REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Report on the evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021
Date: 2026-06-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, exchange of information, information network, migration control, migration statistics, project evaluation, refugee, right of asylum, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.6.2026  COM(2026) 322 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Report on the evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021 {SWD(2026) 173 final}  
 
 
1.  CONTEXT 

The European Migration Network (hereafter “EMN”) is an EU-funded network, established by 
Council  Decision  2008/381/EC1  and  amended  by  Regulation  (EU)  No 516/2014  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council2, with the aim of collecting and sharing information 
on  migration  and  asylum  between  Union  institutions  and  Member  States’  authorities  and 
institutions as a response to the needs of policy makers and other stakeholders in those areas.  

The  EMN  also  aims  to  support  the  development  of  practical  cooperation  in  the  field  of 
migration and asylum between the Union and selected third countries, including the exchange 
of good practice and information, through the conclusion of administrative arrangements. 

In accordance with Article 13 of the Council Decision 2008/381/EC, the Commission presents 
to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee of the Regions, a report on the development of the EMN, based on an external and 
independent evaluation. This evaluation assesses the four-year period from 2018 to 20213. The 
period 2018 to 2021 was marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and related mobility restrictions, 
which affected migration and asylum dynamics and created rapidly evolving operational and 
information  needs.  In  parallel,  the  Commission  proposed  the  New  Pact  on  Migration  and 
Asylum in September 2020, which set the main EU policy reform. The Commission proposal 
on the New Pact was an important element driving the EMN activities and outputs after the 
proposal was made. In terms of the geographical scope, the report covers all Member States 
except  for  Denmark,  given  it  does  not  participate  in  the  Council  Decision  2008/381/EC 
establishing  the EMN  which was proposed  as  a measure under Article 66 TEC  (now  under 
Title V of Part Three of the TFEU), and in accordance with the Protocol on the Position of 
Denmark. , The evaluation also covers Georgia, Moldova and Norway that are participating in 
the EMN as observers. 

The evaluation focuses on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added 
value of the EMN. It also considers whether the EMN mandate is up-to-date and if it matches 
the objectives for which it was set up, as well as the effectiveness of the changes to the scope 
of activities. It also reviews the working practices of the EMN and the EMN Service Provider, 
including information flow, and provides lessons learnt and recommendations to better respond 
to the challenges posed to EMN by a constantly changing environment. 

An independent evaluation study of the EMN, completed in 2024, was carried out by a private 
consortium on behalf of the Commission to support and inform the evaluation. Evidence was 
gathered from the following sources: 

1   Council Decision of 14 May 2008 establishing a European Migration Network (2008/381/EC), OJ L 131 of 

21.5.2008, p. 7. 

2   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 2007/435/EC, OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 168. 

3   Due to the timeframes of the EMN work programmes (2017-2018, 2019-2020, 2021-2022), the evaluation 
has  also  partly  assessed  data  of  the  work  programme  2021-2022,  where  specific  data  for  2021  has  been 
inaccessible. 

1 

 
 
 
 
- 

an online survey of the 29 National Contact Points (NCPs) and 555 National Migration 
Network members; 

-  3 strategic interviews  with Commission services and other EU-level stakeholders; 
-  33 targeted and 10 flash interviews with the various stakeholders; 
-  6 case studies, combining document review with 6 group interviews with NCPs and 5 

focus groups with members of national migration networks; 
a workshop with 24 NCP coordinators; 

- 
-  desk research. 

The main body of evidence consisted of survey respondents’ replies. Desk resources provided 
relevant  data  and  factual  evidence  on  the  functioning  of  the  EMN  including  its  structure, 
governance, activities and products. Field research activities helped gather qualitative insights 
on how and why specific results had been achieved and identified lessons learnt. Annual EMN 
Status  Reports4  were  useful  as  they  present  a  detailed  overview  of  the  activities  EMN  has 
undertaken in a given year. The reliability and validity of results was ensured by applying a 
systematic  triangulation  of  the  data  and  information  collected  through  both  desk  and  field 
sources. 

This  report is  submitted to  the European Parliament, the Council,  the Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  and  is  accompanied  by  a  Staff  Working 
Document presenting the outcome of the evaluation. 

2.  KEY FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION 

In terms  of  effectiveness, the evaluation  found that  the EMN key programming  documents 
respect and reflect the objectives of its legal basis. This is confirmed by the stakeholders who 
overwhelmingly perceived that EMN actions and activities between 2018 and 2021 have duly 
reflected the objectives laid out in its mandate. 

