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

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.

2

- 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.

3

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-

affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/00_eu_emn_status_report_2020_en.pdf. 8 Status Report 2021. Available at: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-

01/EMN%20status%20report%202021%20final.pdf. 9 Status Report 2021. Available at: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-

01/EMN%20status%20report%202021%20final.pdf. 10 27th Steering Board meeting. 11 The 2021-2025 EMN communication strategy and its impacts fall outside the timeframe of this evaluation.

4

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

5

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. Thelegalbases 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.

6

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.

7

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

8

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.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 29.6.2026

SWD(2026) 173 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EVALUATION

Accompanying the document

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

{COM(2026) 322 final}

1

Table of contents

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 4

1.1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION ...................................................... 4

1.2 METHODOLOGY OF THE EVALUATION................................................................. 4

2. WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION .............. 5

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE EMN AND ITS OBJECTIVE. ............................................... 5

2.2 EMN OUTPUTS .............................................................................................................. 7

2.3 POINTS OF COMPARISON .......................................................................................... 7

3. HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD 8

3.1 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF THE EVALUATION ...................................... 8

3.1.1 Main trends in asylum and migration and key factors .............................................. 8

3.1.2 Relevant policy developments .................................................................................. 8

3.2 STATE OF PLAY IN THE EMN 2018-2021 ................................................................. 9

3.2.1 EMN meetings and events......................................................................................... 9

3.2.2 Budget ..................................................................................................................... 10

4. EVALUATION FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 12

4.1 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY? ... 12

4.1.1 Effectiveness ........................................................................................................... 12

4.1.2 Efficiency ................................................................................................................ 17

4.1.3 Coherence ................................................................................................................ 20

4.2 HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND TO WHOM?23

4.2.1 EU added value ....................................................................................................... 23

4.3 IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT? ......................................................... 26

5. WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ........................ 28

5.1 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................ 28

5.2 LESSONS LEARNED................................................................................................... 30

ANNEX I PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .............................................................. 31

ANNEX II METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED .................. 32

ANNEX III EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................. 40

ANNEX IV OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ............................................ 60

ANNEX V STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION. SYNOPSIS REPORT. ............ 68

2

Glossary

Term or acronym Meaning or definition

AHQ Ad hoc queries

AHQ WG Ad Hoc Query Working Group

AMIF Asylum Migration and Integration Fund

ARMs Annual reports on migration and asylum

ARM WG Annual Reports on Migration and Asylum Working Group

CD WG Communication and Dissemination Working Group

CdT Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union

CEAS Common European Asylum System

CSO Civil Society Organisation

EASO European Asylum Support Office

EEAS European External Action Service

EMN European Migration Network

EQ Evaluation questions

EU European Union

EUAA European Union Agency for Asylum

FRA Fundamental Rights Agency

Frontex European Border and Coast Guard Agency

GDISC General Directors of Immigration Services Conference

GT WG Glossary and Thesaurus Working Group

IOM International Organisation for Migration

JRC Joint Research Centre

3

KCMD Knowledge Centre on Migration and Demography

NCP National Contact Point

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

RT WG Round Table Working Group

SB Steering Board

TCNs Third-country nationals

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

4

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose and scope of the evaluation

The European Migration Network 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 Council, with the aim of collecting and sharing information on migration and

asylum in the EU.

Under the provisions set out in the Council Decision 2008/381/EC (Article 13), the European

Commission regularly presents to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Economic

and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions a report on the development of the

European Migration Network (EMN), based on an external and independent evaluation.

This evaluation report assesses the four-year period from 2018 to 2021. In terms of the

geographical scope, it covered all EU Member States except for Denmark, as well as three

third countries that are EMN Observers (Georgia, Moldova and Norway).

The evaluation focuses on the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value and

relevance of the European Migration Network. It also considers whether the mandate of the

EMN 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

learned and recommendations to better respond to the challenges posed to EMN by the

constantly changing environment.

1.2 Methodology of the evaluation

The evaluation was supported by an independent study, completed in 20242, and a range of

activities and products. Field research activities helped gather qualitative insights on how and

why specific results had been achieved and identify lessons learned. The reliability and

validity of results was ensured by applying a systematic triangulation of data and information

collected through both desk and field sources.

The main limitations of the evaluation related to the timing differences between the period in

which the evaluation was conducted (2023-2024) and the temporal scope of the evaluation

(2018-2021). As some of the current National Contact Point members and/or Steering Board

(SB) members who were interviewed in the course of evidence collection for the supporting

evaluation study had not been involved in EMN activities between 2018 and 2021, they were

not able to provide relevant first-hand feedback and information for the period under

1 Council Decision of 14 May 2008 establishing a European Migration Network (2008/381/EC). 2 The independent evaluation study was carried out by Ernst &Young and is pending publication.

5

evaluation. To mitigate this limitation, guidelines for targeted interviews with SB members

were shared in advance to allow interviewees that were not involved in the EMN between

2018 and 2021 to be adequately briefed by former colleagues on activities between 2018 and

2021 or accompanied by them during the interviews.

The lack of availability of certain data on the type of costs incurred by National Contact

Points (NCPs) when implementing EMN activities did not allow a full quantification of the

costs of EMN activities. Cost quantification was therefore focused on the type of costs (i.e.

staff, travel, drafting of ad hoc queries) for which financial data was available and budget

allocations.

The evaluation acknowledged that the frequency of EMN evaluations, as prescribed by the

Council Decision 2008/381/EC, presented methodological constraints, in particular regarding

the limited availability of financial data, including budget allocations, as financial reporting is

not available for a calendar year, but for the full duration of each EMN Work Programme.

The non-alignment of EMN evaluations with EMN Work Programmes, as the evaluation

period covered one Work Programme fully (2019-2020) and two Work Programmes partially

(2017-2018, 2021-2022), made it unfeasible to derive a consistent 2018-2021 financial

dataset. Consequently, the financial data presented in the evaluation, in part and as noted,

included financial data for the years 2017 and 2022.

2. WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION?

2.1 Description of the EMN and its objective

The aim of the European Migration Network is to collect and share information on migration

and asylum in the EU. Articles 1 and 2(1) of the Council Decision 2008/381/EC identify the

EMN objective and tasks, which are translated into activities listed and defined in EMN work

programmes that are drafted and approved jointly by the EMN and the Commission3.

According to that Council Decision, the objective of the EMN is ‘to meet the information

needs of Community institutions and of Member States’ authorities and institutions on

migration and asylum, by providing up-to-date, objective, reliable and comparable

information on migration and asylum, with a view to supporting policy-making in the

European Union in these areas. The EMN also serves to provide the general public with

information on these subjects.

The internal structure of the EMN is outlined in the Council Decision, which provides for

clear roles and responsibilities of the different Network’s components. In the evaluation

3 The EMN work programmes were biennial until 2022. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/funding/asylum-

migration-and-integration-funds/european-migration-network-emn_en.

6

period the EMN was composed of representatives of the Commission, 26 Member States4,

and three observers: Norway, which joined in 2011, and Moldova and Georgia, which joined

in 2021. The various Network components were interlinked through both top-down and

bottom-up mechanisms. The top-down dimension involves the following actors:

- The Steering Board that plays executive and monitoring roles and provides strategic

guidance. In particular, pursuant to Article 4 of the Council Decision, the Steering

Board is responsible for leading the EMN political and strategic management and

comprises:

– one representative from each Member State5;

- one representative from the European Commission acting as chair;

- two scientific experts;

- one representative of the European Parliament, who can participate as an observer

in the SB meetings.

- The Commission, which coordinates the NCPs’ activities and ensures that the EMN

objectives and actions reflect EU’s political priorities (Article 6 of the Council

Decision);

- The Service Provider, which assists the Commission and provides secretarial support

for the EMN’s day-to-day activities;

- The NCPs designated by the Member States in coordination with the Commission that

play the two-fold role of contributing to the design of the work programmes (policy-

design role) and implementing them (operational role). Each NCP is composed of at

least three experts, one of which should act as ‘national coordinator’.

The NCPs act as the interconnection with the EMN bottom-up dimension represented by the

National Migration Networks that are established and coordinated by each NCP. The

networks comprise expert organisations (e.g. NGOs, scientific and research institutes, public

administration institutions) and individuals active in the field of migration and asylum, who

facilitate the exchange of information among national actors, offer better understanding and

response to information needs, and provide up-to-date and accurate information to the EMN

for EU-level analysis and reports.

In addition, the Council Decision envisaged a further layer to the EMN governance, by

providing for horizontal mechanisms (the EMN meetings) aimed at ensuring regular

communication and information exchange among the Network’s members6.

4 Denmark did not take part in the adoption of the Council Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its

application. 5 Each Member State appoints a representative to the Steering Board who is an institutional actor with specific

expertise in the field of migration and asylum at the national level. 6 Pursuant to Article 4(6), the SB should meet at least twice a year, allowing for exchanges among its national

members. Moreover, Article 7 provides that the EMN should meet at least five times a year, thus allowing

7

The EMN developed external coordination mechanisms with EU agencies (such as the

European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), the European Union Agency for Fundamental

Rights (FRA), and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)), Commission’s

bodies and networks (such as the European Return and Reintegration Network), as well as

international and civil society organisations.

2.2 EMN outputs7

The outputs of the EMN include providing various products, holding internal meetings, and

organising events. EMN written deliverables are managed and shared through the

Information Exchange System (IES),a state-of-the-art secure web platform with access

restriction. At the national level, EMN NCPs engage in information sharing through their

national EMN websites, conferences, social media, newsletters, and other events.

2.3 Points of comparison

The evaluation was aimed at capturing the changes that the EMN had brought to the area of

migration and asylum over the evaluation period. To this end, EMN performance between

2018 and 2021 was evaluated against specific points of comparison:

- the explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposal for a Council Decision

establishing the EMN8 with a view to identify the needs underlying the establishment

of the Network;

- the 2015 EMN evaluation to understand the progress of the EMN over the two

evaluation periods9.

for regular exchanges among NCPs. The Commission acts as chair of both SB and NCP meetings, which

are all also attended by the Service Provider. 7 A detailed list of EMN outputs produced can also be found in EMN Status Reports published annually: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/european-migration-network-emn/emn-publications/emn-status-

reports_en. 8 European Commission (2008), Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Migration Network,

COM(2007) 466 final. 9 Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network. Final report. (2015).

8

3. HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD?

3.1 Background and context of the evaluation

3.1.1 Main trends in asylum and migration and key factors

Between 2018 and 2021, the number of asylum applications in the EU were strongly

impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting global mobility disruptions. Irregular

arrivals during this period also fluctuated, with detections decreasing when mobility channels

were constrained and increasing again as restrictions eased. Geopolitical developments,

including the Belarus-border crisis, also had an impact on the movement of migrants.

Legal migration remained comparatively stable over between 2018 and 2021 but was shaped

by temporary labour market needs and administrative adaptations introduced during the

pandemic. Work-related, family-related and education-related residence permits continued to

constitute the main legal pathways, while seasonal and other employment-related mobility

remained important. Member States introduced targeted measures to address labour

shortages, ensure continuity of residence for workers already present and adapt procedures

through remote processing, online platforms and wider use of digital tools. Large-scale EU IT

systems such as the Eurodac10 continued to support border, migration and asylum

management, and labour-market integration outcomes for EU nationals and third-country

nationals remained stable throughout the period.

