 
return schemes109. 

Sustainability of actions in terms of their ability to continue financing the intervention after AMIF 
funding  ends  also  varies  with  some  instruments,  for  example,  the  EMN  is  less  self-sustainable, 
whereas other actions (Union  actions, national programmes, and EMAS)  depend  on their level of 
priority and/or urgency and the availability of alternative resources. 

Regarding limitations, one important aspect relates to difficulties measuring the sustainability due 
to  a  lack  of  consistent  monitoring  and  specific  sustainability-related  indicators,  for  example 
including over a period of time that extends beyond the end of life of projects. Another one relates 
to actions that are still being implemented whereby it is difficult to ascertain whether the effects on 
the target groups and on specific areas will really last. 

108   The  main  measures  to  ensure  the  continuity  of  EMAS  activities  after  the  cessation  of  AMIF  support  were  in 

relation to securing alternative sources of financing. 

109   Other  actions  found  to  have  longer-term  effects  were  the  capacity  building  at  the  level  of  organisations,  the 
development  of  skills  of  staff,  the  set-up  of  partnerships  and  collaborations,  the  development  of  processes  or 
procedures,  the  dissemination  of  best  practices,  the  material  outcomes  like  buildings,  reception  facilities,  all 
depending however on the extent to which they are utilised in the future. 

51 

 
 
 
                                                            
6  CONCLUSIONS AND ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

This final section summarises the evaluation’s main findings and raises a few issues that should be 
taken  into  account  when  implementing  AMIF  over  the  next  few  years  and  in  the  planning  of  the 
new generation of home affairs financial instruments. 

6.1  Effectiveness 

AMIF  proved  to  be  an important  instrument  in  handling the  difficult  situation,  by  providing  both 
short-term emergency support and more long-term capacity building of the asylum, integration and 
return systems. It has played an important role in improving the asylum systems and strengthening 
reception capacity in the Member States, especially in providing a more dignified, safe and healthy 
environment  for  asylum  seekers  upon  and  after  their  arrival.  The  Fund  also  registered  progress 
regarding the most vulnerable groups, especially unaccompanied minors.  

While  there  has  been  limited  progress  in  the  area  of  legal  migration  so  far,  Member  States  have 
made  good  progress  in  the  integration  area,  including  capacity  building,  while  short-term 
integration  measures  (introductory  courses  on  civic  orientation,  languages,  etc.)  have  been 
prioritised over long-term ones (pre-vocational training, further education, etc.). The results of these 
are not yet visible as integration is a long-term process. Despite limitations, the fund has helped to 
steadily increase the return rates. While the EU resettlement programme has made big progress so 
far, there has been limited contribution towards establishing, developing and implementing national 
resettlement programmes. 

Issues for future consideration: 

 

the  holistic  design  of  the  Fund’s  delivery  mechanisms  should  be  maintained  and  used  as  a 
model for future programming periods; 

  an  emergency  instrument  should  be  maintained  and  its  ability  further  strengthened  so  it  can 

respond rapidly and efficiently; 

 

the EMN should be maintained and supported with suitable funding, while further capitalising 
on its potential to generate comparative knowledge on best practices within Member States; 

  a clear intervention logic at the beginning of the future Fund should be developed, starting with 
the expected impacts (longer-term) and link them to results (medium-term) and outputs (short-
term); and 

  a full monitoring and evaluation system should be devised, including indicators, early on in the 
design phase to ensure a consistent and uniform monitoring of progress and effectiveness from 
the outset. 

6.2  Efficiency 

Available data suggests that the results of the Fund have been achieved at a reasonable cost in terms 
of both human and financial resources, with some limitations. The perceived administrative burden 
(complexity in Member States and EU procedures as well as the control mechanisms) has been the 
main  factor  undermining  efficiency.  The  management  and  control  measures  had  stringent 
mechanisms to ensure prevention of fraud and irregularities and, while considered appropriate and 
effective, might have increased the administrative burden. 

Issues for future consideration: 

52 

 
 

 

further simplification should be addressed in the next generation of funds (e.g. management and 
control systems and mechanisms, reporting requirements); 

technical assistance both at the initiative of the Commission and of the Member States could be 
linked to the volume of financial allocations; and 

  a sufficient level of pre-financing payments should be planned so that national programmes can 

be timely implemented. 

6.3  Simplification and reduction in administrative burden 

There is little evidence, at this stage, to show that the administrative burden has been significantly 
reduced,  although  AMIF  has  led  to  simplification  relative  to  the  past.  Overall,  most  of  the 
innovative measures (e.g. simplified cost options, multiannual programming) have been considered 
by stakeholders particularly beneficial and appeared to have simplified things. Despite the improved 
simplification, national rules and procedures applicable under the national programmes appeared to 
have led to a moderate amount of administrative burden. 

Issues for future consideration: 

 

the multiannual programming for future financing periods should be maintained; and 

  measures should be taken to have an optimal control and audit procedure, reducing the number 

of controls for audits and prevention of irregularities and fraud; 

6.4 

 Relevance 

The Funds still addressed the Member States needs in spite of major changes in the EU and national 

contexts. 

Issues for future consideration: 

 

future  financial  instruments  need  to  be  designed  in  a  way  that  enables  them  to  address  a 
comprehensive set of needs, as well as ensure flexibility in the case of unexpected changes; and 

  a system to distribute funds should be adaptable in order to respond appropriately to changing 

needs; 

6.5  Coherence and complementarity 

The  Fund  seemed  to  be  coherent  and  no  overlaps  and  duplications  have  been  found.  It  has  also 
proven that it complements its different instruments (national programmes, EMAS etc.) as well as 
with other EU funding instruments (such as ESIF) and national budgets. 

Issues for future consideration: 

 

 

 

further  efforts  to  improve  cooperation,  coordination  and  strategic  steering  in  implementing 
AMIF and other EU level initiatives should be made; 

improved  communication  appears  necessary  in  relation  to  AMIF  instruments  because 
beneficiaries are not very aware of Union and emergency assistance actions; and 

the  future  funds  should  be  designed  in  a  similar  format  (i.e.  national  programmes  aimed  at 
building  long-term  capacities,  emergency  assistance  aimed  at  alleviating  immediate  pressure, 
Union actions and the EMN with a Pan-European dimension, i.e. clearly and logically designed 
to support each other). 

53 

 
6.6  EU added value 

Overall  AMIF  has  generated  important  EU  added  value:  burden-sharing  between  Member  States, 
boosting  national  capacities  especially  in  BG,  EL  and  IT,  optimising  procedures  related  to 
migration management, ensuring synergies etc. Without the Fund the quality of the EU response to 
the migration crisis would have been reduced. 

Issues for future consideration: 

  providing  support  through  AMIF  and  all  its  instruments  should  be  continued,  sending  a  clear 
message on the importance of solidarity and cooperation between Member States for effective 
and fair asylum, integration and return systems at Pan-European level. 