The EMN provided support to EU policymakers in the field of migration and asylum, which 
was used to respond to EU policy priorities, and to design and implement new policy initiatives. 
At national level, it helped increase knowledge and improve national policy-making in the field 
of migration and asylum. The information produced by the EMN was widely considered to be 
accessible, comparable, easily readable, objective, reliable and regularly updated. In addition 
to its high quality, the information produced by the EMN was considered by the stakeholders 
to be policy relevant and to meet their needs both at the EU and national level. 

A significant improvement in access to the information produced by the EMN came with the 
transfer  of  the  EMN  Information  Exchange  System  (IES)  to  a  new  platform,  which  helped 
improve its performance5.  

4 

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/european-migration-network-emn/emn-publications/emn-status-
reports_en. 

5   A major overhaul of the IES was carried out in 2024, beyond the time frame of this evaluation. 

2 

 
 
 
The EMN engaged with international organisations for the preparation of products and events: 
four informs6 on the impact of COVID-19 were developed in cooperation with the OECD in 
2020 and one in 2021, in collaboration with the European Agency for Asylum (EUAA) and 
Frontex7. Moreover, in 2021, a EMN conference was jointly organised by the NCP Finland in 
collaboration with the OECD and the Council of Europe. 

The  EMN  contributed  to  fostering  the  sharing  of  good  practice  by  continuing  its  role  as  a 
facilitator in enabling access to the good practices identified in Member States and exchanging 
information on migration practices of the Member States. 

An important development in external relations was the EMN engagement with third countries 
during the evaluation  period. In 2021, Georgia and Moldova joined the EMN as observers8 
while Armenia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Ukraine expressed an interest in joining the EMN9. 
The  Commission,  assisted  by  the  cooperation  with  Third  Countries  Working  Group  (CTC 
WG), launched preliminary exchanges with these countries10. 

When the evaluation looked at providing information to the general public, it identified a need 
for  further  strengthening  of  the  role  that  NCPs  played  in  mobilising  national  partners  to 
promote  EMN  activities,  including  better  coordination  with  policymakers.  The  evaluation 
confirmed that increasing efforts to enhance the provision of information to the general public, 
including  the  production  of  material  that  could  be  adapted  to  specific  national  needs,  were 
having an impact in 202111. 

In terms of efficiency, the EMN was considered financially sustainable and cost-effective, and 
the  funding  from  the  Asylum  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  (AMIF)  was  considered 
adequate,  while  the  EMN’s  implementation  costs  were  proportionate  to  the  benefits.  NCPs 
reported  that  the  most  resource  intensive  elements  tended  to  be  organising  national  events, 
participating in EMN meetings, and contributing to EMN products such as ARMs and studies.  
Stakeholders noted that, while the annual grant cycle involved several administrative steps and 
budget  allocation  may  in  practice  materialise  after  the  start  of  implementation,  NCPs  have 
generally  been  able  to  proceed  with  planned  activities  and  deliver  outputs  as  foreseen.  In 
addition, streamlining measures introduced in 2018 to give NCPs greater autonomy for small 
budget  adjustments  without  prior  approval  supported  smoother  implementation  and 
contributed to overall efficiency. The EMN funding proved to be pivotal towards ensuring the 
results and benefits achieved by the Network were achievable and sustainable.  

6    EMN  informs  provide  policy  makers  with  key  findings  and  messages  on  a  specific  topic.  Information 
presented is based on results from information gathered and analysed by the EMN, for example from reports 
and studies, or from ad-hoc queries. 

7   European  Commission 

(2020),  EMN  Status  Report 

2020.  Available 

at: 

https://home-

8 

9 

Report 

affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/00_eu_emn_status_report_2020_en.pdf. 
Status 
2021. 
01/EMN%20status%20report%202021%20final.pdf. 
Status 
2021. 
01/EMN%20status%20report%202021%20final.pdf. 

Available 

Available 

Report 

at: 

at: 

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-

10   27th Steering Board meeting. 
11   The 2021-2025 EMN communication strategy and its impacts fall outside the timeframe of this evaluation.  