3.1.2 Relevant policy developments

Between 2018 and 2021, several EU initiatives contributed to shaping the policy and

operational framework in the area of migration and asylum. The Commission presented the

Pact on Migration and Asylum11, comprising a set of legislative proposals and accompanying

non-legislative measures aimed at establishing a more effective and predictable EU system.

The revised EU Blue Card Directive (Directive 2021/1883/EU)12 introduced updated rules for

the admission and residence of highly qualified workers from third countries. The

implementation of the 2015-2020 EU action plan against migrant smuggling continued to

support efforts to prevent and combat smuggling in line with the European Agenda on

10 Eurodac was originally created in 2000 (Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000) and has been operating since 2003.

Its current legal basis is Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of

26 June 2013.

11 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on A New Pact on Migration and Asylum

(COM/2020/609 Final). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0609. 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. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021L1883 -

:~:text=DIRECTIVE%20%28EU%29%202021%2F1883%20OF%20THE%20EUROPEAN%20PARLIA

MENT%20AND,highly%20qualified%20employment%2C%20and%20repealing%20Council%20Directive

%202009%2F50%2FEC.

9

Migration13 and the European Agenda on Security14. In 2020, the Commission also

established the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint Mechanism15 as the EU’s

structured framework for preparedness, monitoring, situational awareness and coordinated

response in the field of migration. Over the same period, the mandates of EUAA, FRA and

Frontex were established or strengthened, enhancing their roles in supporting Member States

and EU institutions in the fields of asylum, fundamental rights and integrated border

management.

3.2 State of play in the EMN 2018-2021

3.2.1 EMN meetings and events

The evaluation confirmed that EMN meetings and events were carried out in full accordance

with the work programmes16. SB and NCP meetings were held regularly. In 2021, two

additional SB meetings were organised due to the urgency of issues to be addressed

(including the impact of COVID-19 pandemic and the tensions at the EU external border with

Belarus). The establishment of new Working Groups between 2018 and 202117 led to an

increase in the number of meetings during the analysed period.

13 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_15_4956. 14 Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52015DC0240. 15 Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/1366 of 23 September 2020 on an EU mechanism for preparedness

and management of crises related to migration. Available at: EUR-Lex - 32020H1366 - EN - EUR-Lex. 16 Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021. Final report. 17 In 2018, the Information and Awareness Raising Campaigns Working Group (INFO WG) was established and

the EMN Statistics Working Group was re-instated to discuss how the EMN’s ambition to present

comparable statistics could be achieved because different migration and asylum-related statistics were being

generated due to lack of alignment among the national data collection systems. In 2020, the International

Cooperation Working Group (ICWG) and the round tables Working Group started their activities. Finally, a

new ad hoc Working Group was established in 2021 to supervise the production of an EMN corporate video

showcasing the progress of the Network since its 10th anniversary (in 2018).

10

Table 1 Planned vs actual meetings and events (2018-2021)

Output Planned per year 2018 2019 2020 2021

SB meetings 218 2 2 2 4

NCP meetings At least 519 7 7 6 7

WG meetings --20 11 10 23 17

Conferences 2 2 2 3 2

EMN Day21 1 -- -- 1 1

Round tables22 0 -- -- 2 3

Source: Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021. Final report.

In addition to the twice-yearly EMN conferences, in 2019 two conferences at the EU level

were co-organised by the EMN and the Council of Europe and the OECD, respectively. Due

to pandemic-related travel restrictions the events were held virtually, which contributed to

greater participation. Phasing in virtual and hybrid meetings facilitated wider participation

and helped reduce attendance costs23.

In 2020 and 2021, the EMN Days were the EMN’s most attended events, with around 300

participants. In 2020 two round tables were organised for the first time, while in 2021 three

round tables were held in cooperation with the World Bank to discuss i.e. legal pathways and

circular migration.

Networking and information sharing by NCPs at the national level were steadily growing

throughout the evaluation period. Whilst most 2018 events were limited to national

conferences, in subsequent years the range of events grew to include round tables, migration

talks, workshops, educational seminars and webinars, study forums, and screening of

documentaries24.

3.2.2 Budget

The EMN is co-financed from Commission’s Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund

(AMIF). The EMN budget (as indicated in Table 2) is distributed through grants allocated to

NCPs, procurement (including allocations for the EMN Service Provider, and for

communication services and evaluation studies), other actions (including allocations for the

18 As established by Article 4(6) of the Council Decision. 19 As established by Article 5(6) of the Council Decision. 20 The frequency of the WG meetings depends on the specific needs of each WG: usually, at the end of a WG

meeting, participants decide when to meet the next time. 21 The EMN Day was started in 2020. 22 The round tables were started in 2020 as dialogue-based events to promote open learning with the aim to

bring together innovative thinkers and stakeholders to clarify viewpoints and to offer a space for exchange

of perspectives on challenging issues. 23 Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021. Final report. 24 Idem.

11

Joint Research Centre and IT services), and indirect management (for international

organisations and assimilated entities).

As EMN allocations are reported per work programme, they are available only in biannual

aggregates and cannot be disaggregated by calendar year. Consequently, the analysis

necessarily included data from 2017 and 2022, which fall outside the evaluation period.

The allocated amounts are jointly agreed by the EMN and the Commission for the

implementation of each work programme. Based on a Steering Board decision, EMN grants

are awarded to NCPs and operationalised in the work programmes. The maximum EU co-

financing of the EMN grants is 95%. Following the Commission’s approval, the NCPs

receive an advance payment of up to 80% of the allocated budget, while the remaining

amount can be released following reporting of the expenses. Allocated resources that have

not been exhausted are returned to AMIF at the end of the work programme.

Unlike EU Member States, EMN Observer Countries cover the entirety of the costs of their

involvement in the EMN from their respective national budgets.

Grants for the NCPs constitute the bulk of the EMN budget and they are given on the basis of

a call for proposals for each of the work programmes and the signing of grant agreements.

The implementation of the grants is monitored by the Commission and the reporting

obligations on the implementation apply to all the NCPs.

Overall, grants awarded to the NCPs increased from 78% of the total EMN allocation in

2017-2018 to 87% in 2019-2020, and then decreased to 69% in 2021-2022. Procurement

decreased from 20% in 2017-2018 to 8% in 2019-2020 and then increased up to 13% in the

period 2021-2022. Finally, the budget allocated for other actions consistently grew in the

evaluation period.25

Table 2 – EMN budget allocation26

Period Total allocation Grants Procurements Other actions Indirect

management

2017-18 €24 240 000 €18 910 000 €4 780 000 €550 000 n.a.

2019-20 €18 075 000 €15 640 000 €1 400 000 €1 035 000 n.a.

2021-22 €22 976 000 €15 962 000 €3 100 000 €1 500 000 €2 414 000

Source: Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021. Final report.

The grants covered the costs of participation in EMN meetings, production of national

contributions to EMN products, management of the AHQs, organisation of public events and

dissemination activities at the national level.

25 Member State–level allocation, award, and spending information is provided in Annex IV.

26 EMN budget allocation is presented as the data on actual budget implementation in the evaluation period is

not yet available.

12

With regard to grant awards27, the 2019-2020 work programme recorded an overall increase

compared with the preceding period, whereas allocations in the subsequent work programme

remained broadly stable and, in some Member States, declined.

The average level of grant spending rate by NCPs28 was around 85% of the maximum grant

amount in the 2017-2018 and 2019-2020 work programmes. The EMN grants closed to date

under the 2021-2022 work programme have a budget implementation rate of 78%. The

reason for the relative low level of implementation was directly linked to pandemic-related

restrictions which first led to the cancellation of travel and then to the reduction of travel

overall, with the NCPs resorting more to online meetings..

4. EVALUATION FINDINGS

Key findings:

• EMN’s mandate and objectives remained relevant to EU and national information

needs throughout 2018–2021.

• EMN delivered a steady output of reports, ad hoc queries, and events, despite varying

national administrative structures and changing policy priorities.

• EMN continued to provide comparable, up-to-date information that supported

evidence-based policy discussions at both EU and national levels.

This ex post evaluation assesses the performance of the EMN against the following five

criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value, and relevance. The overall

analysis is based on evidence from both the Evaluation Study and the Commission’s own

sources. The analysis draws on the indicators presented in Annex III, including quantitative

output indicators where available.

4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why?

4.1.1 Effectiveness

Key findings:

• EMN products were widely used by the Commission and Member States and were

considered timely and policy relevant.

• EMN contributed to a shared understanding of migration trends, including during

periods of rapid policy change.

• EMN outputs supported operational and policy decision-making and addressed

27 See Annex IV, Figure 4.

28 See Annex IV, Figure 5.

13

information needs not met through other EU instruments.

The evaluation examined how effectively the EMN delivered its planned outcomes and

provided intended support.

Question 1: To what extent have the EMN activities contributed to achieving the

specific and general objectives laid down in Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the

actions carried out by the EMN?

The Network’s activities29 which correspond to the tasks set out in Article 2 of the Council

Decision are:

• collect and share data and information from a wide array of sources;

• analyse information and make it available in a readily accessible format;

• contribute to developing migratory indicators and criteria;

• produce and publish periodic reports;

• cooperate with other relevant EU and international bodies.

Information produced by the EMN was widely considered to be accessible, comparable,

easily readable, objective, reliable and up-to-date. Updated information was made available

mainly through the regular publication of the annual reports on migration and asylum

(ARMs) and their statistical annexes, as well as through quarterly bulletins. Objectivity and

reliability were ensured through a multi-stakeholder and multi-agency approach to the data

collection process, which entailed the direct involvement of the National Migration

Networks. The comparability of migration-related data produced by the EMN steadily

increased as a result of the support provided by the EMN Statistics WG and the introduction

of structured data collection tools, such as the guidelines for producing AHQs, studies and

ARMs developed in 2018. Addressing the readability and accessibility of the information

produced by the EMN, the previous EMN evaluation of 2015 indicated the need for the EMN

to provide more concise deliverables, including clear facts and figures on migration. The

EMN responded to that recommendation by introducing flashes in 2018, which provide

succinct information in a user-friendly format.

29 A complete list of activities undertaken by the EMN can be found in annual EMN Status Reports:

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

reports_en.

.

14

Table 3 Planned vs actual products (2018-2021)

Output Planned per year 2018 2019 2020 2021

AHQs n.a30. 67 90 74 98

ARMs 1 1 1 1 1

Bulletins 4 4 4 4 4

Flashes n.a31. 4 7 6 7

Informs up to 15 11 12 16 21

Studies 432 4 4 4 2

Source: Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021. Final report.

