Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2018)471 - Asylum and Migration Fund - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2018)471 - Asylum and Migration Fund. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2018)471  |
| date | 12-06-2018 |
Reasons for and objectives of
the proposal
During the high migratory flows in 2015 - 2016, the financial and technical support that the EU provided to its Member States contributed to the better managing of the challenges in the areas of asylum, migration and external borders. Indeed, the role of the Union budget has been pivotal in supporting the management of asylum seekers and migrants, in developing search and rescue capacities to save the lives of those attempting to reach Europe, in managing effective returns and in other actions that need a coordinated response framed by the European Agenda on Migration.
The EU budget also is essential to finance common measures for the effective control and surveillance of the Union's external borders to compensate the abolition of internal border controls. For instance, the management of the Union's external borders has taken a major step forward with the establishment of the hotspots approach and a significantly reinforced European Border and Coast Guard Agency (EBCGA). These developments are fully supported by the EU budget.
In October 2017, the European Council reaffirmed the need to pursue a comprehensive approach to migration management that aims to restore control of external borders, reduce irregular arrivals and the number of deaths at sea, and should be based on a flexible and coordinated use of all available Union and Member State instruments.
Against this background, in its 2 May 2018 proposal on the 2021-2027 multi-annual financial framework, the Commission proposed to significantly reinforce the overall Union budget for the management of migration and external borders, by increasing it by over 2.6 times, including an increase to the funding allocated to the decentralised Agencies in this area. This proposal as such does not cover the funding allocated to the Agencies and regulates only the Asylum and Migration Fund that will provide support to the efficient management of migration by the Member States with an envelope of EUR 10 415 000 000 (in current prices).
Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union expressly states that the common policies of asylum and migration and external borders are based on the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibilities between Member States. EU funding provides the concrete financial means to translate these twin principles into practice.
The Fund will contribute to an EU migration policy that is robust, realistic and fair. A policy that acknowledges the needs of host societies and EU citizens and works closely with the partners worldwide. The Fund will ensure that the EU continues to fulfil our obligations to those in need of international protection, facilitates returning those persons who have no right to stay and support solutions that replace irregular and uncontrolled flows with safe and well-managed pathways. We need to look at the deep seated challenges that sit at the root of irregular migration, such as underdevelopment, demography, lack of opportunities, climate change, and inequality. Only comprehensive migration management, grounded on the principles of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, will deliver sustainable results. This includes an adequate distribution of Union funding to ensure that Member States that are most affected have sufficient capacity to address the challenges they are confronted with, for the benefit of the EU as a whole. In this context, the Commission proposal takes into account the ongoing efforts in reforming the Common European Asylum System and the current state of
negotiations on the Dublin Regulation and the Union Resettlement Framework and some elements might need to be adapted to reflect their results once concluded.
The success of the EU's migration management also relies on effective integration policies. To this end, the Cohesion policy Funds and ESF+ in particular will provide support to facilitate the medium and long-term integration of third-country nationals after the initial phase of reception including the integration into the labour market. To complement these efforts, the Fund will support action by national governments, local and regional authorities and civil society groups engaged in fostering the short-term integration of third-country nationals in the host communities, and mutual trust. This proposal will support reception and early integration measures to third-country nationals legally staying in the EU that are generally implemented in the early stage of integration in the period after arrival on EU territory. It will also support Member States in developing horizontal measures such as capacity building, exchanges with the host society, awareness raising campaigns or cooperation and mutual learning between Member States on the integration of third country nationals legally staying in the EU territory.
The Fund will also contribute financially to an effective return policy that is an essential part of a well-managed migration system within the Union. It is also a necessary complement to a credible legal migration and asylum policy, and an important tool in the fight against irregular migration.
The Fund will support and encourage efforts by the Member States with a view to an effective implementation of the Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1, with a more swift return system going hand-in-hand with the respect of the procedures and standards that allow Europe to ensure a humane and dignified treatment of returnees and a proportionate use of coercive measures, in line with fundamental rights and the principle of non-refoulement. For sustainable return policies, the Fund will support an integrated and coordinated approach to return management and cooperation with third countries to meet their obligations by offering support such as capacity building for the management of returns, information and awareness campaigns, and support for reintegration measures.