3 

 
 
 
On governance, the evaluation confirmed that the various components of the EMN worked in 
accordance with the EMN legal basis throughout the analysed period, including attendance at 
Steering  Board  meetings  and  performing  their  role  in  compliance  with  Council  Decision 
2008/381/EC.  Given  the  high  number  of  topics  arising  due  to  COVID-19  as  a  key  factor 
affecting the EU migration and asylum system, two additional Steering Board meetings were 
organised in 2021.  The EMN governance provided substantial strategic and political guidance 
to the Network, which was considered a significant improvement on the situation found by the 
previous evaluation in 2015. However, it was also identified that scientific experts were not yet 
involved  in  assisting  the  Steering  Board,  as  required  in  Article  4  of  the  Council  Decision 
2008/381/EC, not marking any progress on that issue since the 2015 evaluation. 

The  composition  of  the  NCPs  was  in  line  with  Council  Decision  2008/381/EC  and  the 
evaluation confirmed that they performed their tasks in accordance with the provisions of this 
Decision. 

The contribution of the EMN Service Provider to the operation of the EMN was found to be 
efficient  and  supportive,  although  a  need  for  further  improvement  in  the  timeliness  of 
submitting documents, including meeting minutes, was identified. 

Overall, the evaluation  confirmed the appropriateness  of the EMN internal  structure, which 
allowed it to efficient manage its activities, as well as a good level of awareness of the internal 
distribution of roles and responsibilities. 

The evaluation found the activity of the EMN to be  coherent with  the  European policy on 
migration  and  asylum,  including  the  Pact  on  Migration  and  Asylum  and  other  selected  key 
migration policy initiatives. The EMN deliverables to support policy-making and to inform the 
general public were  consistent  with  the Commission’s objective to  ensure fair and  efficient 
asylum, return and integration policies, as well as better management of EU external borders. 
The  EMN’s  contribution  to  facilitating  practical  cooperation  and  the  exchange  of  good 
practices represented an important tool for a more coordinated application of the existing EU 
acquis.  It  was  helpful  in  promoting  efforts  to  harmonise  implementation  of  the  common 
standards  governing  asylum  procedures,  reception  conditions  and  the  recognition  of  third-
country  nationals  applying  for  international  protection.  The  common  understanding  of 
migration-related  issues,  as  promoted  by  the  EMN,  supported  the  introduction  of  a  new 
solidarity  mechanism  in  addressing  a  situation  of  migratory  pressure.  The  collection  and 
exchange  of  reliable  and  up-to-date  information  supported  the  development  of  better  crisis 
preparedness and responses, as well as the development of new legal pathways in the field of 
migration and asylum. 

The EMN collected and provided information relevant to the EU Blue Card Directive12. Annual 
reports  on  migration  and  asylum  (ARMs)  and  country  factsheets  reported  annually  –  and 
bulletins on a quarterly basis – the national measures implemented by the Member States to 
regulate  entry  and  residence  of  third-country  nationals.  This  was  fully  consistent  with  the 
Directive, which lays down the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for 

12   Directive  (EU)  2021/1883  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20 October  2021  on  the 
conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of highly qualified employment, 
and repealing Council Directive 2009/50/EC, OJ L 382, 28.10.2021, p. 1 

4 

 
 
 
the  purpose  of  highly  qualified  employment  in  the  Member  States.  Moreover,  the  EMN’s 
support  for  the  development  of  enhanced  migration  indicators,  also  in  collaboration  with 
relevant EU bodies, proved to be consistent with that Directive. 

The EMN objectives and activities were also found to be consistent with those of the EU action 
plan against migrant smuggling13. Both initiatives envisaged the collection of information on 
migrant smuggling, assistance to vulnerable migrants as well as stronger cooperation with third 
countries  to  counter  irregular  migration.  In  this  regard,  between  2018  and  2021,  the  EMN 
ARMs and country factsheets included an overview of the latest national policy developments 
on  the  fight  against  migrant  smuggling.  The  EMN  and  the  EU  action  plan  supported 
cooperation with third countries and relevant EU agencies and the production of objective, up-
to-date, reliable, relevant, and comparable information. 

At the national level, Member States adopted policy developments in all policy areas covered 
by the EMN between 2018 and 202114. 
The  analysis  of  the  cooperation  between  the  EMN  and  the  relevant  agencies  (the  EUAA, 
Frontex  and  FRA)  showed  a  high  degree  of  coherence  and  consistency  in  objectives  and 
activities. The legal bases of both the EMN and the agencies include specific provisions aimed 
at avoiding overlaps, while still improving mutual synergies. In addition, representatives from 
the  agencies  were  regularly  invited  to  EMN  meetings  to  foster  collaboration  and  avoid 
duplication of work. 