Table 4 Topics covered per product

Topic AHQs ARMs Bulletins Studies Informs

Legal migration and mobility 49 4 16 4 11

International protection and asylum 41 4 16 2 7

Unaccompanied minors and vulnerable groups 12 4 16 - 4

Integration and inclusion 11 4 16 1 1

Citizenship and statelessness 17 4 16 1 2

Borders, visa and Schengen 13 4 16 2 6

Irregular migration including migrant

smuggling

10 4 16 1 2

Trafficking in human beings 5 4 16 1 1

Return and readmission 17 4 16 1 11

Residence 30 4 - 1 4

COVID-19 pandemic 5 - - - 6

Source: Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021. Final report.

In addition to its high quality, the information produced by the EMN was considered to be

policy relevant as it met the needs of its various stakeholders both at the EU and national

level. Moreover, evidence confirmed that many of the stakeholders made effective use of

EMN products, e.g. the EMN mapping of national legislative frameworks and developments

was used to feed into the assessment of the implementation of the Long-Term Residence

Directive. The information made available by the EMN also served to simplify and

streamline the data collection conducted by other relevant EU bodies. At the national level,

the EMN was an important contributor to national policy-making.

The evaluation found that the EMN’s responsiveness to the information needs of its

stakeholders was ensured also thanks to specific procedures set out in the EMN legal basis.

30 AHQs are launched on a need basis. 31 The number depends on the number of EMN products delivered in the given year. 32 In accordance with the Annex to the WPs 2017-2018 and 2019-2020, the EMN shall initiate four studies per

year. This information was not available for 2021.

15

Specifically, Article 6(4) of the Council Decision provides that the work programmes are

adopted by the Commission after consultation of the NCPs and approval by the SB.

Moreover, topics to be covered by the EMN products were selected based on a collaborative

approach outlined in the work programmes.

A significant improvement in safe access to the information produced by the EMN came with

the transfer of the IES to a new platform which helped ameliorate its performance. A major

overhaul of the IES, including a new software, layout and IES version aimed at addressing

the remaining issues and at improving the efficiency and user-friendliness, was planned for

2024, beyond the period of this evaluation.

Since the 2015 EMN evaluation, an increasing level of participation by EU-level stakeholders

in the SB and NCP meetings has been noted. At the Member-State level, the EMN has

consistently stepped up cooperation among the Member States as a platform for knowledge

exchange in the field of migration and asylum. The EMN enhanced networking among

practitioners across the EU and made possible the participation of national policy experts in

conferences organised by other NCPs. Enhanced operational cooperation and knowledge

sharing among the Member States were facilitated by the work carried out by the EMN WGs.

The EMN also promoted collaboration between single NCPs and external actors.

The EMN engaged with international organisations and EU agencies for the preparation of

products and events: four Informs on the impact of COVID-19 were developed in

cooperation with the OECD in 2020 and one in 2021, in collaboration with EUAA and

Frontex33. Moreover, in 2021 a EMN conference was jointly organised by the NCP Finland in

collaboration with the OECD and the CoE.

The EMN contributed to fostering the sharing of good practice by playing the role of

facilitator in enabling access to the good practice identified in other Member States and

exchanging information on migration practices adopted by the Member States.

An important development in external relations was the EMN’s engagement with third

countries over the evaluation period. In 2021, Georgia and Moldova joined the EMN as

observers34 while Armenia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Ukraine expressed an interest in joining

the EMN35. The Commission, assisted by the Cooperation with Third Countries WG (CTC

WG), launched preliminary exchanges with these countries36.

33 European Commission (2020), EMN Status Report 2020. Available at: https://home-

affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/00_eu_emn_status_report_2020_en.pdf. 34 Status Report 2021. Available at: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-

01/EMN%20status%20report%202021%20final.pdf. 35 Status Report 2021. Available at: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-

01/EMN%20status%20report%202021%20final.pdf. 36 27th SB meeting.

16

Question 2: What steps have been taken to increase the visibility of the EMN and its

activities and have they been effective?

The EMN implemented various activities aimed at increasing its visibility:

- Internet-based Information Exchange System (EMN IES)

- EMN central and national websites

- EMN products (ARMs, studies, country factsheets, informs, AHQs, status reports,

flashes, information leaflets)

- EMN Twitter and LinkedIn accounts

- EMN events (conferences, EMN Day, webinars, round tables, workshops).

All the above EMN information-sharing activities contributed to increasing the Network’s

visibility within the EU and across relevant third countries. The EMN conferences and events

were particularly useful tools for the Network’s deliverables and benefited from the

participation of experts from Member States. The EMN Communication and Dissemination

WG played an important role in implementing dissemination tasks.

A need for further strengthening of the role that NCPs played in mobilising national partners

to promote EMN activities, including better coordination with policymakers, was identified

in the course of this evaluation.

The 2021-2025 EMN communication strategy addressed most identified issues. The strategy

also reflected the EMN’s increased focus on communication and information sharing targeted

at the wider public in order to ensure circulation of confirmed, accurate and reliable

information and to counter the spread of fake news. To this end, the presentation of

documents was streamlined, including new formats such as flashes and communication

packages (press releases, news items on the website and social media posts) accompanying

key EMN outputs. The strategy also prompted the NCPs to increase their presence on social

media.

The impact of the 2021-2025 EMN communication strategy could only have been observed

after the cut-off date of this evaluation and could not therefore be analysed. The evaluation

confirmed, however, 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 felt already in 2021.

17

4.1.2 Efficiency

Key findings:

• EMN activities were delivered with a proportionate use of resources, and stakeholders

perceived the EMN as financially efficient.

• Incomplete ex-post financial data limited the precision of the cost analysis; available

data indicate balanced use of funds across staff, events, and analytical work.

• The Work Programme-based financial reporting structure constrained year-specific

analysis but did not impede the assessment of overall efficiency.

The overall evaluation of the programme’s efficiency is composed of the following two

analyses:

• To what extent was the scale of the EMN funding proportionate to the range of activities

performed;

• The adequacy of EMN governance for the implementation of the activities of the Network.

Question 3 To what extent have the resources allocated to the EMN through the AMIF

been sufficient for meeting the objectives of Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the

actions carried out by the EMN?

The EMN was co-financed through AMIF resources which were distributed through different

funding mechanisms depending on the specific activity to be supported, as shown in Table 4.

Table 5: Breakdown of the EMN-related funding

Type of funding Activity

Grants Activities carried out by the NCPs

Procurement Activities of the Service Provider

Communication

Evaluation studies

Other actions Activities carried out by the JRC

IT Services

Indirect management Activities by international organisations

18

The largest share allocated to grants out of the total EMN budget37 corresponded to a

remarkable higher number of EMN activities carried out by the NCPs as compared to the

other EMN components.

Overall, the evaluation confirmed that the EMN was considered financially sustainable. As

for the 2015 evaluation, AMIF resources were sufficient to cover the incurred costs between

2018 and 2021.

Question 4: Is the EMN sufficiently equipped to support its stakeholders in an

appropriate manner?

The structure of the EMN is outlined in the Council Decision, which provides for clear roles

and responsibilities of the different Network’s components.

The various components of the Network are all interlinked through both top-down and

bottom-up mechanisms which together provide a central structure (the EMN) that is

systematically fed by peripheral inputs (National Migration Networks).

The top-down dimension involves:

- the Steering Board, which plays executive and monitoring roles, and provides

the Network with strategic guidance.

- the Commission, which concerts the NCPs’ activities (coordination role) and

ensures correspondence between the objectives and actions of the EMN and

the EU political priorities (political role).

- the Service Provider, which assists the Commission and provides secretarial

support to ensuring proper functioning of the Network in the execution of its

day-by-day activities.

- the NCPs, which play the two-fold role of contributing to the design of the

work programmes (policy-design role) and implementing them (operational

role).

The NCPs act as the interconnection node with the bottom-up dimension, which involves

their respective National Migration Networks in charge of feeding the EMN products and

activities with data, information and knowledge gathered at the national level.

The Council Decision envisages a further layer to the EMN governance, by providing for

horizontal mechanisms aimed at ensuring regular communication and information exchange

among the Network’s members. The Steering Board meets at least twice a year, allowing for

exchanges among its national members. Moreover, the EMN meets at least five times a year,

thus allowing for regular exchanges among NCPs. The Commission acts as chair of both

Steering Board and NCP meetings, which are all attended also by the Service Provider. While

37 As indicated in Table 2.

19

that mechanism was found to work well, it could be further improved by involving of JRC in

the EMN meetings (both SB and NCP) due to its extensive work in migration policy.

In terms of governance, the evaluation confirmed that the various components of the EMN

worked in accordance with the EMN legal basis throughout the analysed period.

The analysis of the minutes of the SB meetings over the evaluation period showed that all SB

meetings were attended by at least one representative per Member State and one

representative of the Commission. During its meetings, the SB performed its tasks in

compliance with the Council Decision and provided substantial strategic and political

guidance to the Network, a major improvement on the situation described in the 2015

evaluation, which at that time identified limited strategic support from the SB to the NCPs.

However, scientific experts were not involved, marking no progress since the 2015 evaluation

when scientific experts had likewise not yet been appointed.

As regards NCPs, their composition was in line with the Council Decision and the analysis of

the minutes of the NCP meetings confirmed that they performed their tasks in accordance

with the legal basis.

A possible improvement in supporting key stakeholders would also be a systematic exchange

of good national practice among NCPs in various migration policy areas, for example through

a dedicated Section in EMN products.

Finally, it was also found that it would be useful for the EMN at the national level to have a

strategy in place on how to establish and manage the National Migration Networks.

Overall, the evaluation confirmed the appropriateness of the EMN internal structure which

allowed efficient management of the Network’s activities, and a good level of awareness of

internal distribution of roles and responsibilities.

Question 5: How efficient is the EMN Service Provider?

The EMN Service Provider in its contribution to the smooth operation of the EMN was found

to be efficient, responsive and supportive. However, due to its higher workload, linked to an

accumulation of various tasks, the Service Provider’s delivery was sometimes delayed, e.g.

drafting and circulating EMN NCP meeting minutes.

20

4.1.3 Coherence

Key findings:

• EMN activities were coherent with EU migration and asylum policy developments

and complemented the work of relevant EU agencies.

• EMN outputs aligned with national priorities and contributed to consistency across

Member States.

• No significant overlaps with other EU-level information or coordination tools were

identified.

The evaluation analysed whether the EMN activities were coherent with the key policy

initiatives as well as how consistent the objectives and the activities of the EMN were with

those of the relevant EU agencies. International frameworks assessed have been limited by

the EMN’s mandate, as to migration-related activities within EU Member States and EMN

observer countries.

Question 6: To what extent have the objectives and activities determined by Council

Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried out by the EMN been consistent with

relevant EU policy migration developments, notably those set out in the New Pact on

Migration and Asylum such as the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint?

Overall coherence between the EMN objectives and those of the Pact of Migration and

Asylum, the EU Blue Card Directive and the EU action plan against migrant smuggling was

confirmed in the evaluation.

The EMN deliverables to support policy-making and to inform the general public were

consistent with the Pact’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 practice represented an important

tool for a more coordinated application of the existing EU acquis. It served to promote efforts

to harmonise implementation of the common standards governing asylum procedures,

reception conditions and the recognition of TCNs 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 also 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 2021-2022 work programme

focused on the use of new technologies and the establishment of new legal pathways (e.g. to

meet labour market needs and support vulnerable groups such as children in migration). The

EMN facilitation of good practice, practical cooperation, and knowledge-building on

migration and asylum showed synergies with the EU Migration Preparedness and Crisis

Management Mechanism Network (Blueprint).