6.7  Sustainability 

Sustainability  has  been  addressed  by  all  the  Fund’s  instruments,  although  to  a  lesser  extent  by 
EMAS  due  to  the  emergency  nature  of  the  actions.  The  sustainability  of  effects  lasting  after  the 
intervention  ends  vary  across  different  AMIF  instruments  and  Member  States:  integration  and 
asylum outcomes are likely to last longer, if from the outset they address longer-term needs; return 
outcomes  are  sustainable  provided  that  they  are  based  on  voluntary  return  schemes  and  are 
supported by efforts at reintegration. 

Financial sustainability (actions able to continue after the AMIF financing ends) also varies: some 
instruments appear not to be self-sustainable (the EMN), whereas the sustainability of other actions 
(Union actions, national programmes, EMAS) depends on their level or priority and/or urgency and 
the availability of alternative resources. 

Issues for future consideration: 

 

further  focus  on  selecting  projects  that  have  a  higher  likelihood  of  having  sustainable  effects 
over a longer period of time; 

  assess  both  financial  sustainability  and  sustainability  of  effects  as  two  separate  aspects  of  the 

assessment of projects; and 

  consider  increasing  the  efforts  to  improve  sustainability  by  systematically  disseminating  and 

supporting the uptake of good practices by other projects. 

54 

 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Leading Directorate-
General 
Participating units 

Participating DGs 

Legal base 

Roadmap approval 
Decide planning  
Exceptions to the 
Better Regulation 
guidelines 
External consulting 
firm specialised in 
evaluation 
Number of steering 
group meetings 
Last deliverable handed 
in 
Approval of the final 
report by Steering 
Group 
Regulatory Scrutiny 
Board (RSB) meeting  
Resubmission of the 
SWD to the RSB 

DG HOME 

A2 — Legal affairs 
B1 — Legal migration 
C1 — Irregular migration and return policy 
C3 — Asylum 
E1 — Union actions 
E2 — National programmes for South and East Europe, 
evaluation, AMIF/ISF Committee 
E3 — National programmes for North and West Europe, budget, 
MFF, agencies 
BUDG, DEVCO, ECHO, EMPL, ENER, ENV, GROW, JRC, 
OLAF, SANTE, SG, SJ 
According to Art. 57 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014, the 
Commission shall submit an interim evaluation report at the level 
of the Union, by 30 June 2018, to the European Parliament, to the 
Council, to the European Economic and Social Committee and to 
the Committee of the Regions. 
11 April 2017 
PLAN/2017/893 
Open public consultation of 12 weeks was replaced by a targeted 
consultation with the beneficiaries of EU actions and emergency 
assistance funding. 
Contract signed in September 2017 with Ramboll.  

4 i.e. 24 October and 15 December 2017, 1 February and 8 March 
2018 
19 March 2018 (Final report) 

– 

11 April 2018 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

This  chapter  presents  the  methodology  employed  for  the  interim  evaluation  of  AMIF,  including 
reference to the challenges experienced and the mitigation strategies employed to mitigate these. 

The external study was divided into three phases: inception, interim and final: 

  The purpose of the inception stage was to prepare the evaluation work to be undertaken, and to 
ensure that the Steering Group and the contractor shared a common understanding of the study’s 
scope  and  objectives.  The  activities  carried  out  in  the  inception  stage  included  initial  desk 
research,  explorative  interviews  with  the  Commission  officials,  the  refinement  of  the 
methodology,  and  the  development  of  data  collection  tools.  This  stage  culminated  in  the 
production  of  the  inception  report,  which  was  discussed  during  a  meeting  with  the  Steering 
Group on 24 October 2017, revised and then approved on 27 November. 

  The purpose of the interim phase was mostly to collect data. The activities carried out in the 
interim  stage  included  desk  research,  in-depth  interviews,  case  studies,  meta-analysis  of  the 
national  interim  reports,  forward-looking  workshop  with  the  Evaluation  Network  and  the 
analysis  of  the  legal  base  for  preparing  the  interim  report.  This  stage  culminated  in  the 
production of the interim report, which was discussed during a meeting with the Steering Group 
on 15 December 2017, revised and then approved on 22 February 2018. 

  The  purpose  of  the  final  phase  was  to  synthesise  the  data  gathered,  triangulate  findings  and 
provide  conclusions  on  the  evaluation  questions  and  recommendations.  The  activities  carried 
out  in  the  final  stage  included  filling  gaps  in  the  data  and  refining  the  report,  analysing  the 
targeted consultation, and workshops. This stage culminated in the production of the draft final 
report, which was discussed during a meeting with the Steering Group on 1 February 2018, and 
is still being revised. 

Therefore,  the  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  has  met  for  a  fourth  time  to  discuss  the  draft  staff 
working documents. 

Desk  research  was  carried  out  during  the  inception  phase  to  identify  and  assess  relevant  data 
sources that can feed into the analysis. The main point of reference was all data that was accessible 
through  SFC2014  (national  programmes),  as  well  as  additional  data  available  on  budget,  EMAS, 
Union actions, the EMN, etc. Desk research in the interim phase built on the data collected during 
the inception phase and entailed three main types of analyses. 

  Analysis 1: Context-related qualitative and quantitative data was collected and processed to get 
a  thorough  understanding  of  the  context  of  AMIF  at  an  overarching  level  and  to  create  the 
background knowledge required for assessing the relevance, coherence and complementarity as 
well as of the added value of actions funded under AMIF. This analysis also included a review 
of most recent relevant literature. 

  Analysis  2:  General  financial  data  on  AMIF  was  analysed  to  extract  relevant  performance 
measurements and to assess AMIF’s implementation so far. Also, data on common results and 
impact indicators accessible through SFC2014 was collected and processed. 

  Analysis  3:  Qualitative  and  quantitative  data  on  EMAS,  Union  actions  and  the  EMN  was 
screened and processed. This included aggregated data (e.g. monitoring data and qualitative data 
from annual work programmes, audit documents, etc.) and project level data (e.g. as provided 
by  the  final  reports  of  the  projects).  This  provided  an  overview/categorisation  of  key  data  for 
each  of  the  instruments,  including  funding  allocations,  lead/partner  beneficiaries,  objectives, 
implementation status, and a categorisation of results. 

56 

 
The  in-depth  interviews  focused  on  Union  actions  and  the  EMN,  as  well  as  aspects  related  to 
internal and external coherence and complementarity with other EU funding instruments. In total, 
the contractor conducted 48 in-depth telephone or  face-to-face  interviews (interviews for the case 
studies  were  excluded).  The  interviews  were  carried  out  using  semi-structured  interview  guides, 
including a number of pre-defined themes and questions (aligned with the four pillars of AMIF). 

The  overall  aim  of  the  interviews  was  to  (i)  identify  any  issues  encountered  during  the 
implementation of the Union actions and the EMN; (ii) assess the internal coherence of the AMIF; 
(iii) assess the level of complementarity and coherence with other AMIF instruments/EU financial 
instruments, and (iv) seek areas for improvement. In particular, the interviews with stakeholders at 
the EU level aimed to assess the financed projects according to the evaluative framework at general 
level while  interviews among national  stakeholders looked more  closely at how  financed  projects 
are being implemented at the action level. 

