REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Ex post evaluation reports for the period 2011 to 2013 of actions co-financed by the four Funds under the framework programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows'
Date: 2018-06-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU programme, aid to refugees, external border of the EU, foreign national, fund (EU), integration of migrants, migratory movement, refugee, return migration

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.6.2018 COM(2018) 456 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Ex post evaluation reports for the period 2011 to 2013 of actions co-financed by the four Funds under the framework programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows' {SWD(2018) 333 final}  - {SWD(2018) 334 final}  - {SWD(2018) 335 final}  - {SWD(2018) 336 final}  
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

Although the movements of persons into, out of and within each EU State vary, our societies 
share  similar  migration  opportunities  and  challenges.  Adequate,  flexible  and  coherent 
financial resources are essential for strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice and 
for  developing  the  common  Union  policy  on  asylum  and  immigration  based  on  solidarity 
between EU States and towards non-EU countries. 

For  the  period  2007-13,  almost  EUR  4  billion  was  allocated  for  the  management  of  the 
Union's  external  borders  and  for  the  implementation  of  common  asylum  and  immigration 
policies  through  the  General  Programme  “Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows” 
(SOLID)1,  which  consisted  of  four  instruments  (the  'SOLID  Funds'):  the  European  Refugee 
Fund  (ERF)2,  the  External  Borders  Fund  (EBF)3,  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of 
third-country nationals (EIF)4 and the European Return Fund (RF)5. 

The present report builds upon four ex post evaluation studies. It focuses on the period 2011-
13, and presents findings from the ex post evaluations for the period 2007-106. In line with the 
Commission's  'Better  Regulation  Guidelines',  the  evaluations  assessed  the  Funds  in  light  of 
their relevance (whether their objectives matched with societal needs), effectiveness (to what 
extent objectives have been achieved), efficiency (to what extent costs were proportionate to 
the  achieved  benefits),  sustainability  of  effects  after  the  intervention  ended,  coherence  with 
and complementarity to other EU financial instruments or national resources of the Member 
States and the added value of intervening at EU level. 

Some of the findings have already been taken into consideration under the current Funds: the 
Asylum, Migration and  Integration  Fund (AMIF)  7   which  succeeded the ERF, EIF  and RF, 

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

2   Decision No 573/2007/EC of 23 May 2007 establishing the ERF for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the 

General programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’. 

3   Decision No 574/2007/EC of 23 May 2007 establishing the EBF for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the 

General programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’. 

4   Council Decision 435/2007/EC of 25 June 2007 establishing the EIF for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of 

the General programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’. 

5   Decision No 575/2007/EC of 23 May 2007 establishing the RF for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the 

General Programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’. 

6   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee of the Regions on the ex post evaluation of the EBF for the period 2007-2010, 23 April 2014, 
COM(2014)235.  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee of the Regions on the ex-post evaluation of the RF for the period 2008-
2010, 23 April 2014, COM(2014)230. For ERF and EIF, the present report aims at reporting on the period 
2007-10 as well.  

7        Regulation  (EU) No 514/2014  of 16 April  2014  laying  down general  provisions  on  the  AMIF  and  on  the 
instrument  for  financial  support  for  police  cooperation,  preventing  and  combating  crime,  and  crisis 
management; Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 of 16 April 2014 establishing, as part of the ISF, the instrument 
for  financial  support  for  external  borders  and  visa;  Regulation  (EU)  No  516/2014  of  16  April  2014 
establishing the AMIF. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
and  the  Internal  Security  Fund  (ISF)8  which  succeeded  the  EBF.  The  findings  of  these 
evaluations  complement  the  2018  interim  evaluations  of  the  AMIF  and  the  ISF.  They 
contribute to the shaping of the future policies in the area of migration and security, especially 
in the framework of the Multiannual Financial Framework post 2020. 

THE 'SOLID FUNDS' 

Main elements 
The  aim  of  the  SOLID  General  Programme  was  to  provide  financial  support  to  Member 
States  to  help  them  better  manage  the  Union's  external  borders,  and  better  implement  the 
common policies on asylum and migration:  

1.  The EBF9 was established with the aim of protecting and managing the EU external 
borders,  with  a  focus  on  efficient  organisation  of  controls  and  management  of  the 
flows  of  persons,  uniform  application  of  EU  legislation  by  border  guards  and 
improvement of consular services. 

