Annexes to COM(2014)230 - Ex-post evaluation of the European Return Fund for the period 2008-2010 - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2014)230 - Ex-post evaluation of the European Return Fund for the period 2008-2010. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2014)230  |
| date | April 23, 2014 |
For twelve45 of the fifteen implementing Member States the results of the actions implemented under Priority 2 made a positive contribution to improving overall return management at national level. On the longer-term effect, the Member States reported:
The creation of long-lasting synergies and networking effects through joint return flights and other exchanges;
Positive effects of the promotion and application of European standards and common training criteria for joint return operations;
Improved communication and cooperation with third countries in building officials’ experience in return management.
Only three Member States46 reported that the results of the actions implemented under Priority 2 made a limited contribution to improving overall return management at national level.
Outputs and results achieved in Priority 3 (Support for innovative tools)
The achievements of the actions implementing Priority 3 ranged from the development and/or introduction of new tools and initiatives (country of origin databases, hotline providing information on (assisted) voluntary return, website in various languages, etc.) to training or information provision to public authorities and NGOs on tools and initiatives. Member States also implemented voluntary returns, provided assistance to vulnerable persons, counselled/informed third-country nationals, and assisted others with reintegration support. Finally, a number of cooperation partnerships with third countries were established, e.g. partnerships for reintegration projects (AT, MT, ES). For example, Spain carried out training seminars on cooperation and return sustainability for third-country officials. Other Member States (BG, HU, PL, RO, SI) developed cooperation in consular and diplomatic services on documenting returnees’ identities.
Member States’ assessment of these achievements was mixed. Thirteen (BE, BG, ES, FI, HU, IE, IT, LT, NL, PL, RO, SI, UK) considered the results of the actions implemented under this priority to be consistent with the objectives initially set. Where some Member States (AT, DE, EL, FR, LU, MT, SE, SK) considered that results were not consistent or only consistent to some extent, this was because the targets of some actions were not fully met or some projects were not implemented.
On the longer-term effects of the activities, in 17 Member States47 the results were considered positive and as contributing to the sustainable management of return, while others (MT, SE) considered that too few actions had been implemented to make a notable impact on return management or that the period under evaluation was too short to assess the impact of the projects (DE).
Outputs and results achieved in Priority 4 (Support for Community standards and best practices)
The most common achievement of actions implemented under Priority 4 was the acquisition of knowledge of Community standards and best practices in return management by public authority staff and/or staff at NGOs or other involved actors. Fourteen Member States48 reported training people in Community standards and best practices in return management. Italy trained the largest number of people (3 390), followed by Poland (2 666) and Greece (2 234).
Five Member States (BE, BG, HU, LT, SK) implemented actions linked to the implementation of the Return Directive, e.g. in Slovak Republic this led to 273 returnees being granted legal aid and to 647 vulnerable people receiving assistance.
The results were assessed very positively overall — as being both consistent with the objectives initially set and as improving the overall management of return. Where the results were judged less positively this was usually because few actions were implemented (FI).
ADDED VALUE OF THE FUND
Added value of the Fund
Volume effects (practice effects): extent to which the Fund’s intervention contributed to the overall range of activities on return
Generally, Member States reported that the Fund’s support contributed to an increase in the scale, duration and sustainability of national return activities.
According to the Member States’ reports, the added value of the Fund seems to be the largest in the field of voluntary return. Support for voluntary return was indeed cited as a key added value in a number of Member States, namely:
The Fund’s support allowed voluntary return programmes to be introduced in three Member States where they did not exist before (CY, LV, SI);
RF funding promoted or extended access to voluntary return programmes (CZ, EE, ES, FI, MT, PL, PT);
RF funding led to a clear increase in the willingness to return voluntarily thanks to the introduction of return counselling and reintegration assistance, the provision of financial incentives for return (CZ, ES, FR, MT, PT, SK), the availability of comprehensive information (e.g. on start-up assistance in the country of return) and publicising and raising awareness of voluntary return possibilities (BE, DE, FR, HU, IE, MT, PT). In that respect, Belgium wrote ‘The Fund contributed significantly to the increase in the number of voluntary returns, not only by providing higher assistance but also … by providing all actors involved with up-to-date information about voluntary return and tools to speak about a possible return, creating increased awareness of the option of voluntary return’;
RF funding promoted NGO involvement in assisted voluntary return (AVR) activities (CZ, NL).