Building  on  the  desk-based  work  assessing  the  degree  to  which  AMIF  is  complementary  to  and 
coherent  with  other  EU  financial  instruments’  legal  acts,  interviews  were  conducted  with 
representatives  of  other  EU  financial  instruments  (at  EU  level)  that  possibly  have  an  impact  on 
asylum seekers and refugees, on integration and on return. The coded data was then analysed and 
included in the main deliverables through a process of data triangulation. 

The purpose of the case studies (AT, BG, DE, EL, FR, IT, SE, the IOM and the UNHCR) was to 
provide in-depth analyses of the interventions, allowing for good and bad practices to be identified 
and  any  weaknesses  to  be  mitigated.  The  focus  of  the  case  studies  was  on  EMAS,  though  the 
responsible  authorities  in  the  countries  concerned  were  also  asked  more  general  questions  on  the 
Fund’s implementation and whether the EMAS complemented the national programmes. 

The case studies consisted of a twofold approach. To assess the implementation of EMAS and its 
strategic  orientation,  key  stakeholders  at  EU  and  national  level  were  interviewed,  as  well  as  high 
ranking  people  within  the  IOM  and  the  UNHCR.  To  assess  how  EMAS  was  implemented  in  the 
field, project beneficiaries of EMAS as well as the target group were interviewed. 

The data collected through the case studies contributed in particular to the assessment of AMIF’s 
implementation  with  regard  to  EMAS,  including  the  existence  of  linkages  between  actions 
implemented  in  given  Member  States,  and  identifying  any  difficulties  encountered  and  areas  for 
improvement. The results were analysed and synthesised in a standardised reporting template that 
was beneficiary-specific. The results provided both an assessment of the implementation of EMAS 
as well as first conclusions. 

The  objective  of  the  meta-evaluation  of  national  interim  evaluation  reports  was  to  make  an 
aggregate assessment of how national interventions contributed overall. The national interim reports 
were submitted to the SFC2014 by the responsible authorities by the end of December 2017. 

The  approaches  adopted  to  synthesise  the  data  contained  in  the  evaluation  reports  included  the 
coding of qualitative information, and the excel-based synthesis of quantitative data relating to the 
common indicators. All of the information contained in the 27 interim reports was assessed on the 
criteria’s completeness, comparability, quality and reliability with the reports being given a rating 
from  1  (poor  quality)  to  4  (very  good  quality)  for  each  criterion  on  each  evaluation  criteria  (e.g. 
effectiveness). Overall, 23 reports were rated as good and 3 reports were rated as very good. One 
report was considered as acceptable, while no report was considered to be poor. 

57 

 
These are the average scores by evaluation criterion (where the average aggregated rating was 11.9 
and the maximum rating was 16): 

  effectiveness 10.6; 

  efficiency 11.7; 

 

relevance 11.9; 

  coherence and complementarity 9.3; 

  EU added value 13.9; 

  sustainability 13.9; 

  simplification and reduction of administrative burden 12.9; 

  conclusions and recommendations 10.7; and 

  examples of projects 12.1. 

A forward-looking workshop was organised on the fringes of the Evaluation Network meeting on 
30 November with representatives of responsible authorities and the Member States evaluators. The 
contractor  also  assisted  as  an  observer  to  the  workshop  on  the  multiannual  financial  framework 
organised by the Commission on 6 December. 

The  purpose  of  analysing  AMIF’s  legal  base  was  to  consider  whether  it  is  an  obstacle  to  the 
Fund’s effectiveness, efficiency and relevance. 

The final phase of the study included a process of filling gaps in the data and refining the answers 
to  the  evaluation  questions.  Conclusions  were  drawn  per  evaluation  criterion,  drawing  on  the 
triangulated results of the evaluation. Recommendations for the Fund’s future and the next funding 
period were then developed. 

A  compilation  and  analysis  of  the  answers  received  to  the  targeted  consultation  has  been 
conducted. 

In  preparing  for  the  finalisation  tasks,  the  contractor  held  an  internal  workshop  involving  a 
brainstorming session with members of the core team and evaluative and thematic quality assurance 
experts  on  the  findings.  The  workshop  aimed  to  draw  preliminary  conclusions  and  produce 
recommendations. The workshop’s main purpose was to (i) validate the conclusions; (ii) revise the 
recommendations  to  best  fit  the  roles  of  stakeholders;  (iii)  address  technical  and  legislative 
constraints  and  feasibility  concerns;  (iv) establish  an  order  of  priority  among 
the  key 
recommendations and (v) validate this list. 

Based on the work described above, the final report for review and acceptance was prepared and 
compiled. 

58 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

AMIF had a consultation strategy whose objective was to gather input from stakeholders (evidence, 
data, as well as views and opinions) and ensure that all of them have the opportunity to present their 
views to the Commission on how well the existing programmes have performed and the  extent to 
which they met the EU’s objectives in these areas. Stakeholders’ input was sought to provide the 
Commission with valuable insights on how well the current funds are performing, including on the 
challenges related to the implementation. 

The  Commission  services  have  worked  on  the  future  multiannual  financial  framework  in  clusters 
setting up a streamlined consultation that covered both forward and backward looking questions on 
the programmes. This open consultation, as provided for in the Better Regulation guidelines and the 
interim evaluation’s consultation strategy, was meant for the general public and was published for 8 
weeks  on  the  Commission’s  portal110.  350  answers  and  52  position  papers  have  been  received  in 
this  context.  No  separate,  specific  open  consultation  for  the  mid-term  evaluation  was  carried  out. 
Launching  a  specific  consultation  for  the  mid-term  evaluations  could  have  created  confusion  and 
not provided much added value compared to the broader exercise.  

Instead,  a  targeted  consultation  specific  for  the  mid-term  evaluation  was  carried-out,  which 
eventually  was  used  to  contextualise  the  findings.  The  questionnaires  were  aimed  at  the 
beneficiaries of Union actions and EMAS and were made available in English, French and German. 
This consultation only received input from 17 participants. 

This targeted consultation has complemented the interviews performed in parallel by the consultant. 
The  results  of  all  stakeholders'  consultations  have  been  used  to  answer  and  contextualise  the 
answers to the evaluation questions. 

The results of the targeted consultation are presented below: 

  Of the 17 answers received, half (8) were from individuals answering in their professional capacity and half (9) from 
respondents  answering  on  behalf  of  their  organisations.  Of  these,  3  were  from  non-profit  organisations,  9  from 
public authorities, 3 from the academia and 2 from other type of organisations. All but one have declared knowing 
AMIF  because  they  have  benefitted  from  its  funding  and  have  rated  their  knowledge  of  the  Fund  mostly  as  very 
good (3) or good (11). 

  The  first  part  of  the  consultation  concerned  the  importance  of  the  specific  objectives  of  AMIF  for  the  policy 
priorities  in  the  Member  States  (CEAS,  legal  migration,  integration,  return,  solidarity).  7  respondents  consider 
important  and  9  very  important  to  have  as  specific  objective  the  common  European  asylum  system,  6  consider 
important  and  8  very  important  to  have  legal  migration,  5  consider  important  and  11  very  important  to  have 
integration, 6 consider important and 10 very important to have return, and finally 7 consider important and 9 very 
important to have solidarity. 