21

The EMN collected and provided information relevant to the EU Blue Card Directive. 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 TCNs. This

was fully consistent with the Directive, which aims to regulate highly qualified TCNs

intending to work and reside in a Member State. Moreover, the EMN’s support to the

development of enhanced migration indicators, also in collaboration with relevant EU bodies,

proved to be consistent with the Directive.

The EMN objectives and activities were found to be consistent with those of the EU action

plan against migrant smuggling. 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 and irregular stays. 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 202138. They were overall consistent with the key priorities

outlined in subsequent EMN work programmes as well as with the main topics covered by

EMN outputs. The only three exceptions were: age assessment and procedures, national

referral mechanisms, and diaspora in cooperation activities. These policy areas were not

addressed by any work programme or outputs produced by the Network between 2018 and

2021. However, all Member States took actions related to such policy areas, pointing to

policy priorities that go beyond the scope of action of the Network.

Question 7: To what extent have the objectives and activities determined by Council

Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried out by the EMN been consistent with

other objectives and activities of Member States and EU agencies, including notably

EUAA, Frontex and FRA?

The EMN objectives and scope of activities reflected the EU priorities in the field of

migration and analysis, as outlined in the key policy areas covered by the EMN products and

activities. All these areas corresponded to political priorities across the Member States, as

demonstrated by related policy developments occurred between 2018 and 2021.

The EMN remained active in all the policy areas and responded to the information needs of

Member States.

38 Legal migration, international protection, unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable groups, integration and

inclusion, citizenship and statelessness, borders, visas and Schengen, irregular migration including migrant

smuggling, trafficking in adult human beings, return and readmission, and migration and development

cooperation.

22

A high degree of coherence and consistency with the objectives and activities of the EMN,

EUAA, FRA and Frontex was confirmed in the evaluation.

The evaluation identified a number of mechanisms in place to avoid overlap or duplication of

efforts:

- thelegalbasis of both the EMN and the Agencies includes specific provisions aimed

at avoiding overlaps, while at the same time reinforcing mutual synergies;

- representatives from the Agencies were regularly invited to EMN meetings to foster

collaboration and avoid duplication of activities;

- EUAA and Frontex users were granted access to the EMN Information Exchange

System;

- the EMN also took specific actions to contain the risk of duplications, given that

EUAA also produced AHQs and studies.

Moreover, the EMN 2017-2018 work programme emphasised the need to avoid duplication

between ARMs and EUAA’s Annual Asylum Reports39. The evaluation confirmed that there

was no duplication of activities conducted by the EMN and the EUAA. Similarly, FRA’s

products over time dealt with migration-related issues such as borders, Schengen and visas,

integration, international protection, and asylum, return and readmissions, and

unaccompanied minors and vulnerable groups, though their focus remain always on

individuals’ rights. FRA addressed only a few of the indicators covered by the ARMs Finally,

the analysis and reports developed by Frontex covered a subset of indicators related to the

irregular migration policy area, while bypassing many within other policy areas covered

instead by the ARMs

39 EMN 2017-18 work programme. Available at:https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/funding/asylum-migration-

and-integration-funds/european-migration-network-emn_en

23

4.2 How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?

4.2.1 EU added value

Key findings:

• The EMN delivered added value by providing structured, comparable information that

could not be generated as effectively by Member States acting alone.

• The EMN facilitated regular exchange, peer learning, and shared analyses that

supported coordinated EU approaches.

• The thematic coverage and methodological consistency of EMN outputs strengthened

cross-country comparability and policy dialogue.

The evaluation analysed key aspects of the EU added value of the EMN: its unique position

and mandate as well as the legal basis and EU funding.

Question 8: What is the European added value of Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the

actions carried out by the EMN? Could the main findings (results/outputs) presented in

the evaluation have been achieved without EU intervention?

The evaluation confirmed that many EMN achievements could not have been produced

without the support of the Network, particularly the exchange of good practice and

strengthening practical cooperation among the Member States, as well as addressing the

information needs of national policymakers.

The EMN brought added value, including direct support for enhanced cooperation both

within the EU and beyond. The permanent nature of the EMN and its unique position 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 EU intervention proved indispensable in making the provision of information a stable

and widely recognised mechanism.

Question 9: What is the additional value resulting from EMN products and activities

compared to what could be achieved by Member States at national and/or local levels?

It was confirmed in the evaluation that no other network nor organisation at the EU level, or

at a local 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

24

of data among all the Member States. The unique value of the EMN that was identified was a

‘one-stop-shop’ function for migration-related information at the EU level not available

elsewhere.

It was also confirmed that the information produced by the EMN remained a unique source in

terms of quality, comprehensiveness and relevance when compared to other sources available

at the national level, thanks also to support from EMN WGs focused on specific EMN

products.

The information contained in the EMN products was a source of inspiration for policy

debates at the EU level. Due to their broad spectrum of thematic and geographical coverage,

several EMN studies supported the introduction and/or revision of EU policy and legislative

initiatives. One example is the proposal for a Directive on common standards and procedures

in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals40, which was

informed by the 2018 EMN study on the effectiveness of return in EU Member States.

However, identifying information needs that were relevant to all Member States and

producing comparable information based on data provided by all of them entailed multiple

rounds of consultations and negotiations which required a substantial amount of time.

Question 10: To what extent are the outcomes of Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the

actions carried out by the EMN sustainable? Are the effects likely to last after the

intervention ends?

The evaluation revealed that if the EMN were to be discontinued, it would be difficult to

ensure a stable delivery of its activities and deliverables at a comparable level. In particular,

key activities whose continued existence would be at risk were believed to be: the 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. The regular collection of

national migration data and the exchange of information across the Member States were seen

as potentially being less impacted if the EMN were discontinued. The two functions, if

continued in a different EU mechanism, would be unlikely to ensure production of EU-level

data at the same comprehensive and granular level as was the case with the EMN over the

evaluation period.

40 COM/2018/634 final.

25

Question 11: Is the Council Decision 2008/381/EC still an adequate basis of the actions

of the EMN?

It was reconfirmed during the evaluation that Council Decision 2008/381/EC provided a

sufficient mandate towards achieving the EMN objectives, ensuring the provision of reliable,

comparable, and up-to date information on migration and asylum in a neutral manner.

It provides for a ‘matrix’ approach to data collection which makes the information produced

by the EMN one of a kind. The EMN structure envisaged by the Council Decision indeed

provides for a two-fold dimension.

• Horizontal dimension – According to Article 5 of the Council Decision, each Member

State should designate an NCP composed of at least three experts, one of which acting as

coordinator. In turn, each NCP should establish a National Migration Network

comprising a wide range of organisations and individuals active in the field of migration

and asylum. This networking structure allows professionals and practitioners from a

variety of organisations to come together to identify, collect and analyse data and

information that is often scattered across multiple national stakeholders dealing with

migration and asylum at the national level. At the same time, the ‘horizontal capillarity’

of the EMN facilitates the sharing of its products and results beyond the Network’s

stakeholders.

• Vertical dimension – NCPs are part of an integrated structure coordinated by the

Commission supported by an external Service Provider. Moreover, according to Article 4

of the Council Decision, each Member State designates a national representative as

member of the EMN Steering Board, which also includes a representative of the

Commission acting as chair. The vertical dimension facilitates the integration,

comparability and exchange of information collected across the Member States, thus

contributing towards practical cooperation and mutual understanding in the field of

migration and asylum.

This two-fold structure is a key feature of the EMN as it helps the EU cope with the

multidimensional migration phenomenon.

The format of the EMN as an EU-level network was found to be tailored well to meeting the

needs of stakeholders in the migration and asylum field for the production and exchange of

knowledge, including statistics, as well as of enhanced cooperation among Member States.

Question 12: Could the results, delivered through the implementation of the Council

Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried out by the EMN have been achieved with

less European funding? Could the use of other policy instruments or mechanisms, at

European and/or national level, have provided better cost-effectiveness?

The EMN funding from AMIF proved to be pivotal in ensuring the achievement and

sustainability of the results and benefits achieved by the Network. No other alternative in the

26

form of existing policy instruments or mechanisms would be capable of providing a

comparable amount of information at the quality required by Member States.

4.3 Is the intervention still relevant?

The relevance of the EMN has been analysed in the evaluation both against the challenges

facing the EU and stakeholders’ evolving needs.

Question 13: To what extent have Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried

out by the EMN been relevant in view of the EU’s needs/challenges and are they still

relevant in view of current needs and challenges?

While the EMN’s main objective remained unchanged during the evaluation period, the

specific objectives listed in the 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 shaped

the EU migration and asylum landscape over the years. The newly identified needs were

related to two key factors affecting the EU migration and asylum system between 2018 and

2021, i.e. the COVID-19 pandemic and the sudden increase in the number of both asylum

applications and irregular border crossings.

The relevance of the Network to key EU priorities was further confirmed by the high level of

alignment between the scope of the EMN written 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.

Table 6 – Coverage of EU priorities in the EMN outputs

EU priority AHQs Informs Studies Conferences Other events

COVID-19 5 7 0 1 5

Border management 95 15 7 0 0

Labour market 37 1 3 0 1

Vulnerable groups 18 7 2 0 0

Innovation in migration 10 4 1 3 0

Migration management 33 0 4 5 3

Source: Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021. Final report.

Question 14: To what extent have Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried

out by the EMN been relevant in view of specific needs of stakeholders, in particular

Member States and civil society?

27

Alignment between the focus of the EMN activities and products and the priority topics

proposed by NCPs was ensured throughout the evaluation period. The EMN mechanisms

guaranteed that the Network’s activities and outputs were relevant to its stakeholders. The

proposed topics of deliverables were always approved by the SB in a vote, which guaranteed

alignment with the information needs and national priorities of a majority of the Member

States. It was also confirmed in the evaluation that the EMN products met the information

needs of the NCPs, of policymakers at the national level in the field of migration and asylum,

as well as of the National Migration Networks.

Some room for improvement was identified within the time-consuming EMN publication

procedures. The evaluation confirmed that the topic selection process required a series of

negotiation rounds, reducing the EMN’s timeliness which, in turn, affected its overall

effectiveness and relevance. On the other hand, in terms of the overall integrity of the

process, the proposal and ranking of study topics were handled in a well-structured manner,

beginning with the proposal of study topics, merging or reformulating of proposals, ranking

through a vote, and final submission to the SB.

Another area where relevance could be further improved is EU-wide comparability of

migration statistics collected at the national level. Specific guidelines on national migration

statistics would be useful to address the deficiency.

Although the Network was found fit for purpose as regards the needs of national

policymakers, only partial alignment with the needs of the general public was confirmed,

similarly to the findings of the 2015 evaluation. In order to address that shortcoming, the

EMN 2021-2025 communication strategy provided for mainstreamed and improved

presentation of EMN products, including the production of flashes, reader-friendly outputs

with a more engaging presentation to be more appealing and accessible to the general

public41. Adjusting EMN products to meet the needs of the general public was also facilitated

by enhancing and expanding EMN partnerships and networking to embrace both broader

engagement by knowledge centres with various individuals and practitioners beyond

policymakers.