The Fund will address the continuing needs in the areas of asylum, integration and return while adjusting its scope to support developments and the mandates of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (EBCGA) and the future European Union Agency for Asylum. Cooperation with non-EU countries and international organisations is crucial to achieving these goals. The Fund will be able to support action in the external dimension that complements action supported by the relevant external instruments.
The main challenge that the proposal aims to address is the need for greater flexibility in the management of the Fund, as compared with the current programming period, but also tools to ensure that funding is steered towards Union priorities and actions with a significant added value to the Union. New mechanisms for the allocation of funding for shared, direct and indirect management are therefore needed to address new challenges and priorities.
The key for the distribution of funding is flexibility in determining the right delivery mode and the themes to which funding should be allocated, while maintaining a critical mass of
Directive 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 (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98).
upfront funding for structural and large, multiannual investments in line with Member States’ needs for the further development of their migration systems. The allocation of funding will also take fully into account the need for Member States to be fully compliant with the Union acquis and the need to focus investments on key EU priorities.
The allocation of the funding to the programmes of the Member States will be composed of a fixed amount of EUR 5 000 000 and an amount allocated based on a distribution key reflecting the needs and pressures experienced by different Member States in three key areas covered by the Fund: asylum, legal migration and integration and countering irregular migration including returns.
The distribution key will take into account various stocks and flows of the categories and reflect these specificities between Member States where some might experience bigger pressures in return and others in the area of integration and are impacted differently at different stages of receiving third country nationals. It is proposed to give 30% weighting to the area of asylum, 30% to the area of legal migration and integration and 40% to the area of countering irregular migration including returns. In this context, within asylum, it is proposed to give a 60% weighting to the number of first time asylum applications, 30% weighting to the number of persons with international protection status in a Member State and a 10% weighting to the number of people resettled. In the area of integration, 60% of weighting is given to the number of first time residence permits and 40% to the total number of third-country nationals in a Member State in a given year. As regards the criteria in the area of countering irregular migration including returns, it takes into account the number of orders to leave (50%) and the effective returns (50%) thereby taking into account the specific situation
of
a given Member State.
The share for Member States’ programmes is 60 % of the total financial envelope of the Fund. It is proposed that Member States be provided with 50 % of the envelope at the beginning of the programming period, while retaining the possibility of topping up the envelope periodically. It is envisaged that one fixed top-up of 10 % of the envelope will be made at mid-term (technical adjustment of the distribution key subject to financial performance, according to which a Member State should have submitted payment claims covering at least 10 % of the initial amount of payment appropriations).
The remaining 40 % should be managed through a thematic facility, which will periodically provide funding for a number of priorities as defined in the Commission financing decisions. This facility offers flexibility in the management of the Fund by allowing the disbursement of funds to the technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission and to the following components:
support for specific actions, providing additional funding for dedicated actions of high EU added value, through the programmes of Member States; in this context specific attention will be put on promoting effective returns;
Union actions, managed through direct and indirect management;
support for resettlement and the solidarity and responsibility efforts between the Member States;
support to the European Migration Network.
Actions under the thematic facility would be programmed through annual or multiannual work programmes adopted by Commission Implementing Decision. The facility will make it possible to address new priorities or take urgent action through the delivery mode that is best suited to the policy objective.
Further simplification in the implementation of the Fund management, in particular by ensuring a coherent approach with rules applicable to the management of other Union Funds, (‘single rule book’), providing better guidance on the management and control systems and audit requirements, and ensuring that the eligibility rules under shared management make full use of simplified cost options (SCOs).
It is important to maximise EU added value in the area of migration management and to implement an improved monitoring and evaluation framework so as to strengthen performance-based management. In order to support efforts to ensure a comprehensive approach to the management of migration grounded on solidarity and responsibility among Member States and EU institutions and to fulfil the objective of ensuring a common sustainable Union policy on asylum and immigration, an Asylum and Migration Fund (AMF) should be established to provide Member States with adequate financial resources.