2.  The  EIF10  aimed  to  assist  Member  States  in  enabling  third-country  nationals  of 
different  backgrounds  to  fulfil  the  conditions  of  residence  and  to  facilitate  their 
integration  into  European  societies,  with  an  emphasis  on  those  who  had  recently 
arrived in the country.  

3.  The ERF11 supported Member States in receiving asylum applicants and beneficiaries 
of  international  protection  taking  into  account  the  EU  legislation  relating  to  the 
Common  European  Asylum  System  (CEAS).  It  notably  supported  actions  related  to 
the  reception  of  asylum  seekers  and  processing  of  their  asylum  applications,  the 
integration  of  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  and,  to  a  limited  extent, 
resettlement or transfer12 of beneficiaries of international protection between Member 
States.  When  the  ERF  priorities  were  set,  the  enhancement  of  responsibility  sharing 
between Member States and third countries remained optional.  

4.  The  RF13  aimed  to  develop  an  integrated  return  management  and  enhanced 
cooperation between Member States, providing assistance with the implementation of 
return operations to countries of origin and making information available to returnees 
on  relevant  procedures.  It  also  sought  to  encourage  the  use  of  voluntary  return  over 
forced return.  

8   Regulation (EU) No 513/2014 of 16 April 2014 establishing, as part of the ISF, the instrument for financial 
support  for  financial  support  for  police  cooperation,  preventing  and  combating  crime,  and  crisis 
management. 

9   Decision No 574/2007/EC, Art. 3. 
10    Decision No 435/2007/EC, Art. 2. 
11   Decision No 573/2007/EC, Art. 2 and 3. 
12   Decision No 573/2007/EC, Art. 3(6). 
13   Decision No 575/2007/EC, Art. 2 and 3. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The  financial  allocation  of  EUR  2.43  billion  allocated  to  the  SOLID  Funds  over  the  period 
under  review14  was  distributed  between  the  four  Funds  as  follows:  EUR  1  097  million  for 
EBF, EUR 486 million for EIF, EUR 386 million for ERF and EUR 463 million for RF. The 
funds  allocated  were  implemented  mainly  by  the  Member  States  via  shared  management 
(94%), where they hold the primary responsibility for the implementation, management and 
control  of  the  interventions,  presenting  annual  programmes  to  the  Commission  based  on  a 
previously agreed multiannual strategy. The average absorption rate under the 2011-13 annual 
programmes was 87% for EBF, 81% for ERF, 81% for RF and 77% for EIF. Only 6% was 
implemented  in  direct  management  via  Community  Actions,  including  emergency  action 
grants  under  EBF  and  RF.  For  ERF,  emergency  actions  were  implemented  via  shared 
management while under EIF no possibility was envisaged to provide emergency assistance. 

Context 
The  geo-political  context  changed  significantly  between  2005,  when  the  SOLID  General 
Programme  was  designed,  and  2011-13,  the  period  under  review.  The  consequences  of  the 
2011  uprisings  in  North  Africa,  the  'Arab  Spring',  the  protracted  crisis  in  Syria  and  the 
collapse of the Libyan state led to a sudden and unexpected increase in migratory pressure on 
the  EU's  southern  and  south-eastern  external  borders.  This  migratory  pressure  significantly 
affected the context in which the Funds were implemented. The Impact Assessment15 annexed 
to the Communication establishing the SOLID Programme refers to 203 298 first applications 
for asylum (in 2002) while this number was 259 400 in 2010 (the year before the period under 
review), 335 290 in 2012 and 1 322 825 in 201516. A similarly sharp increase was observed 
for the number of third-country nationals found to be illegally present in Member States (500 
000 in the Impact Assessment and 2 154 675 in 201517). 

2 

EX POST EVALUATION 

2.1   METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS 

The  four  Decisions  establishing  the  Funds  required  the  Commission  to  submit  the  ex  post 
evaluation  report  for  the  period  2011  to  2013  by  31  December  2015.  However,  since  the 
eligibility  period  of  the  Funds  ran  until  30  June  2015,  Member  States  had  until  31  March 
2016  to  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  last  annual  programme  and  an  independent  ex 
post  evaluation  had  been  carried  out  between  2016-2017,  the  Commission  was  not  in  a 
position to report earlier.  

The  evaluation's  detailed  findings  and  the  methodology  employed  are  described  in  the 
Commission staff working documents accompanying this report. The preparation of the staff 

14   Annual  programmes  running  from  1  January  2011  until  30  June  2015.  This  also  includes  Community 
actions implemented under the 2010 Annual Work Programmes as their implementation started in January 
2011. 

