COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Mid-term Evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) 2021-2027
Date: 2025-09-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU visa policy, aid to refugees, fund (EU), integration of migrants, migration control, project evaluation, refugee, return migration, right of asylum

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.9.2025  SWD(2025) 271 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  Mid-term Evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) 2021-2027 {SEC(2025) 248 final} - {SWD(2025) 270 final}  
 
 
BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION 

The  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund1  (hereinafter  the  AMIF)  for  the  programming 
period 2021-2027, was adopted on 7 July 2021. The temporal scope of this mid-term evaluation 
of the AMIF covers the period from 1 January 2021 until 30 June 2024. The geographical scope 
of  evaluation  is  the  26  Member  States  bound  by  the  AMIF,  i.e.  excluding  Denmark2.  The 
evaluation  relied  upon  both  qualitative  and  quantitative  methods,  including  the  consultation  of 
the Member States, European Commission officials, implementing partners, and beneficiaries.  

The AMIF was established as the successor of the previous Asylum, Migration and Integration 
Fund for the programming period 2014-2020. The AMIF 2021-2027 benefits from a significantly 
larger budget, enabling more comprehensive support to Member States. The initial allocation of 
the AMIF 2021-2027 was EUR 9.88 billion3, in comparison to the initial allocation of EUR 3.14 
billion for the AMIF 2014-2020.  

The  AMIF  is  implemented  through  shared  management,  direct  management  and  indirect 
management.  The  programming  occurs  either  at  the  Member  State  level  through  the  Member 
State programmes or at the Commission level, via the Thematic Facility4.  

Moreover,  in  2021-2027  the  AMIF  is  now  under  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation  (CPR)5 
which  sets  the  financial  and  implementation  rules  for  most  EU  Funds  in  shared  management. 
This new legal framework introduced more flexible payments, improving financial management 
and  easing  administrative  burdens.  In  addition,  the  creation  of  the  AMIF’s  Thematic  Facility 
provides  greater  flexibility  to  respond  to  pressing  needs  and  to  changes  in  policy  and  Union 
priorities,  and  to  steer  funding  towards  actions  with  a  high  level  of  Union  added  value6. 
Accordingly,  part  of  the  AMIF  funding  is  periodically  allocated,  via  the  Thematic  Facility,  to 
Specific  Actions,  Union  Actions,  Emergency  Assistance,  the  European  Migration  Network, 
resettlement, humanitarian admission and relocation.  

The  AMIF  has  the  general  objective  “to  contribute  to  the  efficient  management  of  migration 
flows  and  to  the  implementation,  strengthening  and  development  of  the  common  policy  on 
asylum and the common immigration policy, in accordance with the relevant Union acquis and 
fully  respecting  the  international  obligations  of the  Union  and  the  Member  States  arising  from 
the  international  instruments  to  which  they  are  party”7.  This  general  objective  is  further 
elaborated in the following four Specific Objectives: 

1 Regulation (EU) 2021/1147, OJ  L 251, 15.7.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1147/oj. 
2 As per Recital (73) of the AMIF Regulation, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position 
of Denmark annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and 
is not bound by it or subject to its application. 
3 As set out in Article 10 of the AMIF Regulation. 
4 Article 11(1) of the AMIF Regulation.  
5 Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1060/oj 
6 Recital (44) of AMIF Regulation. 
7 Article 3 of the AMIF Regulation.  

 
 
 
1.  Strengthening  and  developing  all  aspects  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System, 

including its external dimension; 

2.  Strengthening and developing legal migration to the Member States in accordance with their 
economic  and  social  needs,  and  promoting  and  contributing  to  the  effective  integration  and 
social inclusion of third-country nationals; 

3.  Contributing to countering irregular migration, enhancing effective, safe and dignified return 
and  readmission,  and  promoting  and  contributing  to  effective  initial  reintegration  in  third 
countries; 

4.  Enhancing  solidarity  and  fair  sharing  of  responsibility  between  the  Member  States,  in 
particular  as  regards  those  most  affected  by  migration  and  asylum  challenges,  including 
through practical cooperation. 

The implementation of the programmes in shared management started with some delay, due to the 
late  approval  of  the  Member  State  programmes  and  the  nature  of  share  management  which 
requires Member States to set up necessary structures and procedures, launch calls, and complete 
project selection procedures before being able to spend their appropriations.  

Moreover,  the  implementation  context  was  considerably  impacted  by  the  Russian  war  of 
aggression  in  Ukraine,  and  the  related  inflow  of  persons  under  Temporary  Protection,  and  the 
COVID-19 pandemic.  