  The  second  part  of  the  consultation  concerned  the  extent  at  which  the  actions  financed  by  AMIF  in  the  Member 
States  contribute  to  the  Fund's  objectives  (CEAS,  legal  migration,  integration,  return,  solidarity).  16  respondents 
consider that AMIF does contribute to the common European asylum system (5 to some extent, 7 to a great extent 
and 4 fully), 15 consider that AMIF contributes to  legal migration (3 to a limited extent, 4 to some extent, 4 to a 
great extent and 4 fully), 15 consider that AMIF contributes to the integration objective (1 to a limited extent, 2 to 
some extent, 8 to a great extent, 4 fully), 16 consider that AMIF does contribute to return (1 to a limited extent, 3 to 
some  extent,  8  to  a    great  extent,  4  fully),    and  finally  16  respondents  consider  that  AMIF  contributes  to  the 
solidarity objective (1 to a limited extent, 7 to some extent, 5 to a great extent and 3 fully). 

  10 respondents consider AMIF being able to address new and emerging needs (10 to some extent and 3 fully), while 
the  big  majority  see  AMIF  having  a  positive  influence  on  how  Member  States  work  with  asylum  (16),  with 
integration (14) and with return (13). 

  Regarding the cooperation among Member States, respondents consider that AMIF's contribution was positive in the 

area of asylum (12), integration (11) and return (9). 

110   http://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations_en 

59 

 
                                                            
  Regarding  whether  the  EU  policies  would  have  been  implemented  without  the  support  of  AMIF,  respondents 

consider it mostly likely in the area of asylum (12), integration (9) and return (10). 

  Looking  at  AMIF  so  far,  respondents  considered  that  the  Fund  promotes  services  and  assistance  that  were  not 
delivered in the Member States before in the area of asylum (7), integration (8) and return (only 4). More than half 
of respondents (9, 7 and 10 respectively) did not know how to answer these questions. The remaining consider that 
AMIF does not bring any new services in these policy areas. 

  The majority of respondents think that AMIF funded projects help beneficiaries to be better received when entering 
a receiving country, better integrate into the receiving country, and to better reintegrate into the country of origin. 
  Respondents were divided  in  half  who  considered  AMIF  generally  easier  or  much  easier  (8)  to  implement  AMIF 
actions  and  projects  compared  to  the  previous  programming  period  (SOLID)  and  the  other  half  (9)  who  did  not 
know. 

  In what concerns the degree at which actions financed by AMIF are coherent with actions and projects funded by 
national  resources,  the  majority  of  respondents  were  positive  (11  in  the  field  of  asylum,  10  in  the  fields  of 
integration and return respectively), with the rest not being able to answer. 

  Regarding sustainability, respondents were divided into those who believe actions would continue at least partially 
also in the absence of the EU financial support (6) and those who believed that this would have not happened (10). 
More or less the same proportion was then reproduced regarding the achievement of the objectives in the absence of 
AMIF – 5 who consider that these could have been achieved and 10 who believe it would have not been possible. 

In  addition  to  this,  the  evaluation  reflected  the  results  of  a  forward-looking  workshop  with 
representatives of responsible authorities and the Member States evaluators. Its results are presented 
below: 

  Changes (as compared to the previous period) with the greatest (positive/negative) impact on the Fund: multi-annual 
programming, merger of the funds; specific objectives; programming process, organizational set-up, changes to the 
RA’s)  

  Legal base act as an enabler or inhibitor to achieving the objectives  

  Horizontal  Regulation  (514/2014):  Programming,  Partnership  and  Policy  Dialogue,  Eligibility  of  expenditure, 
Management  and  Control  Systems,  Financial  Management,  Information,  Communication,  Monitoring,  Evaluation 
and Reporting 
  AMIF  Regulation  (516/2014):  Purpose  and  scope;  Financial  and  implementation  framework:  Allocations  to 
various objectives; Multi-Annual Breakdowns 

  Success stories in the implementation  
  Key  characteristics  to  be  maintained  in  the  future  (consider  legal  base,  different  funding  modalities,  various 

instruments etc.) 

  Key  characteristics  to  be  changed  in  the  future  (consider  legal  base,  different  funding  modalities,  various 

instruments etc.)? 

PART 1 

What changes (as compared to the previous period) have had the greatest (positive/negative) impact on the 
Fund? 
Positive 

  AMIF  has  consolidated  what  were  separate  funds  under  SOLID,  for  example  there  can  now  be  a  continuum  in 

language training financing across the different pillars, irrespective of TNCs’ status 

  Fewer reporting requirements  
  Increased flexibility 
  Inter-ministerial committee where discuss complementary between the funds 

Negative 

  Divergence  between  what  is  being  collected  by  MS  already  for  financial  auditing  and  what  is  required  from  the 
evaluation  perspective  with  the  CMEF;  sometimes  the  data  was  said  to  work  against  each  other.  It  was  further 
mentioned  that  the  staff  dealing  with  the  financial  data  are  not  aware  of  evaluation  and  the  differences  between 
outputs and outcomes.  

  Administrative burden for beneficiaries – monitoring and justification of costs; BUT this is often a result of national 

rules rather than AMIF per se 

  Setting  targets  for  7  years  was  considered  long;  they  will  need  to  be  revised  multiple  times  on  the  basis  of 
needs/changes and a review of progress made on a yearly to 18-month basis. An example was provided of countries 
that were previously considered safe countries, but whose status has changed due to changing circumstances. 

60 

 
 
 
 
Mixed picture 

  Common indicators set by the EC were seen as a good thing in principle, but these could be improved to make them 
more relevant. Some suggested making them more precise, but others said that there was a danger in doing this due 
to  national  differences  in  data  collection.  An  example  was  provided  of  the  indicator  on  the  ratio  of  those  people 
trained in asylum – it was difficult to calculate this due to staff turnover. A “comment” section is important to have 
so that it can be clarified why given data is not provided or to explain how it has been calculated/the limitation. 

  Multi-annual  nature  of  the  Fund  is  positive  as  provides  for  more  flexibility,  but  more  complicated  for  forward 
planning, and while there is only a need to report once, reporting still needs to be done multiple times per project. 
Moreover, multi-annual payments can put an increased burden on given systems. 

To what extent does the AMIF’s legal base act as an enabler or inhibitor to it achieving its objectives? 

  Regulation seen mostly as an enabler as wider than SOLID – easier to interpret 
  The links between the Regulation and Delegated Acts were not that clear as they were drafted at different moments 

Note: Limited comments on this – few really aware of the legal acts/able to comment 

What do you perceive as the main strengths and weaknesses / comparative benefits and drawbacks of each of 
AMIF’s instruments? 

  Difficulties related to the Specific Actions as limited guidance received from EC  – unclear who is responsible for 

what, difficulties in determining financial flows between partners  

  Resettlement was said to work, but the guidelines provided by the EC on who and when could be clearer 
  Specific  actions  –  Means  attributed did not fit with  the  needs  after  crisis;  linked  to  the  distribution key.  Example 

provided: some MS more in need of money, after the crisis, than some MS who received a lot initially 
Note: Lack of awareness among those who attended of Union Actions, EMN 

Can you provide some examples of success stories in the implementation of the Fund in your Member State? 
  One  project  has  significantly  decreased  the  time  needed  to  check  the  age  of  minors  and  another  has  made 

applications easier 

  All children refugees have been integrated in schooling thanks to the AMIF 
  It was suggested that success could only really be judged on outcome data, but this is not available in many cases as 

too early on – few projects ended.  