15    Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2005)435 of 6 April 2005. 
16   Eurostat [tps00191] - Asylum and first time asylum applicants - annual aggregated data – persons. 
17   Eurostat [migr_eipre] - Third country nationals found to be illegally present - annual data. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
working  documents  was  supported by  a  study  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor18  which 
combined  desk  research,  open  public  consultations,  on-site  visits  and  qualitative  and 
quantitative  analysis.  The  four  evaluations  were  severely  hindered  by  the  absence  of 
quantitative data, indicators and baselines which could be compared across Member States or 
across  years.  Each  Member  States  independently  defined  its  indicators  for  the  actions 
implemented. This is due to the fact that the reporting requirements in the Funds' legal bases 
did not foresee that Responsible Authorities (RA) should collect the data that would make an 
EU-wide assessment of the evaluation criteria possible. Therefore, the assessment had to rely 
on  more  qualitative  data  collected  through  the  stakeholder  consultations  and  the  National 
Evaluation Reports. 

2.2   KEY RESULTS 

The External Borders Fund (EBF) 
Overall, Member States considered the EBF objectives relevant in view of their needs related 
to the management of the EU external borders and the processing of Schengen visas. Thanks 
to the design of the distribution key of annual allocations, a significant part of the funds was 
allocated to Member States experiencing high migration pressure at the southern and south-
eastern external borders and to the Member States with significant traffic volume of bona fide 
travellers. In both 2007-10 and 2011-13, the highest allocations of funding went to the same 
three  Member  States:  Italy,  Spain  and  Greece.  In  addition,  the  EBF  was  flexible  enough  to 
respond to the changing needs induced by the beginning of the migration crisis by allocating 
additional resources to the affected Member States via Emergency Actions. 

The EBF made a crucial contribution to the application of the Schengen acquis19 considering 
both  the  increase  of  migration  flows  experienced  since  2011  and  the  financial  constraints 
faced  by  many  Member  States  at  the  time.  The  EBF  2011-13  actions  made  a  positive 
contribution towards a progressive establishment of a common integrated border management 
system by promoting harmonized checks on persons at border crossing points (BCPs) through 
training programmes, the construction and upgrading of BCPs and the acquisition of vehicles, 
vessels and aircrafts used for border patrols. However, only few Member States reported that 
the  Fund  support  was  essential  for  the  acquisition  of  state-of-the-art  technology  at  the  EU 
external borders. 

The  Fund  also  helped  tackle  the  fragmentation  of  Member  States  information  exchange 
systems by supporting the development at the national level of EU systems such as VIS and 
SIS  II  and  EUROSUR20.  In  a  context  where  national  funding  was  scarce,  the  Fund  helped 
ensure  that  these  systems  became  operational,  as  it  contributed  to  the  finalisation  of  their 

18   https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/38ae6def-51a1-11e8-be1d-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-70934237 

19   The Schengen acquis is derived from the 1990 Schengen Convention, which abolished checks at the internal 

borders of a number of EU Member States by 1995, creating the 'Schengen Area'.  

20   Respectively Visa Information System, Schengen Information System II and European Border Surveillance 

System.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
building blocks. The EBF also fostered a better use of resources by increasing the capacity of 
Member States to undertake border surveillance. 

For  both  the  2007-10  and  2011-13  periods,  the  EBF  moderately  contributed  to  the 
development of consular cooperation between Member States and third-countries.21 

Overall, EBF investments were considered to be sustainable: most of the assets acquired and 
the knowledge generated were still being used at the time of the evaluation. Member States 
highlighted  the  complementarity  of  the  EBF  with  the  objectives  of  the  ISF,  which  made  it 
possible  for  activities  implemented  under  ISF  to  build  on  the  results  of  the  EBF.  A  few 
specific projects faced financial constraints and therefore raised sustainability concerns, such 
as the deployment of immigration liaison officers in third countries. 

The  EBF  investments  were  found  to  be  complementary  and  coherent  with  activities  funded 
under other EU Funds, with European Border and Coast Guard Agency22 activities, as well as 
with national investments. The EBF added value has been assessed as being particularly high 
in Member States with limited financial resources or facing tight budgetary constraints. 

The European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals (EIF) 
The EIF findings for both 2007-1023 and 2011-13 show that the Fund was generally able to 
respond  to  Member  States'  integration  needs  and  was  designed  in  a  way  that  allowed  it  to 
adapt to changing circumstances. However, some Member States felt that the definition of the 
target  group  was  too  restrictive  and  others  highlighted  a  lack  of  interest  from  NGOs/local 
administrations. Some Member States indicated that support should not have been limited to 
newly-arrived third-country nationals as integration measures may still be needed for second 
and third generation migrants. 