41 EMN communication strategy (2021-2025).

28

5. WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED?

5.1 Conclusions

Between 2018 and 2021, the EMN’s performance was found to be in line with its mandate

and its objectives. Compared to the 2015 evaluation, the EMN improved its capacity to

support EU policy-making in the field of migration and asylum. Two main mechanisms made

it possible for the EMN to support the Network. First, the EMN provided up-to-date,

objective, reliable, comparable, easily readable, and accessible information, which was

widely used to identify and respond to EU policy priorities, to design and implement new

policy initiatives and to inform national policy and decision-making. Second, the EMN

contributed to mutual understanding and trust building among its various stakeholders.

EMN’s increasing effectiveness was also confirmed in focusing on activities enhancing its

visibility (EMN’s online platform, central and national websites, the various EMN products,

social media accounts and EMN events). Further strengthening of that role was found

necessary at the Member State level in order to better mobilise national partners to promote

EMN activities.

Analysing efficiency of the EMN in the evaluation posed a methodological challenge due to

the missing financial data. Despite the limitations regarding availability of financial data and

basing the analysis on budgetary allocations (and not on actually incurred costs, as these

continue not to be available for the EMN as a whole due to delayed reporting by some

Member States), the evaluation confirmed that the funding from AMIF was largely sufficient

to cover the operation of the EMN and proportionate to the plethora of 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 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, the EU action plan against migrant smuggling. The EMN’s comprehensive

approach to the migration phenomenon was also found to be consistently in line with the

specific scope of action of each of these initiatives. These initiatives were highlighted due to

their direct relevance to the EMN’s analytical and information exchange activities, while

recognising that this not exhaustive for migration policy developments during the evaluation

period. Their inclusion reflects the specific policy areas in which Member States most

frequently sought comparative information and analytical support. 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

29

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 SB 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, however, its relative weakness: the reiterated rounds of consultation were

time-consuming. 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

adequate, as it provided sufficient mandate which were matched by commensurate resources

to attain the EMN’s objectives.

30

5.2 Lessons learned

The evaluation of the activities of the EMN in the period 2018-2021 identified five areas as

lessons learned, where more focus and monitoring would be useful to further enhance the

operation of the EMN in the future:

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

activities defined in the work programmes;

• ensuring that the Joint Research Centre is regularly involved in the SB and NCP

meetings;

• including a section on national good practices in the EMN products;

• 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.

31

ANNEX I PROCEDURAL INFORMATION

1. Lead DG and Decide reference

The evaluation was managed by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for

Migration and Security, DG HOME Unit C5: Migration Management Preparedness.

2. Derogations granted

A derogation was granted from the obligation to carry out a public consultation. The

derogation was justified by the fact that the evidence underpinning the analysis could only be

collected from the EMN stakeholders. The general public, not being EMN technical

stakeholders, could not provide any relevant input.

3. Organisation and timing

The evaluation was supported by a service contract, which was signed on 4 May 2023 and the

final report was delivered on 8 May 2024. An Interservice Steering Group (ISG) was set up

comprising the following EC services: Secretariat-General, DG Employment, Social Affairs

and Inclusion, DG International Partnerships, DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement

Negotiations, Joint Research Centre, DG Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection. 3 meetings

of the ISG were held.

4. Evidence and sources

Evidence was gathered from several types of sources: a Call for evidence was published on

16 January 2023 and was closed on 16 March 2023; an online survey targeted at 29 NCPs

and 555 National Migration Network members, 3 strategic interviews, 33 targeted and 10

flash interviews, 6 case studies and a workshop with 24 NCP coordinators, as well as desk

research. The main body of evidence consisted of the replies to the survey.

5. External expertise

The evaluation supporting study was carried out by a consortium composed of Ernst and

Young Consulting and RAND.

32

ANNEX II METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED

In order to gather all the data and other evidence needed to meet the objectives of the

evaluation, the data collection strategy of the external study used combined both desk

research and fieldwork activities. Desk resources provided mainly relevant data and factual

evidence on the functioning of the EMN including its structure, governance, activities (i.e.

networking, dissemination and communication) and actual products. Field research activities

allowed the team to gather in-depth qualitative insights on how and why specific results have

been achieved and collect inputs on possible lessons learned for the future.

Overall, data and information collected during the evaluation proved to be robust. Reliability

and validity of results was ensured through systematic triangulation of data and information

collected through both desk and field sources.

In general, the main limitation encountered pertained to the timing differences between the

period in which the study has been conducted (2023-2024) and the scope of the evaluation

(2018-2021). This affected the consultation process. Only few of the current NCP members

and/or SB members were involved in EMN activities between 2018 and 2021. Thus, they

were not able to provide relevant feedback and information for the period under evaluation.

To mitigate this limitation, guidelines for targeted interviews with SB members were shared

in advance to allow interviewees that were not in place between 2018 and 2021 to be

adequately briefed by former colleagues on the EMN activities performed during that period.

Moreover, in some cases, the current SB members attended the interview together with their

predecessors.

Moreover, the study identified some issues affecting the functioning of the Network between

2018 and 2021 for which actions have been already taken by the EMN at the end of the

evaluation period. Though the assessment of the effects stemming from such actions fall out

of the scope of this evaluation, consulted stakeholders pointed out that some of the issues

identified by this evaluation have been addressed or at least mitigated by the new actions,

thus they might not be relevant today. This is a point to be considered as part of the next

EMN evaluation.

Lastly, the lack of available data related to the type of costs entailed by NCPs to implement

EMN activities prevented to have a full quantification of the costs of EMN activities. In this

regard, cost quantification was limited to the type of costs (i.e. staff, travel, drafting of

Ad hoc queries) for which financial data were available.

33

Desk Research

The EMN is a complex network, including multiple and evolving priorities, a vast range of

actors, and a lot of outputs. Therefore, also based on the experience gained through the 2015

evaluation of the EMN, and as highlighted by the ToR (p. 6), the desk research constituted a

primary data collection activity in the context of this study.

Table 1 – Approach used for conducting in-depth desk research

Type of document Analytical approach

EMN Work Programmes

Work programmes • 3 Work programmes (2017-18, 2019-20, 2021-22) were analysed to

investigate EMN objectives and priorities, as well as actions set out over

the years.

EMN Products

Ad Hoc Queries (AHQs) • 303 AHQs were analysed in terms of no. of AHQs launched/addressed per

year, country, topic.

Annual Reports on

Migration and Asylum

(ARMs)

• The synthesis of 4 ARMs (2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) were analysed to

investigate EU and national policy developments as well as challenges and

needs in the field of migration and asylum.

Bulletins • 27 bulletins1 were analysed in terms of number of bulletins issued per year

and topic.

Country Factsheets • 6 country factsheets (2021) from the Member States selected countries for

the case studies were analysed and reported in Annex IV to outline key

national strategies and policy developments in the field of migration and

asylum.

Flashes • 18 flashes2 were analysed in terms of number of flashes issued per year

and topic.

Informs • 28 informs were analysed in terms of number of informs issued per year

and topic.

Studies • 13 studies were analysed.3

Status Report • 4 status reports (2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) were analysed.

EMN back-office documents

Financial statements • The EMN budget foreseen from 2018 to 2021 was analysed in terms of (i)

resources allocated to each NCP and (ii) resources allocated/spent by each

NCP to different types of activities – e.g. outreaching activities,

34

conferences and other events.

• Grant agreements for Member States selected for the case studies (2017-

2022).

• Periodic summary of financial statements for Member States selected for

the case studies (2017-2022).

• Project assessment reports for Member States selected for the case studies

(2017-2022).

Minutes of key EMN

meetings and events

• Minutes of 8 selected EMN Steering Board meetings and NCP meetings

respectively were analysed in terms of topics covered, discussions held,

actions undertaken, number and type of participants.

Attendance reports for

EMN Working Group

meetings

• List of participants in the EMN Working Groups meetings (2018-2021)

was analysed.

Documents related to EMN

dissemination and

communication activities

• 2 EMN Communication Strategies (2016-2020, 2021-2025) were

analysed.

• EMN Communication and Dissemination Roadmap (2019) was analysed.

• EMN Communication Toolkit (2021) was analysed.

Internal rules of procedure • Product templates and guidelines

EU legislative and policy initiatives

EU legal, strategic, and

operational documents

• Council Decision (2008/381/EC).

• The Directive (EU) 2021/1883 of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 20 October 2021.

• Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 15 December 2021.

• Council Regulation (EC) No 168/2007 of 15 February 2007 establishing a

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

• Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 13 November 2019.

• The following documents were analysed to understand key recent EU

policy developments:

o Commission Communication on action plan against migrant smuggling

(2015-2020);

o EU strategy on voluntary return and reintegration;

35

o Commission Communication on return and readmission;

o Commission Communication on New Pact on Migration and Asylum;

o EU blueprint for preparedness and management of crises related to

migration.

EU agencies • 3 EU agencies (i.e. EUAA, Frontex, FRA) were analysed in terms of legal

basis in order to outline objectives and tasks.

Others

Relevant databases • Eurostat statistical data on migration and asylum.

• KCMD Data+ Catalogue, Atlas of Migration, Dynamic Data Hub and EU

Return Dashboard.

Websites • EMN Website.

• National Websites of the Member States.

Field research

The operational and strategic levels of the Network reflect a clear distribution of tasks and

roles played by the different EMN stakeholders. Acknowledging differences in terms of

governance and structure of the Network allowed the proper design of the study’s

consultation strategy, i.e. ask the relevant questions and use the appropriate tool. For instance,

the team undertook targeted interviews with national representatives in the EMN Steering

Board. The advisory and strategic role played by this group makes the interview a preferable

tool for capturing nuances and information that might not be disclosed through an online

survey. The survey was instead targeted at members of the NCPs and the National Migration

Networks in order to collect operational information that was then integrated into a

comparative cross-cutting analysis of the EMN functioning and results. Besides EMN

members, specific attention was paid to gathering practical information from different

stakeholders, including EU institutions and bodies, relevant international organisations,

representatives from academia and Civil Society Organisations. Table 2 provides a detailed

overview of the stakeholder consultation strategy.

36

Table 2 – Stakeholder consultation strategy

Tool Stakeholders targeted Topics Stakeholders consulted

Strategic

interviews (4)

• EMN chair - Head

of Sector,

Forecasting,

preparedness and

policy monitoring

• Policy officer

responsible for

EMN budget

• Any changes occurred since the

last evaluation, as regards both

the EMN working mechanisms

and its context of reference

• The current state of play of

migration and asylum in the EU,

including known problems and

main issues at stake

• New insights (e.g. contacts of

relevant stakeholders)

• Level of engagement of the

EMN target groups in the

Network’s activities

• Level of responsiveness of the

Network stakeholders to the

EMN inputs/requests

• State of

relationships/partnerships with

other EU agencies/bodies

• State of implementation of the

objectives set in the WPs, along

with factors that might have

adversely/positively affected

their achievement

• Categories of costs/benefits

associated with participation in

the Network

• Two additional

interviews with DG

HOME have been

performed during the

final phase of the

evaluation.