This proposal provides for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and is presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the notification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by the European Council on 29 March 2017.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
This Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund builds on the investments and achievements made with the support of its predecessors: the European Refugee Fund (ERF)2, the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals (EIF)3 and the European Return Fund (RF)4 in 2007-2013, and the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), as established by Regulation (EU) No 516/20145, in 2014-2020.
The Fund will maintain support for overall EU policies in the area of migration, integration and return, such as support to strengthen and develop the Common European Asylum System (including its external dimension), support for solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States, in particular in favour of those most affected by migration and asylum flows, support for legal migration to the Member States and the development of proactive immigration strategies that respect the integration process of third-country nationals, support to enhance the Member States’ capacities and promote fair and effective return strategies and the development of partnerships and cooperation with non-EU countries.
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).
Council Decision 2007/435/EC 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 of Migration Flows’ (OJ L 168, 28.6.2007, p. 18).
Decision 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’ (OJ L 144, 6.6.2007, p. 45).
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).
2
3
4
5
However, an intensified EU policy on migration needs action across the full spectrum of the tools at its disposal. In this respect, the work of Member States supported by the Funds will be more effective if it is complemented and buttressed with the relevant activities of Union agencies, in particular the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency which will play a key role in identifying vulnerabilities and supporting Member States to address them including through joint operations, training and deployment of expertise.
The Fund will work in full complementarity with these agencies for which a significant reinforcement is proposed for the future period. In its Communication 'A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends', the Commission proposes to allocate an amount of EUR 865 000 000 (in current prices) to Union agencies in the area of migration6. This Regulation does not cover the funding for these agencies. Their funding is determined in the regular annual budgetary procedure. Moreover, the Commission proposes to allocate an amount of EUR 12 013 000 000 (in current prices) to support a major scaling up of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, making it fully operational, with a standing corps of around 10,000 border guards7 and a well-functioning European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA).
• Consistency with other Union policies
Union migration policy, and by extension the Asylum and Migration Fund, rely on the synergies and coherence with relevant EU policies such as border management, internal security, the social inclusion and integration of third-country nationals and the Union external policies that support third countries.
The variety of elements of migration management requires a coordinated approach by a number of Union funding instruments that would support the implementation of the external and internal aspects of the Union policy. The Union external instruments have a key role to play in addressing the root causes of migration, ensuring access to international protection, enhancing border management and pursuing efforts in the fight against migrant smuggling and trafficking of human beings, support the implementation of the return actions as well as the management of the Union legal migration policy. Therefore, migration will be an area of focus in the Union proposals for the Union external instruments. Measures in and in relation to third countries supported through the Fund should be implemented in full synergy and coherence and should complement other actions outside the Union supported through the Union’s external financing instruments. In particular, in implementing such actions, full coherence should be sought with the principles and general objectives of the Union’s external action and foreign policy in respect of the country or region in question. In relation to the external dimension, the Fund should target support to enhance cooperation with third countries and to reinforce key aspects of migration management in areas of interest to the Union's migration policy.
The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund+ (ESF+), on the other hand, include important provisions to cover long term integration of third country nationals while this fund will rather focus on early integration measures. Other programmes such as the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and Erasmus+ will
6 COM(2018) 321 final.
7 "A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends: The Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027", COM(2018) 321, 2.5.2018.
also strengthen the provisions dealing with migrants and refugees. All these instruments will have to work in coherence to maximize the impact of their support.
Synergies will also be ensured with the Justice, Rights and Values Fund that contributes to priorities and objectives related to the better management of migration, the promotion of inclusion and addressing trafficking in human beings. In addition, consistency and synergies will be sought with the Border Management and Visa Instrument as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund and the Internal Security Fund in addition to the Funds mentioned above.
2. LEGALBASIS, SUBSIDIARITYAND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
Article 3 i of the Treaty on European Union provides that ‘the Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime’.
The legal basis for the proposed Union action can be found in the list of measures contained in Article 77 i as well as in Article 79(2)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (TFEU), such as the common policy on visas, the checks on persons at external borders, any measures for the gradual establishment of an integrated management system for external borders and the combatting of trafficking in persons.
Attention is also drawn to Article 80 of the TFEU, which underlines that the Union policies set out in chapter 2 of Title V of Part Three of the TFEU and their implementation are to be governed by the principle of solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States.