The EIF was found to have been generally able to achieve its main objective of facilitating the 
integration of third-country nationals into their host society in both 2007-10 and 2011-13. In 
the  majority  of  Member  States,  the  Fund  had  a  concrete  positive  impact  on  the  immediate 
integration process. The  EIF improved access to services, employment and education in  the 
host country, including language courses central to the integration process. This appeared to 
be the main focus of the funding used by Member States. 

21   This was due to factors such as a lower than expected interest from Member States, the instability of some 

regions which made cooperation with third countries difficult. 

22   At the time referred to as Frontex. 
23    https://ec.europa.eu/home-    
affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/financing/fundings/pdf/integration/synthesis_of_the_national_evaluation_reports.p
df  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
Many  Member  States  reported  implementation  issues  for  2007-10  due  to  the  novelty  of  the 
Fund at the time such as the lack of or insufficient number of eligible projects. For 2011-13, 
the  EIF  was  found  to  have  made  a  limited  contribution  to  the  development  and 
implementation  of  admission  procedures  which  support  the  integration  of  third-country 
nationals  due  to  the  fact  that  the  annual  programmes  of  several  Member  States  did  not 
specifically  focus  on  this  objective,  which  resulted  in  a  limited  number  of  actions 
implemented  in  this  area.  The  EIF  contributed  to  policy  capacity-building  and  coordination 
within Member States, but had a limited impact on the exchange of experience, good practice 
and information between Member States.  

While for 2007-10, only half of Member States assessed the Fund’s efficiency as satisfactory. 
For  2011-13  most  Member  States  considered  that  the  EIF  costs  were  proportional  with  the 
outputs of the projects and that it would not have been possible or would have been difficult 
to achieve the same results at a lower cost. Furthermore, only half of Member States reported 
that the effects of the 2007-10 and 2011-13 EIF actions lasted to a great extent after funding 
ended. According to interviewed stakeholders, limited sustainability was mainly due to factors 
such as varying political commitment and support at national level.  

Projects were also found to be coherent with and complementary to other actions targeting the 
integration  of  third-country  nationals  at  national  level  and  supported  by  other  EU  financial 
instruments,  with  some  difficulties  encountered  due  to  different  timing  of  EU  funds  and 
awareness of Community actions. The vast majority of Member States reported that the EIF 
enabled actions to be implemented which could not have been funded via national resources, 
confirming the added value of the Fund. 

The European Refugee Fund (ERF) 
The evaluation found that the ERF objectives overall reflected the needs of Member States. 
However, one key shortcoming highlighted for both the 2008-1024  and the 2011-13 periods 
was the allocation mechanism, which was based on historic inflows (previous three years) and 
which could therefore not address Member States unprecedented needs following the drastic 
increase  in  asylum  flows  from  2013.  This  issue  was  partly  mitigated  by  the  allocation  of 
emergency assistance to Member States, which proved useful to address the crisis. 

During  the  2008-10  and  2011-13  periods,  the  ERF  was  particularly  effective  in  supporting 
Member  States  in  their  efforts  to  improve  their  reception conditions  and  asylum  procedures 
and  the  integration  of  beneficiaries  of  international  protection.  It  was  the  most  effective  in 
Member  States  having  acceded  to  the  EU  more  recently  (with  less  developed  asylum 
systems).  In  these  Member  States,  the  ERF  brought  support  to  enhance  their  capacity  to 
establish  national  asylum  systems.  It  was  also  highly  effective  in  supporting  the  Member 
States  faced  with  emergency  situations.  During  the  implementation  period,  the  ERF  could 
only make a limited contribution to the harmonisation of the Member States asylum systems 

24   http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/evaluation/search/download.do?documentId=10697239 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
and implementation of the CEAS due to the legal framework which gave a lot of discretion to 
Member  States  in  this  area.  As  the  results  of  the  Community  actions  were  not  widely 
disseminated and most ERF projects remained purely national, limited support was provided 
to cooperation and experience-sharing amongst Member States. The Fund was also effective 
to  a  limited  extent  in  implementing  responsibility-sharing  projects,  such  as  the  resettlement 
and intra-EU transfer of beneficiaries of international protection. 

