COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Ex-post Evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) for the 2014- 2020 programming period
Date: 2026-03-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, crisis management, emergency aid, fund (EU), integration of migrants, migration control, non-EU national, project evaluation, return migration, right of asylum

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.3.2026  SWD(2026) 78 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  Ex-post Evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) for the 2014- 2020 programming period {SWD(2026) 77 final}  
 
 
BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION 

The Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund1 (hereinafter the AMIF) for the programming 
period  2014-2020,  was  adopted  on  16  April  2014.  The  AMIF  was  established  as  the 
successor of the European Refugee Fund2, the European Fund for the Integration of third-
country nationals3 and the European Return Fund4. The AMIF 2014-2020 benefitted from 
a  larger  budget  than  the  preceding  Funds,  enabling  comprehensive  support  to  Member 
States. The initial total EU contribution of the AMIF 2014-2020 was EUR 3 137 million.  

The AMIF is implemented through shared management, direct management and indirect 
management.  The  programming  occurs  either  at  the  Member  State  level  through  the 
national  programmes  or  at  the  Commission  level,  through  Union  Actions,  Emergency 
Assistance, the European Migration Network and Specific Actions via the Annual Work 
Programmes. 

Moreover,  all  Home  Affairs  Funds  during  the  2014-2020  period were  governed  by  a 
separate  legal  act,  i.e.,  the  Horizontal  Regulation5,  with  the  rationale  to  ensure  a  better 
coordination and management between them.  

The  general  objective  of  the  AMIF  is  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, freedoms, and principles enshrined 
in  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union” 6.  Within  this  general 
objective, the Fund is further elaborated through the following four Specific Objectives: 

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

including its external dimension; 

2.  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  promoting  the  effective  integration  of 
third-country nationals; 

L 

p. 

150, 

168-194, 

20.5.2014, 

2007/435/EC,  OJ 

1 Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 
establishing  the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund,  amending  Council  Decision  2008/381/EC  and 
repealing Decisions No 573/2007/EC and No 575/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
and  Council  Decision 
ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/516/2022-04-12 
2 Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing the 
European  Refugee  Fund  for  the  period  2008  to  2013  as  part  of  the  General  programme  Solidarity  and 
Management of Migration Flows and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC, OJ L 144, 6.6.2007, p. 1–
21 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2007/573/oj. 
3 2007/435/EC: Council Decision of 25 June  2007 establishing the  European Fund for the Integration of 
third-country  nationals  for  the  period  2007  to  2013  as  part  of  the  General  programme  Solidarity  and 
Management 
ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2007/435/oj. 
4 Decision No 575/2007/EC of 23 May 2007 establishing the European Return Fund for the period 2008 to 
2013  as  part  of  the  General  Programme  ‘Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows,’  OJ  L  144, 
6.6.2007, p. 45–65, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2007/575/oj. 
5 Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 112, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/514/oj 
6 Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 

of  Migration 

28.6.2007, 

18–36, 

Flows, 

168, 

OJ 

p. 

L 

1 

 
 
3.  Enhancing fair and effective return strategies in the Member States which contribute to 
combating  irregular  migration,  with  an  emphasis  on  sustainability  of  return  and 
effective readmission in the countries of origin and transit;  

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

The  purpose  of  the  ex-post  evaluation  is  set  out  in  Article  57(2)(b)  of  the  Horizontal 
Regulation which requires the Commission to carry out an ex-post evaluation to assess the 
effects of the AMIF Regulation and Horizontal Regulation following the closure of the 
national programmes.  

The  temporal  scope  of  the  evaluation  covers  the  entire  implementation  period,  from  1 
January 2014 until 30 June 2024. Initially, funded activities were meant to end by 30 June 
2023. However, following the Russian war of aggression towards Ukraine, an extension 
of the implementation of the Fund by one year was agreed, so that Member States might 
make full use of still available funding to face the consequences of the war7. Consequently, 
the deadline for the Commission to carry out an ex-post evaluation was also extended by 
one year, to 30 June 2025. 

The geographical scope of this evaluation is the 27 Member States bound by the AMIF 
during the period, i.e. all Member States excluding Denmark8 and including the UK. The 
evaluation  relied  upon  both  qualitative  and  quantitative  methods,  including  the 
consultation  of  the  Member  States,  European  Commission  officials,  implementing 
partners, and beneficiaries. 