Additionally, the Commission adopted on 29 May 2018 a proposal for a Common Provisions Regulation8 in order to improve the coordination and harmonise the implementation of support under shared management , with the main aim of simplifying policy delivery. The shared management part of AMF is covered by these common provisions.
The different Funds in shared management pursue complementary objectives and share the same management mode, therefore Regulation (EU) .../.. [Common Provisions Regulation] sets out a series of general principles such as partnership. That Regulation also contains the common elements of strategic planning and programming, including provisions on the Partnership Agreement to be concluded with each Member State, and sets out a common approach to the performance orientation of the Funds. Accordingly, it includes enabling conditions and arrangements for monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Common provisions are also set out with regard to eligibility rules, financial management and management and control arrangements.
The Fund will be open to the association of third countries, in accordance with the conditions laid down in a specific agreement covering the participation of the third country to the Asylum and Migration Fund, specifying their contributions and benefits and conditions of participation.
Regulation (EU) ../..
8
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The management of migratory flows presents challenges that are increasingly transnational and on such a scale that they cannot be dealt with by the Member States acting alone. Given that dealing with migration requires substantial resources and capacities from the Member States and in order to ensure a comprehensive approach grounded in mutual trust, solidarity, responsibility sharing, cooperation and coordination among Member States and EU institutions, there is clear added value in Union intervention in this area and mobilising the EU budget.
In that context, the Asylum and Migration Fund is expected to add value by ensuring a more efficient use of public funds by strengthening the Common European Asylum System through the establishment of common rules and procedures, developing Member States’ capacities to receive persons in need of international protection, promoting the use of legal avenues for migrants, ensuring the Union’s long-term competitiveness and the future of its social model, supporting the integration of legally staying third-country nationals and reducing incentives for irregular migration through a sustainable return and readmission policy.
In relation to the external dimension of Home Affairs, partnerships and cooperation with third countries are an essential component of Union migration policy to ensure the adequate management of flows and express solidarity with third countries under migratory pressures through resettlement initiatives. It is clear that the adoption of measures and the pooling of resources at EU level will increase significantly the leverage that the EU needs to persuade third countries to engage with it on those migration-related issues that are primarily in the interest of the EU and the Member States.
The proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity, because most of the funding will be implemented in accordance with the principle of shared management and respecting the institutional competencies of the Member States, while fully acknowledging that interventions should take place at an appropriate level and the role of the Union should not go beyond what is necessary.
• Proportionality
The proposal complies with the proportionality principle, and falls within the scope for action in the area of freedom, security and justice, as defined in Title V of the TFEU. The objectives and corresponding funding levels are proportional to what the instrument aims to achieve. The actions envisaged in this proposal address the European dimension of asylum and immigration.
Choice
of the instrument
Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council to establish an Asylum and Migration Fund.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER
Contents
- CONSULTATIONS
- The key for the distribution of funding is flexibility in determining the right delivery mode and the themes to which funding should be allocated, while maintaining a critical mass of
- support for
- emergency assistance; and
- Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing
- Council Decision 2007/435/EC of 25 June 2007 establishing the European Fund for the Integration of
- Decision No 575/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing
- Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014
- The report has been revised to provide clarifications on how the new emergency mechanism will function (section 4.1.3). Emergency assistance provided through the Funds should be
- the measurement of the success of the programmes. This will be based on objectives set between Commission and Member States, to be agreed in the national programmes, and the subsequent
- will also be used for the technical assistance at
ANDIMPACTASSESSMENTS
• Retrospective evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
The proposal takes into account the results of evaluations of the previous funding instruments. It builds on the ex post evaluation of the European Refugee Fund, the European Integration
Fund and the European Return Fund9 and the interim evaluation of the AMIF (2014-2020 programming period). In terms of the different evaluation criteria, the findings were as follows:
In terms of effectiveness, the AMIF has played an important role in improving asylum systems and strengthening reception capacity in the Member States. Due to the migration crisis, the area of asylum was especially prioritised in many countries. The AMIF also registered significant progress regarding the most vulnerable, including unaccompanied minors, and refugees and asylum seekers in regions such as north Africa and the Horn of Africa, thereby increasing the visibility of its external dimension. However, there is limited evidence of increased capacity to develop, monitor and evaluate asylum systems, and, while the EU resettlement programme has made progress, it has made only a limited contribution to establishing, developing and implementing national resettlement programmes.