Several Member States reported that the Fund contributed significant added value also in the field of forced return, namely:
Participation in joint flights (BE, EL);
Improved cooperation between Member States and third countries (EE, EL, IT, MT, SI, SE, PL), more specifically in relation to:
- fostering legal documentation identification, which reduces detention time and speeds up the return process;
establishing contacts in third countries, not least those with no consular presence in Member States, with an impact in terms of improvements in the facilitation and implementation of readmission agreements;
Upgrading of police equipment and training of police officers on EU standards, which resulted in improved police services for returnees and in an increased understanding of their rights, the reasons why they were in detention and the procedures for their return (BE, DE, EL, LT, PL, SI, SK).
As for perceptions on the programmes’ added value in comparison with existing national programmes and policies and in relation to the national budget, most of the Member States49 associated the added value of the Fund with an increase in financial means — especially in a period of public finance restrictions — for both forced and voluntary return. However, some Member States noted the limited added value of the Fund due to the relatively small size of the Fund’s contribution to national budgets allocated to return management (LU, FR).
Role effects: extent to which the Fund contributed to preparing the Member State to implement the Return Directive appropriately
As far as the implementation of the Return Directive is concerned, seventeen50 out of twenty-four51 Member States considered that the Fund made a positive contribution towards the establishment of both forced return and voluntary return systems, as per the Return Directive. In Hungary the Fund has significantly contributed to the implementation of assisted voluntary return programmes and to improving detention conditions and the quality of forced removal operations by air. For Slovenia, the Fund’s most important contribution was the support for launching voluntary return and reintegration programmes for the first time in the country. The signature of a cooperation agreement between the Estonian Ministry of the Interior and the Estonian Red Cross fulfilling the Return Directive requirement to monitor forced return operations was one of the Fund’s most important interventions for this country. Other Member States indicated that their national return standards were already in line with the Return Directive, or that the implementation of the Return Directive was supported through the national budget during the reporting period and not through the Return Fund or that the Return Directive was implemented after the period under evaluation.
It is worth stressing that the European Parliament made a political link between the Return Fund and adoption of the Return Directive. The philosophy behind this political link was that EU money to co-finance Member State return activities should only be released if Member States agreed first to adopt common standards which guaranteed that returnees received humane and dignified treatment. This approach contributed to unblocking stalled negotiations in the Council and eventually led to the adoption of the Return Directive in late 2008. However, the fact that the UK has so far still not decided to opt into the Return Directive while it is at the same time the largest beneficiary of the Return Fund is an issue of continuing concern for the Commission.
Scope effects: extent to which the activities co-financed by the Fund would not have taken place without the financial support of the EU
Most Member States (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, HU, IT, LV, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, UK) considered that some activities co-financed by the Fund could have been carried out to a limited extent without the financial support of the EU. They reported that the scope of activities, in particular of voluntary return activities (information, financial return incentives, reintegration support, counselling), would have been reduced. This finding emphasises again the added value of the Fund in the field of voluntary return. In this respect, Germany wrote: ‘Without the … Fund, many return measures could not have taken place or if so only to a limited degree. With European funding, more intensive and time-consuming return counselling sessions with individual solution approaches were held, which clearly had a positive impact on willingness to return. Thus, counselling sessions for specific groups such as traumatised women were able to be offered … Based on the extensive counselling and support approach, a shift is now under way with return measures in the field of sustainable reintegration.’
Some Member States also reported that vulnerable returnees (with special needs or families) would also have been less supported (EE, BE, LT).
Some Member States (BE, BG, CZ, EE, FI, HU, IE, LV, NL, PT, RO, SI, SK) reported that some activities co-financed by the Fund could not have been carried out at all without the financial support of the EU, affecting voluntary return and NGO activities in particular. For example, Estonia indicated that reintegration activities would most likely not have been launched. The Czech Republic reported that activities relating to financial return incentives, along with activities relating to reintegration of returnees, could not have been implemented without the benefit of the Fund. Greece also reported that cooperation with other Member States or bilateral meetings with third-country authorities would have been very difficult without the assistance of the Fund.
On the other hand, some Member States (EE, PT, RO, ES, BE) mentioned that in the absence of the Fund, activities relating to forced return could have been carried out under the national budget. For example, Spain noted that significant yearly national investments had been made exclusively from the national budget, supporting assistance for returnees, identification commissions, and return flights. Some Member States (CZ, FI, FR, LU) reported that some activities co-financed by the Fund could have been carried out to a significant extent. This largely also concerns removals, as a legal basis for this exists in most Member States.