The  ERF  outputs  were  assessed  to  have  been  achieved  at  a  reasonable  cost,  despite  some 
inefficiency  identified  in  several  Member  States,  mostly  due  to  a  lack  of  experience  and  to 
insufficient  technical  and  administrative  capacities.  The  sustainability  of  ERF  projects 
depended  on  the  type  of  projects  funded.  It  generally  led  to  sustainable  networks  among 
stakeholders while investments in reception capacities were deemed as most sustainable. The 
ERF was complementary to other SOLID Funds. All Member States considered that the ERF 
allowed  for  funding  innovative  projects  or  projects  aimed  at  specific  target  groups  which 
would not  have  been implemented without the support  of the Fund. The added  value of the 
ERF was crucial for Member States with less developed asylum systems.  

Concerning the 2008-10 period, most Member States found that the Fund had been effective 
in reaching its objectives. However, the Fund was less effective in enhancing Member States 
responsibility  sharing  or  between  Member  States  and  third  countries  given  the  very  few 
projects implemented in these areas. The ERF outputs were assessed to have been achieved at 
a reasonable cost by most Member States, even though it was indicated that the same results 
could  have  been  achieved  at  lower  costs.  All  Member  States  found  that  the  Fund  enabled 
projects that could not have been financed by national public resources only. 

The European Return Fund (RF) 
The  majority  of  Member  States  found  that  the  objectives  of  the  Fund  corresponded  to  their 
needs in the field of return management, with some priorities considered more relevant than 
others.25 Some Member States indicated that the Fund could have been more relevant if the 
target group had also included migrants residing legally in the Member States but wishing to 
return to their country of origin.  

The RF was also found to have been generally successful in reaching its objectives, with its 
achievements  assessed  as  positive  by  the  vast  majority  of  Member  States.  The  Fund  was 
particularly  effective  in  contributing  towards  the  development  of  national  integrated  return 
management  systems  by  encouraging  voluntary  rather  than  forced  returns  and  enhancing 
Member  States  return  capacity  in  general.  The  RF  also  made  a  positive  contribution  to  the 
provision of support to Member States in emergency situations. However, the Fund had only a 
moderate impact on enhancing cooperation between Member States and with third-countries 

25    Most Member States saw the development of a strategic approach to return management as the most relevant 

priority. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
and  on  implementing  EU  standards  due  to  the  low  number  of  projects  implemented  in  that 
respect.  

Projects  were  generally  found  to  have  been  implemented  at  a  reasonable  cost  in  terms  of 
financial and human resources. The evaluation showed that unit costs of return varied greatly 
across  Member  States,  depending  on  the  number  of  returnees,  the  accessibility  of  the 
destination country of return, the number of countries collaborating in return operations and 
the  amount  of  financial  assistance  provided  to  returnees.  Several  Member  States  and 
beneficiaries  provided  examples  of  less  efficient  projects  due  to  management  costs  and 
administrative  burden.  Voluntary  return  was  found  to  be  generally  more  cost-efficient  than 
forced return. 

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

The evaluation concluded that actions funded by the RF were coherent and complementary to 
other national actions in the area of return and generally coherent with and complementary to 
other  EU  Funds  in  the  area  of  return.  However,  limited  complementarity  was  found  with 
reintegration  policies  funded  by  other  EU  instruments,  such  as  the  European  Social  Fund, 
with a potential risk for overlaps.  

Finally,  Member  States  reported  that  the  Fund  added  value  in  different  ways,  providing 
Member States with the means to fund new projects or to enhance those already in effect and 
encouraging the recourse to voluntary return over forced return. Member States reported that 
the RF had the effect of developing their assisted voluntary return system to an extent which 
would have not been possible in its absence, by implementing systematic reintegration grants, 
monitoring  the  return  to  third-countries,  building  supporting  networks  for  reintegration  and 
disseminating information and by raising awareness on return-related issues. However, most 
Member  States  reported  that  forced  returns  would  probably  have  been  carried  out  in  the 
absence  of  the  RF  to  the  same  scale.  Additionally,  the  Fund  allowed  for  different  and 
innovative  approaches  in  return  management.  It  facilitated  the  involvement  of  new 
stakeholders and contributed to the achievement of EU standards and requirements.  

Findings related to the period 2008-10 are similar to the ones above, notably on the relevance 
and effectiveness of the Funds. The average absorption rate was higher in 2011-13 (81%) than 
in  2008-10  (70%),  which  suggests  that  stakeholders  developed  greater  expertise  over  the 
period  studied.  For  both  periods,  the  largest  allocations  were  granted  to  the  four  Member 
States with the highest influxes of irregular migrants and number of returnees, namely Greece, 
the United Kingdom, Spain and France. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3  WAY FORWARD 

Considering  the  findings  of  the  evaluation,  the  Commission  identified  some  main  lessons 
learned. Some corrective measures have already been adopted in the AMIF and the ISF while 
others are given due consideration in the preparation of the next generation of Funds. 