The AMIF has made good progress as regards the integration of third-country nationals, where mainly short-term integration measures have been prioritised over long-term measures, while limited progress has been made to date on legal migration, probably because of contextual factors. The results of those measures are not yet visible, as integration is a longterm process.
The development of fair, sustainable and effective return strategies has been an objective of growing importance in most Member States and, despite both voluntary and forced return rates steadily increasing with the Fund’s support, findings show that the AMIF has made limited contributions to the effective implementation of return strategies.
Solidarity and responsibility-sharing between Member States have been strengthened mainly through emergency assistance, relocation mechanisms and EU resettlement programmes. Available findings suggest that national programmes made limited additional contributions to both the transfer of asylum seekers and the transfer of beneficiaries of international protection, as compared with the relocation mechanism.
The AMIF has made significant contributions to Member States in emergency situations, mainly through emergency assistance, which has been an essential instrument in strengthening solidarity. It has facilitated a swift and targeted response, in coordination and in synergy with the Emergency Support Instrument10 .
As regards efficiency, overall, within the limits of available data, the evaluation indicated that the results of the Fund were achieved at reasonable cost in terms of both human and financial resources. Although the start of implementation of the national programmes was delayed, the Fund’s overall implementation appears to be on track, thanks to emergency assistance bridging the funding gap and catering to immediate needs, helped by the flexible approach applied to its management. The management and control measures have also been appropriate and effective, with stringent mechanisms to ensure the Fund is correctly implemented and that fraud and irregularities are prevented.
At this stage, there is little evidence of a significant reduction in the administrative burden, although the AMIF has led to simplification as compared with the past. Several new
9 These are the funds preceding the AMIF 2007-2013 programming period.
10 COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2016/369 of 15 March 2016 on the provision of emergency support within the Union.
administrative and managerial procedures were introduced, taking into account the lessons learnt from the previous funds. These include adopting the better regulation guidelines and toolbox, and collecting indicators in order to ensure a more appropriate measurement of performance.
Overall, most of the innovative measures (e.g. simplified cost options, multiannual programming) are considered particularly useful by beneficiaries and appear to have achieved simplification. Despite simplification improvements, the national rules and procedures that apply under the national programmes appear to lead to moderate to high administrative burden, thereby affecting efficiency.
Despite the challenges, the AMIF remains highly relevant, since it has proved to be sufficiently flexible, broad and all-encompassing to respond to different needs, and national programmes are in line with the Member States’ needs. However, the changing needs that Member States faced during the implementation period call for more flexibility in the financial allocations. Needs vary widely across Member States and different fields (i.e. asylum, integration and return), the volumes and scope of which have fluctuated, but generally increased. The area of asylum was prioritised in many countries. Due to the migration crisis, the scale of the AMIF ended up being different to what was initially envisaged and the original level of funding proved insufficient.
Measures were taken during the Fund’s design, planning and programming stages to ensure that it was coherent with, complementary to, and aligned with other EU financial instruments and with relevant key EU policy strategies. During the implementation stage, the Commission ensured that EU funds with similar objectives were used in a coordinated way. At national level, the vast majority of Member States ensured coherence and complementarity by establishing coordination mechanisms, mainly in the form of monitoring committees bringing together the authorities involved in the implementation of the funds.
However, there appears to be room for improved communication when it comes to internal coherence among different AMIF implementation mechanisms as some beneficiaries were not very familiar with the actions and projects supported in the AMIF framework, especially Union actions and emergency assistance. Nonetheless, there is little evidence of incoherence, overlaps and duplication, either internally or externally.
Overall, the AMIF has generated significant EU added value, despite its relatively small size as compared with the challenges imposed by the crisis that occurred during this period. The main EU-level benefit arises from the transnational dimension of certain actions (Union actions and the European Migration Network) and EU-level burden-sharing, supported in particular by emergency assistance and the relocation mechanism under national programmes, both of which are proof that the principle of solidarity was applied.