Best practices and lessons learnt
Some Member States reported that the following administrative practices had significantly contributed to effective return management:
- establishing good relations with beneficiaries;
- establishing programming measures to prevent underspending of allocated funds;
- implementing longer and multiannual projects;
- securing mutual understanding between different stakeholders.
With regard to successful return-management practices, the following were reported:
- voluntary return schemes (UK);
- close contacts with countries of return (LT, NL, PL, PT);
- provision of counselling activities on return schemes to potential returnees (DE, HU, IE, IT, MT);
- creation of an integrated return approach — from pre-departure preparations to reintegration assistance (BE, EE, PT);
- NGOs’ cooperation in delivering voluntary return schemes and mapping migrant communities (IT, PT);
- the participation of detention and reception centres in delivering information to potential beneficiaries on voluntary return schemes (FI, RO).
Additionally a few Member States reported the development of the following best practices in the area of cooperation with return countries:
- a conference to develop relations between Member States and third countries followed by signature of readmission agreements;
- contacts with consular authorities from third countries responsible for confirming returnees’ identity;
- cooperation between national NGOs and sister organisations in recipient countries in the field of voluntary return operations.
Finally, some Member States stressed the lessons learnt in the area of management and administration of the Fund, including:
- improved planning;
- procedural simplification;
- more efficient funding processes;
- improved public procurement;
- the development of needs assessments and practices to obtain more sustainable results.
The latter refers to carefully tailoring reintegration assistance to individual third-country nationals’ needs, ensuring knowledge transfer amongst project managers, linking reintegration activities to local development policies in return countries, deploying native counsellors to inform potential returnees about voluntary return schemes and carrying out regular monitoring visits to countries of origin where such schemes are implemented.
CONCLUSIONS
Having reviewed the evaluation reports from Member States, and taking into account other information, the Commission finds that the overall picture of the implementation of the 2008 to 2010 programmes of the European Return Fund is quite satisfactory. The project implementing organisations and national authorities were able to achieve good results, even if the first year of implementation of the Fund was challenging for some Member States.
Additionally, it can be concluded that the Fund is living up to its promise to boost implementation of integrated return management in Member States. The Fund supported the implementation of information campaigns and wide dissemination of information on return in various languages and through targeted channels of communication, the introduction or development of counselling activities for potential returnees (e.g. extension to new categories of migrants such as persons in detention, families, victims of human trafficking), the introduction or development of reintegration assistance in the country of origin and the development of country-specific information databases. In terms of results, Member States reported that actions co-financed by the Fund contributed — significantly, for some Member States — to the overall development of an integrated approach to return management, to an increase in the number of returnees and to an improvement in the quality of the return process.
Moreover, the Fund helped to increase the use of voluntary return in comparison to forced return — and even allowed voluntary return and reintegration activities to be introduced in some Member States. Overall, however, Member States still return more migrants forcibly than voluntarily. In the future there should be an even greater focus on voluntary return in compliance with the principle of primacy of voluntary return under EU standards.
Even though some achievements were reported in the field of cooperation between Member States (e.g. joint return flights, exchange of best practices), the small size of the allocations devoted to this objective (less than 3 % of the total amount spent by Member States during the period under evaluation) reveals either difficulties in establishing cooperation networks or a preference for the joint flights organised by FRONTEX. In the future there should be a greater focus on the promotion of practical cooperation, with a view to reducing duplication of effort, for example, in cooperation with third countries, training activities, and the gathering of information on the situation in countries of return.
As far as the principle of solidarity underlying the Fund is concerned, the United Kingdom, Greece, France, Spain and Italy — whose allocations represented altogether 59 % of the total EU contribution that was allocated during the period 2008-2010 — performed quite well in managing the Fund and implementing the programmes, with an average implementation rate of 83 %. All but one of them assessed the overall results and achievements of the Fund as very positive. Greece rated them as positive, due to legislative and administrative difficulties faced in implementing the Fund.
The procedures and systems of the new Funds set up for the period 2014-2020 address the criticism expressed by the Member States, which stressed the need for simplification and reduction of the administrative burden. The first generation of Solidarity funding (SOLID Funds — including the European Return Fund) combine a multiannual framework with annual programmes, which makes this system complex, time-consuming and rather difficult to manage. Future Funds will shift towards a multiannual programming approach, aiming to offer more flexibility, reduce significantly the workload for the Commission, the Member States and the beneficiaries, and allow more results-driven management of the Funds. Additionally, while there are currently four different Funds with four different basic acts in the framework of the General Programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’, the structure of the next Funds will be simplified by reducing the number of programmes to a two-Fund structure: an Internal Security Fund and an Asylum and Migration Fund (merging the current European Return Fund, the European Refugee Fund and the European Fund for the integration of third-country nationals).