The  EU  added  value  of  the  EMN  was  reconfirmed  in  the  course  of  the  evaluation,  which 
proved that many achievements brought by the EMN could not have been produced without its 
work  and  support,  in  particular  in  the  exchange  of  good  practices  and  reinforcing  stable, 
practical cooperation among the Member States, as well as addressing the information needs 
of national policymakers. 

The  stakeholders  reaffirmed  that  the  EMN  had  brought  remarkable  added  value,  including 
direct support for enhanced cooperation both within the Union and beyond. The stable nature 
of the EMN and its broad reach to a wide range of stakeholders in both government and non-
government sectors created an environment in which relationships were built and mutual trust 
among actors in the field of migration and asylum could develop, both among and within the 
Member States. Developing stable relationships with national actors was key to getting access 
to hard data and ensuring the production of up-do-date and comprehensive information. 

The evaluation also confirmed that the information produced by the EMN was very good in 
terms of quality, comprehensiveness and relevance when compared to other sources available 
at the national level. No other network nor organisation at the EU level was capable of offering 
the same structured procedures and quality standards for information collection and sharing, as 
well as of ensuring communication and exchanges of data among all the EMN members. The 

13   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  EU Action  Plan  against  migrant  smuggling  (2015  - 
2020), COM(2015) 285 final. 

14   Legal migration, international protection, unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable groups, integration 
and inclusion, citizenship and statelessness, borders, visas and Schengen, illegal migration including migrant 
smuggling, trafficking in human beings, return and readmission, and migration and development cooperation. 

5 

 
 
 
EMN was seen by most stakeholders as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for migration-related information 
not available elsewhere. The evaluation also revealed that if the EMN were to be discontinued, 
it would have been difficult to ensure a stable provision of its activities and deliverables at a 
comparable level. 

The relevance of the EMN was confirmed by the high level of alignment between the scope 
of  the  EMN  deliverables,  conferences  and  events  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  challenges  and 
priorities in the field of migration and asylum in the EU on the other. While the EMN main 
objectives remained unchanged during the evaluation period, the specific objectives listed in 
its work programmes  evolved, with  an  increasing focus on new technologies and  enhanced 
cooperation with third countries. This evolving focus reflected the emerging challenges and 
policy developments that have shaped the EU migration and asylum landscape over the years. 

Alignment between the focus of the EMN products and the priority topics proposed by Member 
States was confirmed in the evaluation. Although the EMN was found fit for purpose as regards 
the needs of national policymakers, only partial alignment with the needs of the general public 
was confirmed15.  

3.  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT 

The evaluation confirmed that between 2018 and 2021 the EMN performance was in line with 
its mandate and supported achieving its objectives. The implementation of the EMN activities 
proved to be cost-effective, including for high value activities (national events and participating 
in EMN meetings).  

The EMN’s increasing effectiveness was also confirmed in focusing on activities enhancing 
its visibility (through its online presence, publications and events). Further strengthening of 
that role was found necessary in order to better mobilise national partners to promote EMN 
activities. 

Analysing efficiency of the EMN in the evaluation posed a challenge due to methodological 
constraints  regarding  availability  of  financial  data  given  the  timing  gap  between  the  years 
assessed and the evidence-collection period, as well as the lack of data for the specific period 
of  2018-2021,  given  the  non-alignment  of  the  evaluation  period  with  the  EMN  Work 
Programmes.  This  was  mitigated  by  basing  the  analysis  on  budgetary  allocations  and  by 
including available financial data from the years 2017 and 2022. Despite the limitations, the 
evaluation confirmed that the funding from AMIF was largely sufficient to cover the operation 
of the EMN and proportionate to the various activities carried out by the EMN. It was also 
found  that  the  architecture  of  the  EMN  governance  was  adequate  for  the  purpose  of 
implementing the various activities  according to  the Work Programmes in the period under 
evaluation.  Also,  the  EMN  Service  Provider  played  an  important  part  in  ensuring  smooth 
operation of the Network.  

At the EU level, a high level of coherence between EMN activities and key EU priorities in 
the field of migration and asylum was confirmed in the evaluation. The objectives of the EMN 

15   To  address  that  shortcoming,  the  EMN  2021-2025  Communication  Plan  provided  for  a  number  of 

improvements. 