The AMIF brought significant EU added value in terms of:
(i) ensuring the effective and efficient management of migratory flows at EU level (volume effects);
(ii) improved procedures relating to migration management and greater know-how and capacity (process effects);
(iii) allowing Member States to reach more migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and third country nationals (scope effects); and
(iv) innovations generated at national and European level through the implementation of the actions (role effects).
The absence of AMIF funding would have been detrimental to the quality of the EU response to the migration crisis and Member States’ ability to cooperate and implement solutions. An interruption in the support would probably have significant negative consequences and lead to reductions in the scope and quality of actions implemented, and delayed or even suspended implementation of the actions, including on the application of the principles of solidarity, burden-sharing and mutual trust.
The AMIF paid great attention to sustainability, through mechanisms put in place during the programming and implementation stages across different implementation mechanisms, although to a lesser extent in the context of emergency assistance (due to the nature of the actions). Greater account could be taken of sustainability criteria in the design of AMIF interventions.
The sustainability of the effects of actions (effects lasting after the intervention ends) and financial sustainability (actions that could continue after AMIF financing ends) vary across implementation mechanisms, Member States and specific objectives, and depend on the adoption of a holistic approach. The sustainability of effects on target groups is likely to differ depending on the focus areas – integration and asylum outcomes are likely to last if they address longer-term needs, while return outcomes are more sustainable if they are based on voluntary return schemes and are supported by efforts for reintegration.
• Stakeholder consultations
Two dedicated open public consultations on EU funds in the areas of migration and security ran from 10 January 2018 to 9 March 2018. Overall, respondents stressed the need for simplification in the delivery of home affairs financial instruments, greater flexibility (specifically in relation to the ability to respond to migration and security-related crises) and increased funding and support in areas with high levels of responsibility-sharing (asylum and border management) and/or cooperation between Member States and with home affairs agencies. Respondents argued that such measures can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of funding instruments and the EU added value. Stakeholders also pointed to the need for greater home affairs policy leverage in third countries.
Member States’ responsible authorities were consulted in the framework of the AMIF-ISF Committee. Member States provided input on the main funding priorities, problems, the architecture of the funds and delivery modes. Other key stakeholders and beneficiaries of AMIF and Internal Security Fund (ISF) funding through direct and indirect management, such as international organisations and civil society organisations, were also consulted, as were home affairs agencies.
Stakeholders concurred that in order to maximise EU added value, EU spending should reflect EU-level priorities and policy commitments and support the implementation of the EU home affairs acquis. They called for sufficient funding to be made available to face current and newly emerging challenges. Sufficient funding should also be made available for the home affairs agencies, in line with their increasing activities. Stakeholders agreed on the need for more flexibility to be built into the structure of the funds. They found that, in order to retain sufficient flexibility to be able to react to changing circumstances, the multiannual programmes should be maintained. Non-governmental organisations were of the view that direct management should also be continued.
The consultations confirmed a consensus among key stakeholders on the need for a wider scope of action for EU funding, including as regards its external dimension, enhancing the impact of Home Affairs policies, more simplification in delivery mechanisms and greater flexibility, in particular to respond to emergencies.
• Collection and use of expertise
Work on the preparation of the future financial instruments for Home Affairs started in 2016 and continued into 2017 and 2018. As part of this work, an MFF study was carried out in 2017 and 2018 to support the impact assessment which was launched in September 2017. These studies brought together available results from evaluations of the existing financial instruments and from the stakeholder consultations, and explored the problems, objectives and policy options, including their likely impact, as examined in the impact assessment.
Impact
assessment
An impact assessment has been carried out for the proposal. The impact assessment covered the following: the Asylum and Migration Fund, Internal Security Fund and the Integrated Border Management Fund, which is composed of the Instrument for Border Management and Visa and the Instrument for Customs Control Equipment. The summary sheet of the impact assessment and the positive opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board can be found on the following website ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=ia.