PART 2 

What are the key characteristics of AMIF to be maintained in the future fund (consider legal base, different 
funding modalities, various instruments etc.)? 
To keep: 

  Reception and asylum as a pillar within AMIF 
  The current integrated structure with its 4 pillars 
  The CMEF 
  Flexible payment process – beneficiaries can ask for money when they need it and not only once per year; MS have 
this  option  at  their  disposal.  The  flip  side  of  this  is  the  increased  administrative  burden  involved  and  cash  flow 
issues from the perspective of the RAs. 

  Multi-annual nature 
  Monitoring Committee – fact that stakeholders are involved 

What  are  the  key  characteristics  of  AMIF  to  be  changed  in  the  future  fund  (consider  legal  base,  different 
funding modalities, various instruments etc.)? 
To change: 

  Fact that limited to TCNs 
  Target nationals more to increase their awareness of AMIF 
  Financial year versus calendar year; would be easier for reporting purposes if AMIF followed the calendar year. It 

was suggested that such a change could represent a problem for Commission processes and timings. 

  Simplified  costs  –  there  is  a  need  for  more  guidance  for  MS  on  this.  It  was  suggested  that  a  workshop  could  be 

organised to this effect. 

  7 years was judged a long time; there may be a need to adapt the NPs to needs and change in a over the course of 

that period, e.g. once a year 

  Decrease the level of ambition with the CMEF indicators – reduce the number, increase clarity, possibly rely mostly 

on the output (rather than result) indicators as easier to gather data on. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The  evaluation  questions  are  listed  in  the  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. 

Effectiveness 

(1)  To what extent has the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (‘Fund’) reached the objectives 

defined in Regulation (EU) No 516/2014? 

(a)  How did the Fund contribute to strengthening and developing all aspects of the Common 

European Asylum System, including its external dimension? 

(i.)  What progress was made towards strengthening and developing the asylum procedures, and 

how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? 

(ii.) What progress was made towards strengthening and developing the reception conditions, and 

how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? 

(iii.) What progress was made towards the achievement of a successful implementation of the legal 

framework of the qualification directive (and its subsequent modifications), and how did the 
Fund contribute to achieving this progress? 

(iv.) What progress was made towards enhancing Member State capacity to develop, monitor and 
evaluate their asylum policies and procedures, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving 
this progress? 

(v.) What progress was made towards the establishment, development and implementation of 
national resettlement programmes and strategies, and other humanitarian admission 
programmes, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? 

(b)  How did the Fund contribute to supporting legal migration to the Member States in accordance 
with their economic and social needs, such as labour market needs, while safeguarding the 
integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and to promoting the effective 
integration of third-country nationals? 

(i.)  What progress was made towards supporting legal migration to the Member States in 

accordance with their economic and social needs, such as labour market needs, and how did the 
Fund contribute to achieving this progress? 

(ii.) What progress was made towards promoting the effective integration of third-country nationals, 

and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? 

(iii.) What progress was made towards supporting cooperation among the Member States, with a 

view to safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and how did 
the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? 

(iv.) What progress was made towards building capacity on integration and legal migration within 

the Member States, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? 

(c)  How did the Fund contribute to enhancing fair and effective return strategies in the Member 

States which contribute to combating illegal immigration, with an emphasis on sustainability of 
return and effective readmission in the countries of origin and transit? 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(i.)  What progress was made towards supporting the measures accompanying return procedures, 

and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? 

(ii.) What progress was made towards effective implementation of return measures (voluntary and 

forced), and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? 

(iii.) What progress was made towards enhancing practical cooperation between Member States 

and/or with authorities of third countries on return measures, and how did the Fund contribute 
to achieving this progress? 

(iv.) What progress was made towards building capacity on return, and how did the Fund contribute 

to achieving this progress? 

(d)  How did the Fund contribute to enhancing solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the 
Member States, in particular towards those most affected by migration and asylum flows, 
including through practical cooperation? 

(i.)  How did the Fund contribute to the transfer of asylum applicants (relocation as per Council 

Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601)? 

(ii.) How did the Fund contribute to the transfer between Member States of beneficiaries of 

international protection? 

(e)  How did the Fund contribute to supporting the Member States in duly substantiated emergency 

situations requiring urgent action? 

(i.)  What type of emergency actions was implemented? 
(ii.) How did the emergency actions implemented under the Fund contribute to addressing the 

urgent needs of the Member State? 

(iii.) What were the main results of the emergency actions? 

Efficiency (Were the general objectives of the Fund achieved at reasonable cost?) 

(2)  To what extent were the results of the Fund achieved at reasonable cost in terms of deployed 

financial and human resources? What measures were put in place to prevent, detect, report and 
follow-up on cases of fraud and other irregularities, and how did they perform? 

Relevance (Did the objectives of the interventions funded by the Fund correspond to the actual needs?) 

(3)  Did the objectives set by the Member State in the National Programme respond to the identified 
needs? Did the objectives set in the Annual Work Programme (Union actions) address the 
actual needs? Did the objectives set in the Annual Work Programme (Emergency Assistance) 
address the actual needs? Which measures did the Member State put in place to address 
changing needs? 

Coherence (Were the objectives set in the national programme Fund coherent with the ones set in other 
programmes funded by EU resources and applying to similar areas of work? Was the coherence ensured 
also during the implementation of the Fund?) 

(4)  Was an assessment of other interventions with similar objectives carried out and taken into 

account during the programming stage? Were coordination mechanisms between the Fund and 
other interventions with similar objectives established for the implementing period? Were the 
actions implemented through the Fund coherent with and non-contradictory to other 
interventions with similar objectives? 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
Complementarity (Were the objectives set in the national programme and the corresponding 
implemented actions complementary to those set in the framework of other policies, in particular those 
pursued by the Member State)? 

(5)  Was an assessment of other interventions with complementary objectives carried out and taken 
into account during the programming stage? Were coordination mechanisms between the Fund 
and other interventions with similar objectives established to ensure their complementarity for 
the implementing period? Were mechanisms aimed to prevent overlapping of financial 
instruments put in place? 

EU added value (Was any value added brought about by the EU support?) 

(6)  What are the main types of added value resulting from the Fund support (volume, scope, role, 
process)? Would the Member State have carried out the actions required to implement the EU 
policies in the Fund areas without the financial support of the Fund? What would be the most 
likely consequences of an interruption of the support provided by the Fund? To which extent 
have actions supported by the Fund resulted in a benefit at the Union level? 

Sustainability (Are the positive effects of the projects supported by the Fund likely to last when the 
support from FUND will be over?) 

(7)  What were the main measures adopted by the Member State to ensure the sustainability of the 

results of the projects implemented with the Fund support (both at programming and 
implementation stage)? Were mechanisms put in place to ensure a sustainability check at 
programming and implementation stage? To what extent are the outcomes/benefits of the 
actions sustained by the Fund expected to continue thereafter? 