6 

 
 
 
were  found  to  be  aligned  with  the  selected  relevant  initiatives  taken  in  the  EU  during  the 
evaluation  period,  namely  the  Pact  on  Migration  and  Asylum,  the  revised  EU  Blue  Card 
Directive,  and  the  EU  action  plan  against  migrant  smuggling.  These  initiatives  were 
highlighted due to their direct relevance to the EMN’s analytical and information exchange 
activities. International frameworks assessed have been limited by the EMN’s mandate, as to 
migration-related  activities  within  EU  Member  States  and  EMN  observer  countries.  The 
EMN’s comprehensive approach to migration was also found to be consistently in line with the 
specific scope of action of each of these initiatives. The uniqueness of EMN products lies in 
the broad spectrum of topics covered in its deliverables as well as in the capacity to collect data 
and  information  directly  by  the  Member  States,  which  translated  into  higher  reliability  and 
comparability. Finally, enhanced cooperation between the EMN and the representatives at the 
EU level served to ensure that the common purposes did not cause any duplication of efforts. 

At the national level, a high level of consistency between topics covered by EMN outputs and 
Member States’ policy developments between 2018 and 2021 was also identified. This was 
primarily the result of the EMN consultative selection process of topics to be prioritised in its 
products,  which  required  several  rounds  of  consultations  between  the  Commission  and  the 
Member States both in the Steering Board and the NCPs, which helped to respond to the needs 
of various stakeholders at the national level. The consultative process, a distinctive feature of 
the Network, had its weakness in the time-consuming reiterated rounds of consultation. Yet, 
the perceived cost of consultation rounds was found to be overweighed by the benefits of the 
process and the consensus reached. 

The evaluation also found that the responsiveness of the EMN to the needs of the general public 
remained an area requiring further improvement. The information produced by the EMN was 
at times of a technical nature and therefore not adequately tailored to the needs of the general 
public. Room for improvement was  also identified in how EMN results are shared. Despite 
achieving increased visibility for the EMN at the EU level, information-sharing activities at the 
national level, including communication with the media, proved to be somewhat limited both 
in numbers and outreach, and communication of EMN activities remained mainly limited to 
the circle of policymakers. In order to address this, in 2021 the EMN took several actions aimed 
at enhancing the communication and publication of its activities and results among the wider 
public. The effects of these efforts will be analysed during the next evaluation of the EMN. 

The evaluation confirmed that the EMN brought remarkable EU added value. Fostering the 
exchange and provision of high-quality and comparative information and good practice in the 
field of migration and asylum as well as enhancing practical cooperation in migration policy 
between the Member States, the EU and international organisations, and among national actors 
could not have been achieved at a comparable level without the activities of the Network. In 
addition,  EMN  products  contributed  to  a  common  understanding  of  key  migration-related 
features among policymakers in EU Member States. 

If the EMN had been discontinued, it would have been difficult to ensure the continuation of 
its  activities,  especially  the  existence  of  National  Migration  Networks,  the  exchange  of 
information  with  third  countries,  and  the  production  of  national  reports  on  migration  and 
asylum in all the Member States. In this context, the legal base of the EMN was found to be 

7 

 
 
adequate, as it provided sufficient mandate which was matched by commensurate resources to 
attain the EMN’s objectives. 

The  evaluation  identified  five  areas  where  further  focus  would  be  needed  in  the  future  to 
enhance the operation of the EMN both at the EU and at the national level. The five lessons 
learnt are: 

•  maintaining full consistency between the evolving EU policy priorities and the EMN 

activities defined in the work programmes; 

•  ensuring  that  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  is  regularly  involved  in  the  Steering 

Board and NCP meetings; 

•  ensuring that a section on national good practices is included in the EMN ARMs and 

studies; 

•  developing guidelines on the production of national migration statistics in collaboration 

with Eurostat; 

•  drafting a strategy on how to establish and manage the National Migration Networks. 

Overall,  the  evaluation  recognised  the  positive  contribution  of  the  European  Migration 
Network  to  the  policy  needs  and  objectives  of  EU  migration  policy.  In  all  the  five  criteria 
evaluated,  the  EMN  was  consistently  found  to  score  well,  being  effective  in  carrying  out 
relevant  activities, providing  a solid EU added  value, making good and  efficient  use of the 
available resources and in a coherent manner within the framework it operates. Amendments 
revising the Council Decision 2008/381/EC have not been proposed by the evaluation. 

8