The impact assessment report analyses different policy options in terms of how the funding will be delivered, addressing the coherence and complementarities with other EU funding instruments, the external dimension of the migration and security funding, flexibility in a stable financial environment (including thematic facility), implementation modalities (shared, direct and indirect management), the possibility to provide emergency assistance as well as the mid-term review mechanism. The preferred option is a mix of options building on results and recommendations of the ex-post evaluation of the previous Funds (2007-2013 programming period) and the interim evaluations of the current Funds (2014-2020 programming period).
The impact assessment addresses the recommendations made by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. The table below outlines the main considerations and recommendations for improvement received for the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Border Management and Visa Instrument (as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund) and the Internal Security
Fund and how the impact
assessment report was amended to reflect these.
Main
considerations
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Modifications
impact assessment report
The report does not explain how increasing EU competence in these areas (of home affairs) and expanded role of agencies will affect the overall system.
For the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Border Management and Visa Instrument (as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund) and the Internal Security Fund, the report has been revised to explain how the extension of EU competence and larger role of Agencies affects the roles of the respective Funds (section 3.2). Having a key role in the implementation of Union migration and security policies, Home Affairs Agencies will have an important role during the programming phase of national programmes while their monitoring
Further considerations and recommendations for improvement
The report should present the main changes in the programme structure and the priorities compared to the current programming period. Moreover, the report should clarify the scope of the external component of the programme, i.e. its complementarity with the external instruments.
The report should also explain how the extension of EU competence and larger role for agencies affects the roles of the respective programmes. Does it increase the need for actions at national level, for delegation to the agencies, or reduce the priority of some interventions?
The Board understands that the new mechanism for performance reserves was still under
development when drafting the report. Its final version should however update and clarify the chosen mechanism and justify it in the light of experience from other EU funds (as orally explained to the Board).
The report should clarify how the new emergency mechanism will function within the envelopes of each of the three funds for migration and security, and that the use of emergency assistance should be limited due to the new flexibility provided by the thematic facility. It should explain the advantage of this mechanism over emergency funding in the previous
programming period.
activities would feed into the mid-term review. An expanded mandate of the Agencies would not have as purpose to substitute the current tasks performed by Member States but rather to enhance and upgrade actions of the Union and its Member States in the area of migration, border management and security.
Modifications
impact assessment report
The report has been revised to present the main changes to the programme structure compared to the current programming period (section 3.2) and to clarify the scope of the external component and its complementarity with the external instruments (section 3.3). The objectives of the Funds are based on the scope of their predecessors which, in general, were considered sufficiently broad to support the implementation of EU policy priorities, providing EU added value. Adaptations to priorities and actions reflect policy developments and the need for synergies with other EU Funds. Interventions in the external dimension will be designed and
implemented in coherence with EU external action and foreign policy, in particular with the EU’s external Instrument.
Please see the modifications made to the report accommodating the main consideration by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board presented above.
The report has been revised to update and clarify the preferred mechanism, taking into account experience from other EU Funds and developments in the framework of preparing the future Common Provisions Regulation for shared management (section 4.1.4). No dedicated performance reserve is presented in the preferred option. A minimum level of financial implementation is included for allocating top-up funding in the technical adjustment at mid-term while performance elements would be taken into account when providing additional funds via the thematic facility.
The report has been revised to provide clarifications on how the new emergency mechanism will function (section 4.1.3). Emergency assistance provided through the Funds should be
complementary to the Emergency Aid Reserve (at the level of the EU budget) and be used in clearly defined situations. Due to the flexibility embedded in the thematic facility, the use of emergency assistance is expected to be more limited than in the current programming period. Emergency assistance may be implemented through shared, direct or indirect management.
The monitoring arrangements are not well The report has been revised (section 5.1) to present
developed. The report should clarify how the programmes’ success will be defined and measured.
the measurement of the success of the programmes. This will be based on objectives set between Commission and Member States, to be agreed in the national programmes, and the subsequent
measurement of achievements towards those objectives, through output and result indicators included in the legal proposals. Reporting requirements for shared management are laid down in the Common Provisions Regulation.