Flash

interviews

(10)

• National Contact

Points (BE, CY,

DE, FI, FR, IE, LT,

LU, NL, SE)

• Overview of the NCP

participation in and contribution

to the EMN activities

• Main strengths and weaknesses

of the EMN activities

• These interviews have

been performed in the

occasion of the 129th

NCP meeting held in

Brussels on 29 June

2023, with NCPs which

volunteered to be

interviewed.

Online survey

(2)

• National Contact

Points (27)

• National Migration

Networks (67)

• Effectiveness, efficiency,

relevance, coherence and EU

added value of the EMN

• Problems/gaps affecting the

functioning and effects of the

• For the online survey

for NCP coordinators,

in total, 27 survey

responses from 25

Member States and 2

Observer States were

received out of 29 NCPs

37

EMN

• Future recommendations

from 26 Member States

and 3 Observer States

consulted.

• For the online survey

for National Migration

Network members, in

total, 67 responses from

19 Member States were

received out of 555

National Migration

Network members from

26 Member States

consulted.

Targeted

interviews

(33)

• Members of the

EMN SB (23)

• EU bodies (4):

o EUAA

o FRA

o Frontex

o Joint Research

Center (JRC)

• International

organisations (2):

o CoE

o OECD

• Civil society

organisations (3):

o European Network

on Statelessness

o Missing Children

Europe

o PICUM

• Representatives

from academia (1)

• Interviews with EU-level

stakeholders:

o Developments in the EU

migration and asylum landscape

o Relevant EU initiatives and

regulatory frameworks

o Role of EU Agencies

contributing to migration and

asylum policies, and challenges

faced in achieving higher

coordination

o Collaborations/partnerships

developed with the Network

o Burdens/benefits associated with

engaging with the EMN

o Recommendations to improving

the EMN functioning and

mandate

o Good practices

• Interviews with national

stakeholders:

o Relevant national developments

in the field of migration and

asylum

o Dissemination/outreach of the

Network at the national and local

levels

o Progress made on enlarging the

National Migration Networks

o Categories of costs/benefits

• As per target.

38

associated with participation in

the Network

o Member States non-financial

contribution to the Network

activities

o Collaboration/partnership

developed with/through the

Network

o Factors that might have

adversely/positively affected the

objectives set in the WPs

o Good practices implemented at

the local/regional level

o Interviews with international and

civil society organisations:

o Opinion on relevance, quality,

availability and accessibility of

EMN outputs, as well as any

suggestions for improvement

o Experience in using EMN tools

o Involvement in EMN networking

activities

o Collaboration/partnership

developed through the Network

o Categories of costs/benefits

associated with participation in

the Network

o Competing

channels/networks/organisations

preferred to the EMN

• Interviews with representatives

from academia:

o Overall quality of the EMN

publications

o Relevance of the topics covered

by the EMN activities

o Added value of the EMN

Direct

observations

(2)

• Steering Board

meeting (1)

• NCP meeting (1)

• Functioning of the EMN,

including structure governance

and working practices

• As per target.

39

Case study

consultations

(11)

• Each case study

entailed two types

of consultations:

o 1 group interview

with NCP members

of each of the

selected Member

States (6)

o 1 focus group with

members of the

National Migration

Network from each

of the selected

Member States (5)

• Efficiency of the EMN at the

national level

• Coherence of EMN objectives

and activities with those

enshrined in relevant national

policies and strategies

• Relevance of EMN objectives

and activities in relation to

current needs and challenges

faced by national stakeholders

• Added value of the EMN

• Instead of 6 focus group

interviews in total

considering one

consultation from each

of the 6 selected

Member States, only 5

were conducted due to

unavailability of

relevant stakeholders

from one Member

State.

Workshop

with NCP

coordinators

(1)

• One workshop with

NCP coordinators

• Insights and experiences to

inform the design of operational

conclusions and factual

recommendations

• As per target.

40

ANNEX III EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS

1.1 EFFECTIVENESS

Table 1 – Evaluation Matrix

Judgment criteria Indicators and descriptors Sources

EQ1 To what extent have the EMN activities contributed to achieving the specific and general objectives laid down in

Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried out by the EMN?

EQ1.1 To what extent did EMN activities contribute to achieving the objectives set out in the Work Programmes and the

Council Decision?

General objectives:

• The information and

knowledge produced by the

EMN support EU

policymaking in the field of

migration and asylum

• The EMN provides up-to-date,

objective, reliable and

comparable information to the

general public

Specific objectives:

• The information and

knowledge produced by the

EMN responds to the

information needs of

policymakers

• The information and

knowledge produced by the

EMN responds to the

information needs of various

target groups

• The information and

knowledge produced by the

EMN complements that of

other EU and Member States

initiatives

• The information and

knowledge produced by the

EMN contribute to enhancing

the EU capacity to respond to

migration and asylum crises

• The information and

• Level of correspondence between

the topics covered by EMN

outputs and key information

needs of EU and national

stakeholders

• Extent to which EU and national

policymakers perceive that EMN

outputs increase their knowledge

and understanding of migration

and asylum issues

• Extent to which members of the

National Migration Networks

perceive that EMN outputs

increase their knowledge and

understanding of migration and

asylum issues

• Extent to which EU and national

policymakers perceive that EMN

as supportive in preventing

migration crises

• Number and type of national

policy and legislative initiatives

informed by the EMN

• Number and type of good

practices exchanged among

Member States on migration and

asylum

• Number and type of EMN

outputs targeted at the general

public

• Number and type of cooperation

mechanisms established through

Desk sources

• Council Decision 2008/381

• EMN Work Programmes

• EMN products

• EMN back-office documents

Field sources

• Online survey targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Strategic interviews with the

Commission

• Targeted interviews with:

• EU bodies

• EMN SB national members

• International and civil

society organisations

• Case studies

41

knowledge produced by the

EMN are useful in view of

reforming the EU asylum and

migration system

• The information and

knowledge produced by the

EMN allow to meet both EU

short and longer-term strategic

objectives in the field of

migration and asylum

• The EMN contributes to

developing practical

cooperation among Member

States and between them and

EU-level stakeholders in the

field of on migration and

asylum

• The EMN contributes to

finding new technologies (e.g.

artificial intelligence) to

support migration and asylum

management

• The EMN contributes to

finding new legal pathways

(e.g. talent partnerships) to

support migration and asylum

management

• Migration and asylum

strategies in the Member States

have been developed or refined

based on the work of the EMN

• The EMN supports the design

and implementation of new EU

initiatives in the field of

migration and asylum

the EMN support

• Number and type of new

technologies

identified/developed by the EMN

• Number and type of new legal

pathways covered by EMN

outputs

• Number and type of national

initiatives based on EMN

products and activities

• Level of convergence between

national migration strategies and

the EMN products

EQ1.2 Is the EMN effectively carrying out the tasks set out in the Council Decision?

• The EMN collects and

exchanges up-to-date and

reliable data and information

• Data and information

exchanged by the EMN are

collected from a wide range of

sources

• Data and information are

exchanged by the EMN in a

• Type of data and information

collected

• Number and type of data sources

used for EMN products

• Number and type of NCP

contributions to EMN products

• Extent to which EMN data are

perceived as up-to-date,

objective, reliable and

Desk sources

• Council Decision 2008/381

• EMN products

• EMN back-office documents

• EU statistical databases

relevant to migration and

asylum

42

readily accessible format

• The EMN produces and

publishes periodic reports on

migration and asylum situation

in the EU and the Member

States

• The EMN contributes to the

development of migratory

indicators and statistics

• The EMN contributes to

improving comparability of

EU statistics and information

on migration and asylum

comparable

• Number and type of new

indicators and criteria produced

• Types of indicators used and

information exchanged at the EU

level in the field of migration and

asylum

• Level of comparability of EU

statistics and information on

migration and asylum

Field sources

• Strategic interviews with the

Commission

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Targeted interviews with:

• EU bodies

• EMN Service Provider

• EMN SB national members

• Case studies

EQ1.3 What factors influenced the EMN outcomes in a positive and negative way?

• External factors

influence/enable the EMN

ability to achieve the

objectives of the Council

Decision

• External factors

influence/enable the EMN

ability to implement the

actions listed in the Work

Programmes

• List of external factors

influencing the ability of the

Network to achieve its objectives

• List of external factors

influencing the ability of the

Network implement its actions

Desk sources

• EMN products

• EMN back-office documents

Field sources

• Strategic interviews with the

Commission

• Targeted interviews with:

• EU bodies

• EMN Service Provider

• EMN SB national members

• Direct observation of EMN’s

meetings

• Case studies

EQ2 What steps have been taken to increase the visibility of the EMN and its activities and have they been effective?

43

EQ2.1 To what extent were the EMN outputs disseminated within and outside the Network?

• The EMN products are

regularly uploaded on and

exchanged through the IES

• The EMN products are

regularly published on the

EMN website

• The EMN relies on innovative

communication tools and

initiatives to increase its

outreach

• The EMN products are

available in different national

languages

• The EMN undertakes

awareness-raising activities

and disseminates the

information it produces

• The EMN regularly rganises

networking events at the EU

and national levels

• Frequency of the updates to the

IES

• Number and type of NCPs’

contributions to the IES

• Number and type of

communication tools developed

by the EMN

• Number and type of EMN

outputs translated in different

languages

• Number and type of awareness-

raising activities undertaken

• Number and type of

dissemination activities

undertaken

• Number and type of networking

activities organised by the EMN

at the EU and national levels

Desk sources

• EMN Work Programmes

• EMN products

• EMN back-office documents

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Strategic interviews with the

Commission

• Targeted interviews with:

• EMN Service Provider

• EMN SB national members

EQ2.2 To what extent have the EMN networking and dissemination activities contributed to increasing its visibility?

• The EMN is widely used as a

platform for raising awareness

and exchanging knowledge in

the field of migration and

asylum

• EMN networking and

dissemination activities

directly contributed to

spreading the Network’s

visibility both within the EU

and across relevant third

countries

• The EMN has worked to

establish relationships with

other EU actors in the field of

migration and asylum

• The EMN coordinates

information and cooperate with

other relevant EU and

international bodies

• The EMN has created and

maintains an online

Level of uptake of EMN products

Number and type of EMN members invited

to participate in activities/events in the

field of migration and asylum

Extent to which the consulted stakeholders

reported to use EMN as knowledge

building/sharing platform

Number and type of EMN products

available in different national languages

Number and type of external participants in

the EMN networking events

Number and frequency of visitors of EMN

website

Level of perception of the EMN visibility

by different stakeholder constituencies

Desk sources:

• EMN products

• EMN back-office documents

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Targeted interviews with:

• EU bodies

• EMN Service Provider

• EMN SB national members

• International and civil

society organisations

44

Information Exchange System

(IES)

1.2 EFFICIENCY

Table 2 – Evaluation Matrix

Judgment criteria Indicators and descriptors Sources

EQ3 What are the benefits of the Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried out by the EMN?1

EQ3.1 What are the unexpected benefits brough by the EMN activities?