1This Report has been drafted by the Commission mainly based on data provided by the participating Member States. Notwithstanding the quality review carried out by the Commission, the presence of inconsistencies or inaccuracies cannot be ruled out. However, the Commission believes these should not be such as to affect the meaningfulness and reliability of the conclusions reached in the Report.
2Communication 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.
3 The other Funds of the General Programme are: the External Borders Fund, the European Refugee Fund and the European Fund for the integration of third-country nationals.
4In accordance with its Protocol, Denmark is not participating in the Fund.
5Decision No 575/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 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’, Article 50(3).
6Decision No 575/2007/EC, Article 50(2).
7Decision No 575/2007/EC, Article 49(2).
8Decision No 575/2007/EC, Article 49(3).
9The evaluation of the preparatory actions is available at http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/funding/2004_2007/solidarity/funding_solidarity_en.htm.
10Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. The Directive applies to all Member States except Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. The transposition deadline was 24 December 2010.
11Overall national programmes, including the Return Fund.
12AT, BE, CZ, IE, LU, PL, PT, SE, UK.
13BG, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, IT, LV, LT, MT, NL, RO, SK, SI, ES.
14Voluntary return data for Cyprus were not provided.
15Overall national programmes, including the Return Fund.
16The External Borders Fund, the European Refugee Fund and the European Fund for the integration of third-country nationals.
17The rate of implementation measures the extent to which Member States actually spent the funding that was initially allocated to them.
18AT, BE, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LV, MT, PL, PT, SE, SK, UK.
19AT, DE, ES, FR, IT, PT.
20BG, CZ, EE, LT, LU, SI.
21The following Member States did not revise any of their 2008 to 2010 APs: AT, BG, CZ, LU, MT, SI.
22DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, LV, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, UK.
23BE, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, UK. Cyprus did not provide any assessment of the revision of its 2009 programme.
24AT, BE, BG, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK, UK.
25AT, BG, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK, UK.
26AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SK.
27The presentation of outputs and results per priority reflects the Member States’ understanding of these priorities and subsequent classification of their projects. Similar projects may have been programmed under different priorities in different Member States. There is some overlap in the results and outputs of each of the priorities — e.g. voluntary returns occurred as a result of actions implemented under both Priorities 1 and 3 or vulnerable people were assisted through actions implemented under Priorities 1, 3 and 4.
28Very positive: AT, BE, CY, ES, FI, FR, IT, LV, LT, PL, PT, SK, UK (13). Positive: BG, DE, EE, EL, HU, IE, MT, NL, RO, SI (10).
29CZ, LU, SE.
30 In the context of categories of action 10 and 11, partnership means a new form of cooperation at national level or with third countries, initiated through the Return Fund, i.e. the development of new cooperation initiatives with relevant stakeholders.
31BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, IE, LT, PL, PT, RO, SK.
32AT, BG, CZ, DE, FI, IE, LV, LT, NL PL, PT, RO.
33AT, BE, BG, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, NL, PL, PT, SE.
34BE, CY, FI, FR, LV, LT, NL, PT, RO, SE.
35DE, FI, IE, LT, MT, PT, RO.
36CY, SI, LV.
37EE, ES, FI, FR, IT, MT, SE.
38BE, BG, CY, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI.
39BE, CY, FI, FR, LV, LT, NL, PT, RO, SE.
40BE, HU, LT, EE.
41DE, IE, PT, SE.
42BE, EL, LV, MT, NL, PT.
43BE, CY, EL, IE, PL, RO, UK.
44BG, CZ, DE, EE, EL, PL, UK.
45BE, CY, CZ, EE, EL, FR, IE, IT, LV, PL, RO, UK.
46BG, EE, LU.
47AT, BE, BG, EL, ES, FI, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, NL, PL, RO, SI, SK, UK.
48BE, BG, CY, EE, EL, HU, IT, LT, LV, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK.
49BE, CZ, ES, EE, IE, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, UK.
50BE, BG, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, HU, IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI.
51The United Kingdom and Ireland ‘opted out’ of the Return Directive.
EN EN