Simplification and reduction of administrative burden (Were the Fund management procedures 
simplified and the administrative burden reduced for its beneficiaries?) 

(8)  Did the innovative procedures introduced by the Fund (simplified cost option, multiannual 

programming, national eligibility rules, more comprehensive national programmes allowing for 
flexibility) bring about simplification for the beneficiaries of the Fund? 

64 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: COSTS AND BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AMIF 

The  following  table  analyses  the  costs  incurred  by  the  various  actors  involved  in  implementing 
AMIF, the target group, the beneficiaries, the national administrations and the EU. These costs vary 
from the administrative/indirect or compliance costs for the beneficiaries, to the administrative costs 
or technical assistance for the responsible authorities, to the actual financial costs for the EU and to 
the  human  resources  costs  for  all  the  above.  The  measurement  made  is  qualitative  as  well  as 
quantitative or monetary. 

Table 7: Overview of costs supported by the actors involved in AMIF during 2014-2017 

Target Group 

  n/a 

Beneficiaries 
Admin 

  Most beneficiaries of Union actions and the EMN consider that the administrative costs were reasonable, 
as were the number of staff involved in the implementation, especially if they already had experience in 
managing European funds. Resources for reporting remain burdensome. 

  With regard to EMAS, interviewees underlined that the main problems were related to the administrative 
burden of the auditing and procurement processes, because it is difficult to comply with the administrative 
rules  while  responding  to  an  emergency  situation.  Nevertheless,  the  administrative  requirements  for 
EMAS were considered to be simpler compared to those under the national programmes. 

  There  is  evidence  suggesting  that  some  of  the  administrative  requirements  imposed  by  the  responsible 

authorities on beneficiaries of the national programmes are overly strict and create undue burden. 

National administrations 
Technical 
Assistance 

  AMIF administrative requirements can be compared to those of similar EU funds. 
  14 Member States (AT, BG, CZ, EL, FR, HR, HU, IE, LU, MT, NL, SE, SI, and the UK) were unable to 
give a thorough assessment of the cost-effectiveness of deployed financial and human resources, mainly 
due to the timing of the interim evaluation. The remaining Member States deemed that the actions have 
been cost-effective (CY, DE, FI, IT, LV, PL, PT, RO and SK) or partially cost-effective (BE, EE, ES and 
LT). 

  The  value  for  the  technical  assistance  is  EUR 151  million  in  allocations  and  EUR 32.77  million  in 

payments. 

HR 

  Interviewees  familiar  with  the  previous  financial  period  acknowledge  there  are  improvements  under 
AMIF compared to SOLID funds. The innovative measures111 aimed to achieve simplification have been 
deemed useful, in particular the multiannual funding and single set of procedures for all areas covered. 
  While  case officers  reported  that  the  IT  tools  are  useful  for  managing  the  Fund,  there  is  currently  little 

evidence that these have led to simplification for beneficiaries. 

  In 2017 across the EU, there were 447 FTEs in total, with an average of 16.55 FTEs per Member States. 

European Union 
Budget 
Commit 

  Although of considerable value, AMIF represents a small fraction of the total (EU-wide) expenditure of 
Member States in the same areas. Nevertheless, the importance of AMIF funding changes from Member 
State to Member State. 

Paym 

  The total AMIF commitments over 2014 -2017 amount to EUR 6 888 million. 
  Due  to  the  Fund  starting  late,  as  well  as  the  multiannual  setting  that  allows  the  implementation  of 
multiannual  projects  and  claiming  of  the  costs  incurred  by  the  Member  States  at  later  stages  (i.e.  after 
national verifications), the absorption of the funds as seen in the accounts could suggest a relatively low 
implementation rate. However, the implementation on the ground that looks at the financial commitments 
already signed by the Member States seems to suggest AMIF’s implementation has been accelerated and 
is thus on track to be fully used (at least by the Member States who may need it the most) by the end of 
the financial period. 

  EUR 1 068 million, out of which EUR 32.77 million or 3 % represents technical assistance payments (i.e. 

costs of implementation incurred by Member States but supported by the EU budget). 

HR 

  Union actions and EMAS have been implemented with low human resources costs. The Commission has 
used  these  resources  efficiently  both  in  terms  of  FTEs  but  also  in  terms  of  lean  and  quick  technical 
procedures. 

111   E.g.  simplified  cost  option,  multiannual  programming,  national  eligibility  rules,  more  comprehensive  national 

programmes. 

65 

 
 
                                                            
  Over  2014-2017,  on  average,  140  FTEs  within  the  Commission  were  involved  in  implementing  AMIF, 

with a yearly average cost of approximatively EUR 17.7 million. 

The  following  table  analyses  the  benefits  reaped  by  the  various  bodies  involved  in  implementing 
AMIF, the target group, the beneficiaries, the national administrations and the EU. These benefits 
vary  from  intangible  such  as  knowledge  developed  or  capacity  built  to  tangible  such  as  financial 
support. The analyses made are both qualitative and quantitative (including monetary). 

Table 8: Overview of benefits brought by AMIF during 2015-2017 

Development of asylum procedures — the contribution made by AMIF so far to strengthening and developing the 
CEAS, including its external dimension. Benefits: tangible (financial support) and intangible (knowledge). 
Target Group 
  1 062 085 people benefited from information and assistance throughout the asylum procedures; 
  157 609 people benefited from legal assistance and representation; and  
  155 876 vulnerable people and unaccompanied minors benefited from specific assistance. 
Beneficiaries 
  EMAS resulted in local authorities increasing their capacity to deal with the high number of applicants caused by the 

migratory crisis and the increased pressure during 2015 and onwards. 

  14 131 people were trained in asylum-related topics. 
National administrations 
  Setting up of administrative structures and training for staff and relevant stakeholders. 
European Union 
  A new set of innovative and tailored approaches, tools and methodologies (e.g. for conducting interviews) are put at 

the disposal of organisations tackling human trafficking, and other relevant actors. 

  Exchange  of  information  and  identification  of  best  practices  concerning  procedures  to  assess  and  meet  the  special 

needs of victims of torture and of extreme violence related to the asylum procedures. 

  5  out  of  21  EMN  studies  and  4  out  of  30  EMN  Informs  published  between  2014  and  2016  dealt  with  asylum 
procedures. The  most frequent topic for ad hoc queries in 2014 and 2015 was international protection and asylum, 
accounting for 25 % in 2014 and for 41 % in 2015. 

Reception conditions — strengthening and developing the reception conditions of migrants. Benefits: tangible 
(financial support to Member States authorities and provision of services to migrants) and intangible (increased 
knowledge and awareness). 
Target Group 
  Better identification of the special needs of asylum seekers, victims of trafficking, and victims of torture and extreme 
violence. Sharing of examples of good practice contributing to the development of harmonised protection standards. 
  The  additional  and  improved  capacities  of  reception  facilities  helped  to  create  a  more  dignified,  safe  and  healthy 
environment for refugees upon and after arrival. Respective actions ensured: shelter for a higher number of asylum 
seekers  without  delay;  more  privacy  and  physical  protection  in  new  shelters  in  accordance  with  the  Reception 
Conditions Directive; and better medical and psychological coverage of refugees, who were also provided with daily 
supplies. 