• The EMN activities brought

the benefits as illustrated in the

intervention logic

• The EMN activities led to

unexpected benefits that are

not foreseen in the Council

Decision 2008/381 or in the

Work Programmes

• (see indicators included under EQ1

and EQ2)

• Number and type of unexpected

benefits brought by the EMN

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted

at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Targeted Interviews

with:

• EU bodies

• EMN SB national

members

• Case studies

EQ4 To what extent have the resources allocated to the EMN through the AMIF been sufficient for reaching the objectives

of Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried out by the EMN?

EQ4.1 Does the current EMN grant allocation mechanisms support the efficient achievement of EMN objectives?

• The current grant allocation

system promotes the efficient

use of AMIF resources

• The allocation of AMIF grants

is aligned with the needs of the

EMN NCPs (i.e. the annual

workload of each EMN NCP)

• Amount of AMIF resources allocated

to each NCP per year

• Percentage of resources used out of

the resources allocated

• Level of alignment of the EMN grant

allocation timeline with the timeline

related to the implementation of

activities

• Number of NCPs applicants per year

Desk sources

• EMN back-office

documents

Field sources

• Strategic interviews

with the Commission

• Online surveys targeted

at:

45

• Number and type of actions financed

through grants

• Extent to which grant EMN NCPs

agree that the EMN allocation meets

their needs

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Case studies

EQ4.2 To what extent the development of EMN activities is cost effective?

• The EMN reaches the foreseen

results by deploying reasonable

financial and human resources

• The allocation of AMIF

resources is proportionate to

the achievement of EMN

objectives

• The development of EMN

activities implies a series of

unexpected costs

• Amount of financial resources

allocated to carry out EMN activities

• Number of FTEs involved in the

NCP management

• Number and type of costs stemmed

from the implementation of EMN

activities

• Number and type of unexpected costs

stemming from the implementation

of the EMN activities

• Extent to which consulted

stakeholders agree that costs entailed

by the EMN are reasonable

• Extent to which consulted

stakeholders agree the EMN AMIF

allocation is proportionate to the

achievement of EMN objectives

Desk sources

• EMN back-office

documents

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted

at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Targeted interviews

with:

• EMN SB national

members

• Case studies

EQ5 Is the EMN sufficiently equipped to support its stakeholders in an appropriate manner?

EQ5.1 Does the Commission have the sufficient capacity to support and coordinate the EMN work?

• The Commission has sufficient

resources to carry out its

responsibilities vis-à-vis the

EMN

• Extent to which the capacity of the

Commission to support and

coordinate the EMN work is

perceived as sufficient

Field sources

• Strategic interviews

with the Commission

• Online surveys targeted

at:

• EMN NCPs

• Targeted interviews

with:

• EMN SB national

members

EQ5.2 Do the EMN structure and governance allow to support stakeholders in an efficient way?

• The current EMN structure

supports the efficient

• Extent to which the EMN structure is

perceived as supporting the

Desk sources

46

functioning of the Network

• Role and responsibilities are

clear to and well distributed

among EMN stakeholders

• The Steering Board provides

adequate strategic and political

guidance of the EMN

• The Steering Board identifies

appropriate strategic

cooperative relationships with

EU bodies and international

organisations in the field of

migration and asylum

• The NCPs adequately support

national stakeholders

• The NCPs provide regular

contributions to EMN outputs

• The National Migration

Networks include relevant

actors in the field of migration

and asylum

• A representative of the EU

Parliament regularly

participates as observer at the

meetings of the Steering Board

functioning of the network

• Extent to which the Steering Board is

perceived as supporting preparation

and approvement of Work

Programmes

• Number and type of strategic

cooperative relationships identified

by the Steering Board

• Level and type of advice provided by

Steering Board to the NCPs

• Level of awareness of EMN

stakeholders about internal

distribution of roles and

responsibilities

• Type and level of NCPs’ support to

national stakeholders

• Level of representation of relevant

national stakeholders in the National

Migration Networks

• Level of participation of the EU

Parliament in the meetings of the

Steering Board

• EMN back-office

documents

Field sources

• Strategic interviews

with the Commission

• Online surveys targeted

at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Targeted interviews

with:

• EMN Service Provider

• EMN SB national

members

• Case studies

EQ5.3 Do EMN internal working practices enable the EMN to efficiently carry out its products and activities?

• EMN relies upon formalised

internal working practices

which are known to all key

stakeholders

• The timing of EMN outputs

allow to produce high-quality

products while ensuring that

needed information is promptly

exchanged with relevant

external stakeholders

• Internal EMN procedures

ensure that stakeholders

receive information on EMN

products and activities in a

timely manner

• The working groups support

NCPs in the development of

• Map of internal processes

• Level of coverage of internal

processes by formal/informal

procedural documents

• Level of awareness of internal

procedures by key stakeholders

• Number of EMN products that are

delivered in line with internal

procedures and planned deadlines

• Number of NCPs involved in the

working groups

• Extent to which the NCPs perceive

that working groups are efficiently

supporting the realisation of EMN

products and activities

Desk sources

• EMN back-office

documents

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted

at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Targeted interviews

with:

• EMN Service Provider

• EMN SB national

47

EMN products and activities members

• Case studies

EQ6 How efficient is the EMN Service Provider?

EQ6.1 Is the current grant sufficient to allow the Service Provider to effectively support the EMN in line with the objectives

of Council Decision 2008/381/EC and to provide the necessary support to implement the activities included in the annual

programmes?

• The financial and human

resources allocated allow the

EMN Service Provider to fully

support the EMN

• The tasks allocated to the

Service Provider allow it to be

adequately integrated into the

network mechanisms, thus

supporting the network at

various steps and levels of

intervention

• Role and responsibilities formally

allocated to the Service Provider

(including mapping of potential

KPIs)

• Types of activities actually

implemented by the Service Provider

and evolution of the years

• Amount of financial resources

allocated to EMN Service provider

• Amount of financial resources used

by the EMN Service Provider

• Number of FTEs within the EMN

Service Provider

• Extent to which EMN stakeholders

perceive the Service Provider as

efficient and supportive

• Extent to which consulted

stakeholder agree that resources

available to the EMN Service

Provider are proportionate to its

tasks

Desk sources

• EMN back-office

documents

Field sources

• Strategic interview with

the Commission

• Online surveys targeted

at:

• EMN NCPs

• Targeted interviews

with:

• EMN Service Provider

• EMN SB national

members

• Case studies

EQ6.2 Is the quality of the Service Provider’s contributions satisfactory?

• The EMN Service Provider

ensures that the information

included in the IES is of high

quality

• The EMN Service Provider

promptly updates the IES with

relevant material

• The EMN Service Provider

ensures that the agenda of the

EMN meetings are in line with

EMN objectives and activities

set out in the Work

Programmes

• Extent to which the day-to-day

operations and coordination of the

Service Provider are perceived as

efficient and of high quality

• Extent to which the coordination of

the Steering Board and NCP

meetings is perceived as efficient and

of high quality

• Extent to which the IES managed by

the Service Provider is perceived of

high quality

• Level of quality and clarity of the

Service Provider’s compilation and

Desk sources

• EMN back-office

documents

Field sources

• Strategic interview with

the Commission

• Online surveys targeted

at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

48

• The EMN Service Provider

delivers a high-quality

compilation and synthesis of

the EMN reports and studies

• The Commission and the EMN

Service Provider

communicates regularly on

issues related to the

organisational work of EMN

• The EMN Service Provider

promptly shares with the

Steering Board and the NCPs

all the relevant information

(including the agenda) on their

meetings

• The EMN Service Provider

coordinates adequately the

inputs from the NCPs

• The Commission, the NCPs

and the Steering Board are

satisfied by the quality of the

contributions provided by the

Service Provider

synthesis of the EMN products

• Number and types of communication

exchanges between the Commission

and the EMN Service Provider on the

organisational work of EMN

• Frequency of the EMN Service

Provider uploads of new documents

on the IES

Networks

• Targeted interviews

with:

• EMN Service Provider

• EMN SB national

members

EQ6.3 Is the information flow between the Commission, the Service Provider, the Steering Board and EMN NCPs working

well?

• All concerned stakeholders

provide feedback to the EMN

• All concerned stakeholders are

satisfied with the flow of

information

• Each stakeholder is open and

responsive to input coming

from the others

• Type of information exchanged and

frequency of exchanges

• Level of timeliness of procedural

information exchanged among EMN

stakeholders

• Level of clearness of procedural

information exchanged among EMN

stakeholders

• Extent to which concerned

stakeholders are satisfied with the

EMN information flow

• Extent to which the information flow

between the Commission, the Service

Provider, the Steering Board and the

NCPs is perceived of high quality

Field sources

• Strategic interview with

the Commission

• Online surveys targeted

at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Targeted interviews

with:

• EMN Service Provider

• EMN SB national

members

• Case studies

49

1.3 COHERENCE

Table 3 – Evaluation Matrix

Judgment criteria Indicators and descriptors Sources

EQ7 To what extent have the objectives and activities determined by Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried

out by the EMN been coherent with relevant EU policy migration developments, notably those set out in the New Pact on

Migration and Asylum such as the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint?

EQ7.1 To what extent are objectives and tasks set out in the Council Decision and objectives and specific priorities set out in

the Work Programmes coherent with relevant policy developments set out in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum (e.g.

Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint)?

• The EMN objectives and tasks set out in

the Council Decision are consistent with

the policy developments included in the

New Pact on Migration and Asylum

(e.g. Migration Preparedness and Crisis

Blueprint)

• The EMN objectives and specific

priorities set out in the Work

Programmes are coherent with the

policy developments included in the

New Pact on Migration and Asylum

(e.g. Migration Preparedness and Crisis

Blueprint)

• Level of complementarity

between the Council

Decision and the New

pact on Migration and

Asylum in terms of

objectives, activities,

stakeholders involved

• Number and type of

complementarities

between the Network’s

objectives and tasks and

the New pact on

Migration and Asylum as

included in the EMN

outputs and back-office

documents

• Level of complementarity

between the EMN Work

Programmes and the New

pact on Migration and

Asylum in terms of

objectives, activities,

stakeholders involved

• Number and type of

complementarities

between the Work

Programmes and the New

pact on Migration and

Asylum as included in the

EMN outputs and back-

office documents

Desk sources

• Council Decision

2008/381/EC

• EU policy and legislative

document (i.e. New Pact

on Migration and Asylum)

• EMN products

• EMN back-office

documents

• EMN Work Programmes

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Targeted interviews with:

• EU bodies

• International and civil

society organisations

EQ7.2 To what extent are objectives and tasks set out in the Council Decision and objectives and specific priorities set out in

the Work Programmes coherent with other EU policy developments in the field of migration and asylum (EU Blue Card

Directive and EU Action Plan on Migrant Smuggling)?