Administrative burden 
The evaluation showed that the architecture of the Funds was too complex and that the annual 
programming  cycle  and  the  implementation  of  the  Funds  were  perceived  as  a  high 
administrative burden. This was also emphasised in the impact assessment accompanying the 
setting up of AMIF and ISF26. To address this shortcoming, a single Fund (AMIF) was set up 
to  cover  all  migration  aspects  (replacing  three  Funds  with  their  own  legal  basis  and 
implementing  rules),  a  single  national  programme  per  Fund  covering  the  whole  2014-20 
period  was  adopted  for  each  Member  States,  simplified  cost  options  were  introduced  and 
eligibility rules were aligned to the national rules of the Member States.   

Monitoring and evaluation 
The  absence  of  effective  monitoring  and  evaluation  mechanisms,  common  to  all  Member 
States, with baselines and targets, was a critical issue for the evaluation of the SOLID Funds. 
This  problem  was  addressed  for  the  AMIF  and  ISF,  with  a  first  list  of  common  indicators 
included in  the  legal  base  and  a  common  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework27  providing 
evaluation  questions,  result  and  impact  indicators  and  indicators  on  efficiency,  added  value 
and sustainability28. A guidance document29, an active network of Member States evaluation 
coordinators and a specific IT system (SFC) to report on evaluation were also set up.  

Allocation mechanism 
The  allocation  mechanism  based  on  historic  data  and  inflows  could  not  take  into  account 
more  recent  and  sudden  changes  in  migratory  pressure.  Under  AMIF  and  ISF-Borders  and 
Visa the distribution key is still based on the 2011-13 allocations for the ERF, the EIF and the 
RF  and  on  the  2010-12  allocations  for  EBF.  Some  flexibility  is  ensured  by  the  more 
considerable envelope allocated for emergency assistance. For example, Bulgaria was granted 
under  AMIF  and  ISF-Borders  and  Visa  an  allocation  of  respectively  EUR  20.5  and  41 
million,  but  was  granted  under  emergency  assistance  a  total  of  EUR  170  million  under  the 
two  Funds  (up  to  October  2017)  to  support  its  response  to  unexpected  migratory  pressure. 

26     Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2011)1358 final of 15 November 2011. 
27    Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/207  of  3  October  2016  on  the  common  monitoring  and 

evaluation framework (CMEF) provided for in Regulation (EU) No 514/2014. 

28   It  should  be  noted  that  EU  funded  research  projects  can  contribute  to  the  data  collection  and  analysis  of 

implementation and effectiveness of upcoming financial instruments and Funds.  

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

9 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                            
However, despite increased flexibility, the unbalanced distribution key remains an important 
issue which would still need to be addressed in the next Multiannual Financial Framework. 

Solidarity: resettlement and transfer of beneficiaries of international protection 
The  evaluation  found  that  the  principles  of  solidarity  and  responsibility-sharing  at  EU  level 
could  be  optimised  for  resettlement  and  intra-EU  transfer  of  beneficiaries  of  international 
protection.  For  the  latter,  Member  States  preferred  to  use  their  allocation  for  actions 
addressing  their  own  specific  needs  and  the  ERF  did  not  foresee  additional  financial 
incentives  per  person  transferred.  For  resettlement,  there  was  a  financial  incentive  (EUR  4 
000  to  6  000)  but  it  proved  insufficient  to  cover  the  cost  of  resettling  a  person.  AMIF  has 
addressed  these  shortcomings  to  a  limited  extent  with  additional  funding  in  the  form  of 
increased lump sums (EUR 6 000 to 10 000) and a system of pledging which brings political 
attention to bear. 

Steering of the implementation towards EU priorities 
The evaluation showed that Member States allocated little funding to some of the priorities, 
thereby limiting the effects of the Funds in certain areas (e.g. consular cooperation, transfer 
and resettlement, cooperation with countries of return or cooperation between Member States 
on  integration).  The  AMIF  and  ISF  already  feature  some  improvements  which  help  better 
steer  implementation  towards  EU  priorities,  such  as  financial  incentives  (increased  co-
financing rates and higher lump sums), additional funding for Specific Actions and top-ups to 
the allocation of all Member States for specific EU policy priorities. 

10