Regulatory
fitness and simplification
The Common Provisions Regulation (common to several shared management policy areas) will ensure simplification of the Fund through the use, as far as possible, of common rules, monitoring, control and audits for the implementation of programmes, including through the better use of the simplified cost options. The audit approach will be streamlined to focus more on risk-based audit sampling and follow the ‘single audit’ principle in order to reduce administrative burden.
Further simplification under direct management will be achieved through the use of common Commission-wide IT tools (e-Grants management system).
• Fundamental rights
Financial support from the Union budget is indispensable to the implementation of the Asylum and Migration Fund to support Member States by ensuring common rules and procedures for receiving persons in need of international protection, promoting more legal avenues for migrants, supporting integration of non-EU nationals and reducing incentives for irregular migration through a sustainable return and readmission policy. These objectives will be pursued in full compliance with the Union’s commitments on fundamental rights. This will be monitored closely during the implementation of the Fund.
4.
BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The Commission’s proposal for a multiannual financial framework includes EUR 10 415 000 000 (in current prices) for the Asylum and Migration Fund and EUR 865 000 000 (in current prices) for the relevant decentralised agencies for the 2021-2027 period.
Implementation will be by means of shared or direct/indirect management. The global resources will be allocated as follows: 60 % to the Member States’ programmes implemented under shared management; and 40 % to the thematic facility, for specific actions at national or transnational level, Union actions, emergency assistance resettlement, solidarity and responsibility efforts and the European Migration Network. The thematic facility envelope
the initiative of the Commission.
5.
OTHERELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The funding is implemented though shared management by the Member States an direct/indirect management by the Commission.
The monitoring and evaluation framework will be improved, including through a better methodology for tracking investments across relevant EU funds, to stimulate timely performance and to ensure that evaluations can provide effective input for any future revisions of policy interventions. This will be done through better indicators, closer cooperation with relevant partners and a mechanism to incentivise performance. A mid-term evaluation and a retrospective evaluation will be carried-out by the Commission. These evaluations will be carried out in line with paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 201611, where the three institutions confirmed that evaluations of existing legislation and policy should provide the basis for impact assessments of options for further action. The evaluations will assess the Fund's effects on the ground based on indicators and targets and on a detailed analysis of the degree to which the Fund can be deemed relevant, effective, and efficient, provides enough EU added value and is coherent with other EU policies. They will include lessons learnt to identify any lacks/problems or any potential to further improve the actions or their results and to help maximise their impact.
The Member States under shared management are expected to report on the implementation of their programmes regularly and to submit a final performance report at the end of the programming period.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Chapter I — General provisions of the proposed Regulation sets out its purpose, scope and key definitions. It requires that all actions supported under the Regulation comply with applicable Union and national law. It also sets out the objectives of the Regulation. The proposed scope of these articles largely builds on the current AMIF Regulation, while taking into account new policy developments, such as the European Agenda on Migration, and the need to provide an agile response to evolving migration challenges both within the EU and in cooperation with other countries.
Chapter II — Financial and implementation framework sets out general principles for the support provided under the Regulation and conveys the importance of consistency and complementarities with relevant EU funding instruments. It stipulates the delivery modes for the actions supported under the Regulation: shared, direct and indirect management. The proposed mix of delivery modes is based on the positive experience with this combination in the implementation of the current funding instrument.
The first section of the chapter lays down the financial framework. The proposal indicates an amount for the overall envelope for the Fund and its use through various implementation arrangements.
The second, third and fourth sections describe the implementation framework for the Fund by implementation mode, such as programmes from the Commission and the Member States. It sets out detailed arrangements for the mid-term review and for the implementation of specific actions, Union actions, emergency assistance, technical assistance, financial instruments, budgetary guarantees and operating support.
The final section sets out the necessary provisions on performance reports by Member States, monitoring and evaluation.
Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016; OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1–14.
11
Chapter III — Transitional and final provisions contains provisions on the delegation of power to the Commission to adopt delegated acts, and on the Committee procedure. It also covers the applicability of the Common Provisions Regulation to the proposed Regulation, proposes the repeal of the predecessor funding instrument and lays down a number of transitional provisions. The date of the entry into force of the proposed Regulation is set and it is stipulated that the Regulation will be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Treaties from 1 January 2021.