  One of the EMAS monitored reception centres ensured that reception infrastructure is set up in line with minimum 
requirements.  In  SE,  EMAS  covered  the  unforeseen  accommodation  costs  for  around  37 %  of  the  total  number  of 
asylum seekers (89 831 asylum seekers out of a total of 242 305 asylum seekers were provided with accommodation), 
while BG plans to bring its overall accommodation capacity of 10 000 places through support from EMAS. 

  The  ratio  of  the  number  of  people  in  the  accommodation  system  out  of  the  total  number  of  asylum  applicants 
increased  by  63 %  on  average  across  Member  States  in  2016  compared  to  2014.  The  ratio  most  significantly 
increased in RO (270 %), EE (153 %) and SE (141 %). 

  The number of asylum applicants considered to be unaccompanied minors (UAM) increased in 2016 as compared to 
2016  in  most  Member  States,  most  significantly  in  DE  by  almost  30 000,  SE  (3 501,  after  a  peak  in  2015  with  an 
increase of 23 797 compared to 2014), IT (3 631) and the UK (3 038). 

  17 598 places of new reception accommodation infrastructure were set up in line with the common requirements for 

reception conditions and 1 997 places were adapted for unaccompanied minors. 

Beneficiaries 
  Many projects focused on improving reception conditions. 
  Several EMAS measures helped to strengthen the capacity of reception facilities in certain Member States through: 
additional staff, especially in health, psycho-social & legal assistance; additional housing rented out and/or tents set 
up; and providing transportation. 

66 

 
 
National administrations 
  Measures  on  how  to  adapt  asylum  procedures  and  reception  conditions  at  national  level,  based  on  the  recast 

Reception and Procedure Directives were identified. 

  In  the  case  of  AT  and  SE,  the  EMAS  support  was  mainly  used  to  reimburse  expenses  that  would  otherwise  be 

covered by the state budget, therefore relieving the pressure on national resources. 

  In  DE,  funding  was  allocated  to  rent  accommodation  to  prevent  homelessness  among  asylum  seekers.  EMAS  also 
helped accelerate the number of interpretation services given at the borders (especially supporting registrations and 
first help) and during asylum processes. 

European Union 
  n/a 
Development of asylum procedures — better implementation of the legal framework of the Qualification Directive. 
Benefits: increased convergence of the recognition rates112. 
Target Group 
  Increased level of legal certainty/security in the asylum systems. 
  757 950 people participated in pre-departure measures supported by the Fund. 
Beneficiaries 
  n/a 
National administrations 
  Two  EMAS  measures  have  implicitly contributed  to  the  implementation  of  Directive 2011/95/EU,  since  they  have 

provided training for 100 additional employees to support asylum procedures. 

  The EMN has also implicitly contributed as harmonising asylum procedures is a topic of discussion that has emerged 
on several occasions: an EMN Inform dealt with statelessness and found that there is no consistency among Member 
States in the procedures they use to determine statelessness. Therefore, in 2016 the EMN Platform on Statelessness 
was formed to raise awareness and to bring together all the relevant stakeholders in the field. 

European Union 
  The convergence of first instance and final instance recognition rates by Member States for asylum applicants from a 
same  third  country  increased  in  most  Member  States  in  2016  compared  to  2014.  This  is  especially  true  for  FI  (by 
61 %, now at 5 % of divergence), SE (by -57 %, now at -12 % of divergence) and the NL (by 43 %, now at -12 % of 
divergence). 

  By contrast, first instance / final instance recognition rates were less converged in EE, ES and FR compared to 2014, 

all diverging by more than 50 % in 2016. 

Development of asylum procedures — supporting legal migration to the Member States according to their economic 
needs, while safeguarding the integrity of Member States immigration systems and promoting the effective integration 
of third country nationals. Benefits: improved integration of TCNs.  
Target Group 
  Some  progress  through  eight  Union  actions  under  which  capacity  building,  integration  support  to  victims  of 

trafficking as well as integration and protection measures were implemented. 
  2 out of 21 EMN studies dealt with the topic of effective integration of TCNs: 
  The assessment of Member States’ progress in the integration field depicts a less favourable situation and a growing 
gap between TCNs and host country nationals, visible in many Member States and it likely results from the increased 
migratory pressure. The gap concerns aspects such as the employment rate (BE, CY, CZ, ES, FI, HU, NL, SE and 
SK), educational levels (BE, CY, EE, ES, IT, LV and PL) and risk of social exclusion (BE, NL and SE). 

  3 350 554  people  were  assisted  by  the  Fund  through  integration  measures  under  national,  local  and  regional 
strategies.  Of  these:  690 927  people  were  assisted  through  measures  focusing  on  education  and  training  (language 
training  and  preparatory  actions  to  facilitate  access  to  the  labour  market),  85 022  people  through  the  provision  of 
advice and assistance in the area of housing, 18 769 people through the provision of health and psychological care 
and 719 147 people were assisted through measures related to democratic participation. 

Beneficiaries 
  n/a 
National administrations 
  There are examples of the EMN’s effectiveness on legal migration, in particular the ad hoc queries used by national 
governments  to  learn  from  other  Member  States.  In  2016,  the  most  frequent  themes  addressed  concerned  legal 
migration  (28 %  of  all  queries  that  year).  Covered  topics  included:  family  reunification,  conditions  for  granting 
residence  permits,  student  permits,  the  period  of  validity  of  residence  permits  granted  to  third-country  nationals, 

112   The findings show limited evidence that the actions under the Fund explicitly focused on this. In cases where there 
is  a  strengthened  legal  certainty  (FI  and  SE)  as  indicated  by  the  convergence  of  first  instance  and  final  instance 
recognition rates for applications from the same country, it still remains unclear to what extent this can be linked 
back to the actions implemented under AMIF. 

67 

 
                                                            
temporary  residence  permits  and  the  implementation  and  execution  of  EU  Directives  concerning  public  order  or 
public security. 
European Union 
  n/a 
National resettlement programmes and strategies — progress towards establishing, developing and implementing 
national resettlement programmes and strategies, and other humanitarian admission programmes. Benefits: little 
evidence and results not yet evident. 
Target Group 
  With  the  EU  resettlement  scheme,  Member  States  agreed  in  July  2015  to  resettle  over  22 000  people  in  need  of 
international  protection  during  the  period  2015-2017.  Member  States  also  agreed  in  March  2016  under  the  EU-
Turkey  Statement  to  resettle  an  additional  54 000  Syrian  refugees  from  Turkey  (in  exchange  for  Syrians  being 
returned to Turkey.) 

  As of 30 November 2017, 25 980 people had been resettled under both EU schemes. 
  In addition, within the EU, 1 632 applicants and beneficiaries of international protection have been transferred from 

one Member State to another with support from the Fund. 

Beneficiaries 
  n/a 
National administrations 
  A significant number of Member States have not yet carried out relevant projects to facilitate the implementation of 
national  resettlement  programmes  and  strategies,  and  other  humanitarian  admission  programmes.  Out  of  those 
Member States who made an assessment, the overall impression indicates that progress was made with help from the 
Fund. 