MAIN FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED 

Effectiveness 

The AMIF significantly contributed to Specific Objective 1 - strengthening of the Common 
European  Asylum  System,  including  its  external  dimension.  While  the  achievements 
varied across Member States, overall, AMIF was particularly successful in supporting the 
creation  and  renovation  of  reception  accommodation  and  providing  assistance  to  third-
country  nationals.  Emergency  assistance  also  contributed  to  the  achievements  of  the 
Specific Objective, primarily by improving and expanding reception conditions, as well as 
addressing the needs of vulnerable third-country nationals and supporting the improvement 
of asylum policies.  

Under  Specific  Objective  2  -  supporting  legal  migration  and  promoting  the  effective 
integration  of  third-country  nationals,  AMIF  contributed  substantially  to  the  effective 
integration of third-country nationals and to some degree to legal migration measures. Over 

7 The implementation period of the Home Affairs Funds 2014-2020 was extended in 2022 by 1 year ( from 
30 June 2023 to 30 June 2024) to allow the Member States to fully use any unspent amounts from those 
programmes, and, where necessary, to swiftly revise the implementation of their programmes to address the 
challenges  arising  from  the  invasion  of  Ukraine  by  the  Russian  Federation  on  24  February  2022  (See 
Regulation (EU) 2022/585). 

8 As per Recital 62 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. 

2 

 
 
10 million third-country nationals participated in  integration measures supported by the 
Fund,  far  exceeding  the  target  set  by  Member  States.  Union  Actions  contributed  to  the 
integration  of  third-country  nationals,  with  the  highest  number  of  projects  in  capacity 
building, followed by support to vulnerable people and women. Member States prioritized 
using  their  allocation  under  this  Specific  Objective  for  integration  measures  over  legal 
migration  interventions.  However,  where  legal  migration  measures  took  place,  these 
measures were found to be successful.  

AMIF contributed to Specific Objective 3 - fair and effective return strategies, however 
the achievements varied across Member States. For example, all Member States, to varying 
degrees,  used  AMIF  to  finance  reintegration  measures.  Under  Union  Actions,  the 
Migration  Partnership  Facility  contributed  to  combatting  irregular  migration  and 
enhancing cooperation with third countries to reinforce return and readmission processes.  

The AMIF contributed to a lesser extent to Specific Objective 4 - enhancing solidarity and 
responsibility  sharing.  Across  the  board,  Member  States  allocated  significantly  less 
resources to this Specific Objective than to the other specific objectives. Resettlement in 
accordance with the common Union priorities was by far the most common intervention. 
Modest  achievements  were  made  in  relocation,  while  cooperation  projects  to  enhance 
solidarity and responsibility-sharing were minimally supported. 

Across the specific objectives, several key challenges, such as the migration crisis of 2015 
and 2016, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, and the COVID-19 pandemic, 
can be observed. The evaluation  found that  Member States  adapted to  these challenges 
through  the  adoption  of  remedy  strategies  to  counteract  the  negative  impacts  of  these 
challenges on their national programmes.  

Furthermore, AMIF successfully contributed to supporting Member States in emergency 
situations.  Throughout  the  programming  period,  the  emergency  assistance  allocation 
significantly increased in response to the various challenges mentioned above.  

Efficiency 

The  evidence  gathered  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  AMIF  in  comparison  to  similar 
Funds provided mixed and non-conclusive results. The administrative burden of the AMIF 
was generally considered proportionate to its benefits and comparable to that of the other 
EU  Funds.  However,  it  was  generally  not  viewed  as  proportionate  in  comparison  to 
national  funds.  Furthermore,  about  half  of  the  Member  States  reported  a  high 
administrative burden.  

Interventions supported by AMIF, such as language learning and vocational training, were 
viewed as cost-effective in EU benchmarking studies.  

Member  States  implemented  measures  to  monitor  and  identify  fraud  and  irregularities. 
However, limited reporting on measures to monitor and identify fraud and irregularities 
led to insufficient information to assess and reach conclusions of the cost-effectiveness of 
such measures.  

Simplification and reduction of administrative burden  

Generally,  the  simplification  measures  established  under  the  AMIF  were  welcomed 
positively, however, there were mixed views on their effectiveness. First, AMIF created 
one Fund dedicated to migration management and a single set of rules was adopted for the 

3 

 
Home  Affairs  Funds  (AMIF,  ISF-P,  ISF-BV)  to  improve  coordination  and  harmonise 
procedures.  Secondly,  AMIF  introduced  a  single  seven-year  funding  cycle  and  multi-
annual programming. This allowed Member States to plan long-term interventions, better 
adapt to evolving needs, and simplify procedures by removing annual renewal processes. 
Finally, AMIF introduced national rules on expenditure eligibility to provide flexibility for 
national  contexts  and  the  option  to  use  simplified  cost  options.  Where  simplified  cost 
options were implemented, they were viewed positively by stakeholders. However, their 
implementation  was  challenging  for  some  Member  States,  and  their  overall  use  was 
considered limited.  