According  to  Article  34(1)  of  the  AMIF  Regulation,  by  31  December  2024,  the  Commission 
should carry out a mid-term evaluation of the fund, in particular to assess: 

a)  its effectiveness, including the progress made towards the achievement of its objectives; 

b)  the efficiency of the use of resources allocated to the instrument and the efficiency of the 

management and control measures put in place to implement it; 

c)  the  continued  relevance  and  appropriateness  of  the  implementation  measures  set  out  in 

the AMIF Regulation; 

d)  the  coordination,  coherence  and  complementarity  between  the  actions  supported  under 

the instrument and support provided by other Union Funds; 

e)  the Union added value of actions implemented under the instrument. 

This document sums up the results of that evaluation. In general,  figures and data used for the 
analysis had 30 June 2024 as a cut-off date. Later developments are in principle not covered by 
the evaluation. 

 
 
 
 
MAIN FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED 

Effectiveness 

At  different  speeds,  the  interventions  funded  have  been  progressing  in  operational  terms. 
Specific Objective 1  (SO1) (development of the Common European Asylum System) and SO2 
(legal  migration,  integration  and  social  inclusion  of  third-country  nationals)  have  the  highest 
absorption  rates8.  Significant  financial  progress  is  also  observed  in  the  implementation  rate9  of 
SO4 (Solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility) which is clearly influenced by the role played 
by the allocations related to resettlement and humanitarian admissions, which follow a specific 
programming cycle. In contrast, SO3 (return, reintegration, and countering illegal migration) has 
a lower implementation rate; likely due to the inherent difficulties of return measures, demanding 
needs in terms of coordination and dependence on the cooperation of third countries.  

Following the approval  of the Member States programmes by the end of 2022, information  on 
the actual performance was still limited at the end of 2024, insufficient for reaching conclusions 
in terms of effectiveness. The Member State programmes Annual Performance Reports point to 
delays  in  the  start  of  implementation  due  to  national  legal  frameworks  requiring  lengthy 
procedures  for  the  implementation  of  public  tenders,  delays  in  decision  making  on  the 
institutional  set-up  governing  the  management  of  the  programme,  complex  application 
procedures and applicants’ lack of experience with EU funding, complexity in the development 
of new IT systems, and the administrative effort required in adapting to the requirements of the 
CPR.  

Nonetheless,  as  regards  the  progress  of  output  indicators  towards  their  milestones,  the  greatest 
average  performance  is  observed  under  SO1  (72%  progress  to  milestone),  followed  by  SO2 
(25%), SO3 (21%) and SO4 (16%). However, for SO4 it should be noted the primary activities 
of resettlement, humanitarian admission and relocation are not captured by output indicators, but 
rather by result indicators, and these result indicators demonstrated the highest rates of progress 
to their targets. 

Concerning the suitability of the monitoring and evaluation framework to inform on the progress 
towards  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  instrument,  the  evaluation  concludes  that  the 
monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  for  the  AMIF  has  seen  significant  improvements 
compared  to  the  2014-2020  period  thanks  to  predefined  performance  indicators,  the 
differentiation  between  output  and  result  indicators,  and  more  explanatory  documents  and 
resources provided to Member States. Nonetheless, challenges persist in terms of quality of data 
collection, target setting, and reporting, as well as administrative burden for national authorities. 
The  analysis  on  whether  suitable  organisational  and  procedural  arrangements  are  in  place  to 
ensure compliance with the horizontal principles shows that all Member States are committed to 

8  This  corresponds  to  the  ratio  between  the  costs  declared  and  the  allocations.  It  measures  the  effective 
implementation of activities. 
9 This rate is the ratio between the committed funds and the allocated funds. It serves as a proxy to approximate the 
level of activity implementation. 

 
 
 
complying with them and promote them in their Programmes, although their effectiveness varies 
considerably from one Member State to another. 

Efficiency  

As  the  information  on  performance  is  still  insufficient,  it  is  too  early  to  carry  out  a  full  cost-
effectiveness  analysis,  but  there  are  indications  that  financial  progress  is  advancing  efficiently. 
The  Fund  demonstrates  a  clear  commitment  to  supporting  cost-effective  measures,  nonetheless 
further  efforts  should  be  made  to  ensure  an  efficient  delivery  of  the  funding  and  reduce  the 
administrative burden that is perceived as substantial by beneficiaries and Managing Authorities. 

There  has  been  a  shift  toward  a  more  transparent,  accountable,  and  performance-oriented 
reporting  system,  addressing  inefficiencies  identified  in  the  earlier  period.  However,  some 
beneficiaries  and  Managing  Authorities  report  that  regulatory  and  monitoring  requirements 
remain cumbersome.  

The  introduction  of  simplification  measures  such  as  flat  rates,  lump  sums,  and  electronic  data 
exchange  systems  have  eased  administrative  burdens  and  streamlined  certain  processes,  and 
should be further implemented by Member States. Technical Assistance has played a critical role 
in  strengthening  management  capacities,  with  resources  allocated  to  improve  IT  systems  and 
provide training.  