  Seven Member States (AT, BE, ES, FR, HU, IT and the UK) have reported that the fund contributed to significant 
progress  towards  establishing,  developing  and  implementing  national  resettlement  programmes  and  strategies,  and 
other humanitarian admission programmes. Four Member States (CZ, DE, FI and LV) reported moderate progress, 
while none reported that no progress was made. 

  One EMAS measure aimed to support the resettlement programme of the EU-Turkey Statement, through (i) assisting 
EL  in  meeting  the  operational  requirements,  including  setting  up  units  in  border  locations  and  a  back-office,  (ii) 
further deployment of staff in order to examine claims submitted after the EU-Turkey Statement, and (iii) temporarily 
deploying police officers to support registration procedures. 

  A result of the projects funded under AMIF dealing with resettlement, according to interviewees is a stated rise in the 
number  of  Member  States  that  are  implementing  resettlement  programmes.  In  this  context,  the  European 
Resettlement  Network  was  mentioned  as  important  for  this  progress.  It  assists  Member  States  in  developing  a 
strategy, setting resettlement priorities, implementing post-arrival and integration phases and supports the inclusion of 
pre-departure  components.  81 %  of  the  27  funded  Member  States  are  currently  implementing  resettlement 
programmes in some form, in contrast to only 15 % in the former funding period. 

European Union 
  In terms of the EMN, three national conferences were held on the topic of resettlement during 2016 (in FR, SE and 
the UK). In addition, there was one Study (out of 21) and two EMN Informs (out of 30) dealing with resettlement. 
  Forced  and  voluntary  return  —strengthening  fair  and  effective  return  strategies.  Benefits:  (i) awareness  sessions 
and  awareness  materials,  (ii) administrative  structures  and  capacity  building,  (iii)  increased  engagement  by 
government and stakeholders, and (iv) training of key stakeholders in countries of origin. 

Target Group 
  Three  EMAS  schemes  coordinated  by  the  IOM  have  facilitated  the  voluntary  return  of  a  considerable  number  of 
TCNs  so  far,  offering  support  in  the  preparation  of  and  during  travel  (obtaining  visa  documents,  return  tickets, 
transportation, accommodation for a few days). 

  The return rate of TCNs in 2016 (i.e. the number of TCNs returned to a third country following an order to leave) was 

46 %, an increase of 10 percentage points across the EU, compared to 2014. 

  62 919  returnees  received  pre-  or  post-return  reintegration  assistance  from  AMIF  between  2014  and  2017.  Of  the 
120 332 returnees whose return was co-financed by AMIF, 79 298 returned voluntarily and 41 034 were removed. 

Beneficiaries 
  Several EMN annual conferences dealt with return. 
  Within the EMN’s work, return accounted for 16 % of all ad hoc queries in 2014, 21 % in 2015 and 14 % in 2016, 
addressing issues such as voluntary return and reintegration programmes, financial assistance to returnees and return 
to  specific  countries/regions,  for  example,  Afghanistan,  Pakistan  and  West  Africa.  Other  thematic  areas  frequently 
addressed were residence and irregular migration. 

National administrations 
  Return has been a topic of importance in a majority of Member States. Steps were taken to produce and disseminate 
knowledge, best practice and to raise awareness. In the EMN’s work, the theme of return received increased interest 

68 

 
(see above for beneficiaries). Additional evidence is the large number of applications for actions on return financed 
under specific actions.  

  The return rate of TCNs increased across the EU between 2014 and 2016. 
  Between 2014 and 2017, 8 060 people were trained on return-related topics assisted by the Fund; 15 660 people who 
monitored removal operations were co-financed by the Fund; and 40 997 people who were removed had their return 
co-financed by the Fund. The Fund also supported the removal of 2 007 people under the framework of joint return 
operations (assisted-voluntary and forced) and the creation or renovation of 4 889 places in detention centres. 

European Union 
  Four Union actions more or less supported of measures accompanying return procedures (information and awareness 
raising  among  stakeholders  who  were  trained  by  civil  society  representatives  and  the  provision  of  reintegration 
assistance to voluntary returnees). 

  However, AMIF is limited in terms of effectively implementing return strategies, mainly because successful return 

measures are bound by agreements with receiving third countries. 

Solidarity — improving solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States, especially towards the 
Member States most affected by migration and asylum flows. Benefits: providing accommodation and transferring 
asylum seekers, support services and information, emergency training, improved procedures. 
Target Group 
  In response to the increasing need for health care services, the UNHCR through its partners (the Athens Development 
and Destination Management Agency, Médecins du Monde and Praksis Programmes of Development, Social Support 
and Medical Cooperation) filled the gaps in services available within the national health care system. 

  Relocation  candidates,  mostly  vulnerable  families,  benefited  from  transportation  and  accommodation  immediately 

after being registered. 

  At  least  2 400  asylum  seekers  were  reached  indirectly  on  a  weekly  basis  and  over  1 200  beneficiaries  were 

approached individually by the Danish Refugee Council protection staff in EL. 

Beneficiaries 
  Emergency training for participants from the asylum authorities, Hellenic Coast Guard, and NGO partners. 
National administrations 
  Significant contribution has been made by the Fund in supporting Member States in emergency situations. The Fund 
managed to respond well to the relevant needs in emergency situations even if for a few Member States, the value of 
the assistance was more symbolic than substantial. 

  By the end of September 2016, the accommodation capacity in support of the relocation programme reached 13 036 

places, representing 65 % of the 20 000 target of UNHCR and its partners by the end of 2016. 

European Union 
  n/a 
Emergency Situations — supporting the Member States in duly substantiated emergency situations requiring urgent 
action. Benefits: (i) support services (such as translation, medical assessment), (ii) setting up of administrative 
infrastructure, (iii) accommodation and social assistance, (iv) evaluation and supervision of standards of reception, 
(v) improved capacity of regional or national asylum system to register and process asylum claims, (vi) successful 
relocation of asylum seekers, (vii) more dignified, safe and healthy environment for refugees upon and after arrival, and 
(viii) voluntary return and forced return. 
Target Group 
  EMAS  have  made  the  reception  of  TCNs  more  dignified  and  safe  by  improving  reception  conditions  (e.g. 
EMAS/18/EL  provided  accommodation,  food  and  transportation  for  35 272  beneficiaries,  while  EMAS/37 
contributed to the relocation procedure including the pre-registration of 21 768 people). 

  1 585  TCNs  were  returned  —  121  through  forced  return  via  the  Hellenic  Police  and  1 464  voluntarily  through  the 

IOM. 

  1 060 migrants were assisted by the IOM with their voluntary return (37 vulnerable cases of which 19 UAMs). 
  7 634 people benefited from a pre-departure information session. 7 390 people have been successfully relocated. 
Beneficiaries 
  n/a 
National administrations 
  EMAS played an important role for the Member States during the migration crisis. The actions helped increase the 

capacity of authorities when the number of applicants dramatically increased. 
  118 additional staff was seconded to the reception and identification services. 
European Union 
  More than 100 centres were visited and based on the monitoring reports, some reception facilities were scrutinised by 

the local Prefectures and in a few cases were closed down. 

69