Coherence and complementarity 

The AMIF demonstrates a satisfactory degree of coherence between the Member States 
programmes  and  other  actions  funded  by  the  AMIF.  At  the  level  of  the  Commission, 
procedures  were  put  in  place  in  the  preparation  of  the  Union  Action  and  emergency 
assistance  annual  work  programmes  to  ensure  coherence  from  the  outset.  Reporting  on 
internal  coherence  was  limited.  However,  several  Member  States  did  describe  the 
mechanisms  they  established  to  ensure  coherence  and  complementarity  at  the  national 
level.  These  included  engaging  stakeholders,  coordination  groups,  and  information 
sharing.  

The AMIF demonstrates sufficient coherence with the programming of other EU Funds, 
particularly, the European Social Fund (ESF), the European Regional Development Fund 
and  the  Internal  Security  Fund.  All  but  one  Member  State  conducted  an  assessment  of 
coherence  and  complementarity  during  the  programming  or  the  early  implementation 
stages.  Overall,  the  ESF  was  viewed  as  the  most  relevant  for  coherence  and 
complementarity;  however,  coherence  with  the  ESF  could  be  further  reinforced  by 
coordinating integration interventions and better demarcating the differences between their 
scope of support.  

All  Member  States  established  mechanisms  to  ensure  coherence  and  complementarity 
between the AMIF and other EU Funds and prevent potential overlaps. Importantly, no 
evidence of double funding was found between AMIF components, nor between AMIF 
and other EU programmes.  

As  far  as  coherence  with  external  spending  programmes  is  concerned,  enhanced 
cooperation and coordination on programming both between the Commission services and 
with Member States are needed. Several challenges in the current funding architecture have 
been  identified,  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 assistance9 eligibility. 

9 Official development assistance eligibility criteria are set by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation 
and Development. 

4 

 
 
EU added value 

AMIF contributed to EU added value by allowing Member States to offer more services 
and  reach  a  broader  audience  than  would  have  been  possible  without  AMIF  support. 
Emergency  assistance  was  particularly  important  in  expanding  services  and  their  reach 
during  emergency  situations.  AMIF  also  allowed  Member  States  to  introduce  new 
interventions to address evolving needs, extend activities and benefits to additional target 
groups, and strongly contributed to innovation.  

Most Member States reported that actions would have been carried out to some extent even 
in the absence of the Fund’s support; however, the interventions would have been minimal, 
of a smaller scale, and/or of a lower quality, therefore highlighting AMIF’s value.  

On  AMIF’s  contribution  to  transnational  cooperation,  solidarity  and  burden  sharing, 
stakeholders’ perception was mixed. AMIF supported relocation and resettlement efforts 
both through EMAS and the national programmes; however, Member States carried out 
these  interventions  at  varying  rates.  While  there  was  limited  evidence  of  transnational 
cooperation in the national programmes, European Migration Network and Union Actions 
supported transnational projects and fostered cooperation between Member States.   

Sustainability 

While there were efforts to ensure sustainability, there  was limited evidence of projects 
being  transferred,  replicated  or  scaled  up  with  national  resources.  More  commonly, 
sustainability is ensured through the selection of activities that have long-term impacts, 
such as capacity building or labour market integration. In addition, some Member States 
included sustainability as an element of the monitoring process. Stakeholders described 
the  importance  of  beneficiaries,  local  communities  and  volunteer  networks  in  ensuring 
sustainability;  however,  dependency  on  EU  funds  remained  high  and  further  efforts  to 
ensure sustainability could be made.  

Relevance 

AMIF addressed evolving needs both at the time of programme approval and during the 
programme implementation.  

While  the  needs  assessments  performed  by  the  Member  States  at  the  beginning  of  the 
programming period were only updated by a few Member States, there is evidence that the 
Member  States  received 
inputs  on  evolving  needs  during  programme 
implementation  by  stakeholders  involved  within  the  Monitoring  Committee.  The 
Responsible Authorities also affirmed that the processes involved in amending the national 
programmes were sufficient to respond to emerging needs.  

timely 

The Union Action and emergency assistance annual work programmes were also found to 
be  aligned  with  actual  needs  and  flexible  enough  to  adapt  to  changing  circumstances. 
While  stakeholders  largely  agreed  on  the  relevance  of  the  AMIF,  several  stakeholders 
highlighted  areas  of  support  that  were  not  met  or  only  partially  met  (i.e.  assistance  to 
irregular migrants and continuing the support to migrants after they are no longer minors). 

5