Relevance 

The  AMIF  addresses  evolving  needs  both  at  the  time  of  programme  approval  and  during 
programme  implementation.  Moreover,  the  Thematic  Facility  Work  Programmes  have 
demonstrated a clear focus on addressing key priority needs and target groups.  

The  evaluation  found  that  Member  States  can  adapt  their  programmes  to  evolving  needs, 
especially  thanks  to  financial  flexibility  mechanisms  under  the  Fund  Regulation  and  Thematic 
Facility.  While  the  needs  assessment  performed  by  the  Member  States  at  the  beginning  of  the 
programming  period  is  not  regularly  and  systematically  updated  during  programmes’ 
implementation,  there  is  evidence  that  timely  inputs  on  evolving  needs  during  programme 
implementation are provided by stakeholders involved within the Monitoring Committee.   

Overall,  the  flexibility  afforded  by  the  AMIF  Regulation  has  allowed  Member  States  to  adapt 
their  Member  State  programmes  to  evolving  needs  over  the  course  of  implementation.  The 
Thematic Facility has also proved a flexible component and helped address emerging needs and 
emergency  situations.  However,  some  concerns  remain  regarding  the  flexibility  of  Member 
States  procurement  procedures  as  there  is  evidence  of  administrative  barriers  across  Member 
States  that  do  not  ensure  a  full  flexibility  of  procurement  procedures  preventing  their  swift 
adaption to evolving needs. 

Coherence 

The AMIF demonstrates  a satisfactory degree of coherence with  initiatives supported under its 
policy  domain  and  between  the  Member  States  programmes  and  the  Thematic  Facility.  While 
further  reporting  on  internal  coherence  is  necessary  for  a  comprehensive  analysis,  the  data 

 
 
available  indicates  Member  States  perceive  the  Member  State  programmes  and  the  Thematic 
Facility are coherent.  

While inter- and intra-agency cooperation at national level is widespread, further intensification 
and clearer coordination mechanisms in the Member State programmes are needed to maximise 
the effectiveness of these efforts. 

The AMIF demonstrates strong coherence with the programming of other EU Funds, particularly 
the ESF+, the BMVI and the ERDF. Coherence and coordination between the AMIF and other 
EU  funds  are  pursued  through  a  variety  of  coordination  mechanisms  such  as  joint  Monitoring 
Committees and regular exchanges of information. Nonetheless, coordination with other Union 
Funds  could  be  further  reinforced,  particularly  in  view  of  the  implementation  of  the  Pact  on 
Migration and Asylum.  

As  far  as  coherence  with  external  spending  programmes  is  concerned,  notably  the  NDICI, 
enhanced cooperation and coordination on programming both between the Commission services 
and  with  EU  Member  States  are  needed.  There  are  several  challenges  in  the  current  funding 
architecture  that  should  be  addressed,  including  notably:  the  insufficient  alignment  of  the 
Union’s  external  migration  and  security  funding  with  the  Union  policies  in  these  areas;  the 
persistent challenge to use all existing (policy, funding, investment and other) tools, both at the 
disposal  of  the  EU  and  its  Member  States,  in  a  Team  Europe  spirit,  to  use  strategically  and 
timely  leverage in relation to partner countries in order to improve cooperation on migration and 
security;  the  limitations  for  funding  migration-  and  security-related  actions  in  third  countries, 
given  that  most  of  spending  in  the  external  dimension  must  comply  with  the  criteria  for 
development assistance10 eligibility.  

EU added value 

The  assessment  of  the  EU  added  value  of  the  AMIF  reveals  significant  contributions  across 
various dimensions.  

The AMIF has demonstrated clear scope effects in the majority of Member States, by addressing 
additional  target  groups  and  introducing  new  interventions  to  meet  emerging  needs,  such  as 
unaccompanied  minors  and  Ukrainian  refugees.  The  AMIF  has  also  enabled  the  expansion  of 
services  and  increased  the  number  of  end-users  in  a  number  of  Member  States.  Finally,  the 
AMIF has enhanced the administrative capacity in managing migration and asylum processes in 
14 Member States.  

Member  States  are  not  excessively  dependent  on  EU  funding.  National  resources  continue  to 
play a key role, with  the AMIF serving as a complementary source of funding.  Some Member 
States  have  taken  measures  to  avoid  full  dependence  on  EU  Funds  by  sustaining  long-term 
integration services with national resources. 

10  Official  development  assistance  eligibility  criteria  is  set  by  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and 

Development. 

 
 
 
Finally,  the  Thematic  Facility  addressed  priorities  with  a  high  Union  added  value  such  as 
improving reception conditions, providing psychological support and aligning EU standards and 
priorities. Also, a sizable part of the Union Actions component of the Thematic Facility supports 
projects in the field of external dimension.