50

• The EMN objectives and tasks set out in

the Council Decision are consistent with

the EU Blue Card Directive and the EU

Action Plan on Migrant Smuggling

• The EMN objectives and specific

priorities set out in the Work

Programmes are coherent with the EU

Blue Card Directive and the EU Action

Plan on Migrant Smuggling

• Level of complementarity

between the Council

Decision and key EU

policy developments in

the field of migration and

asylum in terms of

objectives, activities,

stakeholders involved

• Level of complementarity

between the EMN Work

Programmes and other

relevant EU policy

developments in terms of

objectives, activities,

stakeholders involved

Desk sources

• Council Decision

2008/381/EC

• Relevant EU policy and

legislative initiatives (i.e.

EU Blue Card Directive,

EU Action Plan on

Migrant Smuggling)

• EMN products

• EMN back-office

documents

• EMN Work Programme

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Targeted interviews with:

• EU bodies

EQ7.3 What are the overlaps and potential synergies between the objectives and the actions carried out by the EMN and

those of the Commission?

• There are synergies between the

objectives and tasks of the Council

Decision and those of the Commission

(EU strategy on voluntary return and

reintegration

• Commission Communication on return

and readmission)

• There are overlaps between the

objectives and tasks of the Council

Decision and those of the Commission

(EU strategy on voluntary return and

reintegration

• Commission Communication on return

and readmission)

• Procedures are in place to identify

potential complementarities with the

Commission

• Number and type of

overlaps between the

EMN objectives and

actions and those of the

Commission in the field

of migration and asylum

• Number and type of

synergies between the

EMN objectives and

actions and those of the

Commission in the field

of migration and asylum

• Number and type of

complementarity

procedures in place

• Number and type of

cooperation and

coordination mechanisms

Desk sources

• EMN Work Programmes

• EMN products

• EU policy and legislative

documents

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Targeted interviews with:

• EU bodies

51

• Cooperation and coordination are

pursued with the Commission

in place

EQ8 To what extent have the objectives and activities determined by Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried

out by the EMN been coherent with other objectives and activities of Member States and EU agencies, including notably

EUAA, FRONTEX, EUROPOL and FRA?

EQ8.1 To what extent are objectives and tasks set out in the Council Decision coherent with other objectives and activities of

the Member States? Are there any overlaps and potential synergies between the objectives and the actions carried out by the

EMN and those of the Member States?

• EMN objectives and actions are in line

with those of the Member States

• There are overlaps between the

objectives and tasks of the Council

Decision and those of Member States

• There are synergies between the

objectives and tasks of the Council

Decision and those of the Member States

• There are overlaps between the

objectives and tasks of the Council

Decision and those of the Member States

• Procedures are in place to identify

potential complementarities with the

Member States

• Cooperation and coordination are

pursued with the Member States

• Level of

complementarity

between the Council

Decision and other

relevant national

migration policy

developments in terms of

objectives, activities,

stakeholders involved

• Number and type of

overlaps between the

EMN objectives and

actions and those of the

Member States

• Number and type of

synergies between the

EMN objectives and

actions and those of the

Member States

• Number and type of

complementarity

procedures in place

• Number and type of

cooperation and

coordination mechanisms

in place

Desk sources

• EMN Work Programmes

• EMN products

• EMN outputs, including

minutes and supporting

documents of relevant

meetings

• National strategies in the

field of migration and

asylum

Field sources

• Online survey targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Targeted interviews with:

• EMN SB national

members

• Case studies

EQ8.2 To what extent are the objectives and tasks set out in the Council Decisions coherent with other objectives and

activities of relevant EU agencies? Are there any overlaps and potential synergies between the objectives and the actions

carried out by the EMN and those of relevant EU agencies?

• EMN objectives and actions are

consistent with those of relevant EU

agencies

• There are contradictions between the

objectives and tasks of the Council

Decision and those of relevant EU

agencies

• Level of

complementarity

between the Council

Decision and other

relevant EU agencies in

terms of objectives,

activities, stakeholders

involved

Desk sources

• EMN Work Programmes

• EMN products

• Legal basis of four EU

agencies (i.e. EUAA,

EUROPOL, Frontex, FRA)

52

• There are synergies between the

objectives and tasks of the Council

Decision and those of relevant EU

agencies

• There are overlaps between the

objectives and tasks of the Council

Decision and those of relevant EU

agencies

• Procedures are in place to identify

potential complementarities with

relevant EU agencies

• Cooperation and coordination are

pursued with relevant EU agencies

• Number and type of

overlaps between the

EMN objectives and

actions and those of

relevant EU agencies

• Number and type of

synergies between the

EMN objectives and

actions and those of

relevant EU agencies

• Number and type of

complementarity

procedures in place

• Number and type of

cooperation and

coordination mechanisms

in place

• Work programmes of four

EU agencies (i.e. EUAA,

EUROPOL, Frontex, FRA)

• EMN back-office

documents

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration

Networks

• Targeted interviews with:

• EU bodies

1.4 EU ADDED VALUE

Table 4 – Evaluation Matrix

Judgment criteria Indicators and descriptors Sources

EQ9 What is the European added value of Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried out by the EMN? Could

the main findings (results/outputs) presented in the evaluation have been achieved without EU intervention?

EQ9.1 In the absence of the EMN, to what extent could the information needs of EU and national authorities have been

met?

• Relevant EU and national

information needs are

identified and met through

alternative mechanisms than

those provided by the EMN

• There are various learning

and capacity-building

mechanisms alternative to the

EMN that support EU and

national policymakers in

addressing current, new and

emerging needs in the field

of migration and asylum

• EU and national

• Type of alternative mechanisms

used to identify information needs

in the field of migration and

asylum (surveys, databases,

exchanges of information, etc.)

• Level of

overlapping/complementarity of

these mechanisms with EMN

activities (e.g. capture same

information needs, produce same

information, etc.)

• Type of alternative sources of

information on migration and

Desk sources

• Relevant initiatives/products

developed outside the EMN

providing information in the

field of migration and asylum

targeted at EU and national

policymakers (as mentioned

during stakeholder

consultations)

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

53

policymakers in the field of

migration and asylum are

adequately supported without

EMN outputs

asylum

• Extent to which alternative

sources of information are used

by EU and national policymakers

• Extent to which relevant EU and

national stakeholders rely on

other sources than those provided

by the EMN

• Areas where relevant EU and

national stakeholders see the EU

added value of the EMN

• National Migration Networks

• Targeted interviews with:

• EU bodies

• EMN SB national members

• Case studies

EQ9.2 In the absence of the EMN, to what extent could the information needs of the general public have been meet?

• There are alternative

channels different from EMN

that provide the general

public with reliable and up-

to-date information in the

field of migration and asylum

• There are various I and

mechanisms alternative to the

EMN that contribute towards

the development of mutual

understanding on migration

and asylum issues within the

EU

• The EMN provides the

general public with more

comprehensive and higher

quality information compared

to information already

available through other

sources

• Number and type of EU level

initiatives/events targeted at the

general public in the field of

migration and asylum

• Type and quality of information

disseminated by these channels

• Level of overlapping between

EMN disseminated content and

content already available through

other channels

• Outreach of these channels

• Outreach of EMN dissemination

activities

• Extent to which representatives of

the general public see the added

value of EMN activities

Desk sources:

Relevant initiatives/products developed

outside the EMN providing the general

public with information on migration

and asylum

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

• National Migration Networks

• Targeted interviews with:

• EU bodies

• International and civil society

organisations

EQ9.3 What are other likely consequences of not having an EMN, if any?

• The capacity to identify and

meet EU and national

information needs is likely to

be undermined without EMN

• The absence of EMN will

undermine a mutual

understanding on migration

and asylum issues within the

EU and with relevant third

countries

The absence of EMN will decrease the

capacity of EU and national

• Extent to which stakeholders

consider that the absence of the

EMN would affect:

• the capacity to identify and meet

EU and national information

needs

• a mutual understanding on

migration and asylum issues

within the EU and with relevant

third countries

• the capacity of EU and national

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration Networks

• Targeted interviews with:

• EU bodies

• EMN SB national members

54

stakeholders to respond to the current,

new and emerging migration

challenges

stakeholders to respond to current,

new and emerging migration

challenges

EQ10 What is the additional value resulting from EMN products and activities compared to what could be achieved by

Member States at national and/or local levels?

EQ10.1 What is the additional value of the EMN products compared to what could be achieved by Member States at

national and/or local levels?

• The EMN products include

comprehensive and

comparative information on

migration and asylum issues

that cannot be produced by

Member States alone

• List of products available at the

national level focusing on

migration and asylum

• Similarities and differences

between EMN products and any

similar national products

• Extent to which EMN products

are perceived as having a higher

level of quality, timeliness,

relevance, reliability and

comparability than alternative

sources of information available

at the national level

Desk sources:

• EMN products

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration Networks

• Case studies

EQ10.2 What is the additional value of the EMN networking events compared to what could be achieved by Member States

at national and/or local levels?

• The EMN prompts the

establishment of new

National Migration Networks

• The EMN boosts networking

events that could have not

been realised by Member

States alone

• Number and type of National

Migration Networks that were

present before the EMN set-up

• Number and type of National

Migration Networks that were

created after the EMN set-up

• Number and type of national

events on migration and asylum

ealised outside the EMN

framework

• Extent to which EMN networking

events are perceived as having

added value compared to events

organised at the national level

Desk sources

• EMN products

• EMN back-office documents

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration Networks

• Case studies

EQ11 To what extent are the outcomes of Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried out by the EMN

sustainable? Are the effects likely to last after the intervention ends?

EQ11.1 What measures were adopted to ensure that the identified outcomes and impacts will continue after the intervention

ends?

• Mechanisms and procedures

at the EU level are in place to

ensure that EU and national

• Types of mechanisms and

procedures in place (besides the

EMN legal basis) to ensure: (i)

Desk sources

55

information needs are met

even after the intervention

ends

• Mechanisms and procedures

at the EU level are in place to

ensure cooperation within the

EU and with third countries

on migration and asylum

issues

• Member States adopted

procedures to ensure the

sustainability of EMN

activities even after the

intervention ends

• Member States support with

national funding the actions

currently carried out by the

NCPs and the National

Migration Networks

that EU and national information

needs are collected and met and

(ii) cooperation within the EU and

with third countries on migration

and asylum issues

• Extent to which existing

mechanisms and procedures in

place ensure that EU and national

information needs are collected

and met after the intervention

ends

• Extent to which mechanisms and

procedures in place ensure

cooperation within the EU and

with third countries on migration

and asylum issues after the

intervention ends

• Types of procedures adopted at

the national level to ensure the

sustainability of EMN activities

after the intervention ends

• Types of organisational settings

adopted at the national level in the

field of migration and asylum

(roles and responsibilities)

• Extent to which Member States

support with national funding the

actions carried out by the National

Migration Networks

• EMN products

• EU legislative and policy

initiatives

• EMN back-office documents

Field sources

• Strategic interviews with the

Commission

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• Targeted interviews with:

• EMN SB national members

• Case studies

EQ12 Is the Council Decision 2008/381/EC still an adequate basis of the actions of the EMN?

EQ12.1 Does the Council Decision 2008/381/EC provide the sufficient mandate for the EMN to fully achieve its current

objectives?

• The Council Decision is the

most appropriate legal basis

to achieve the current EMN

objectives

• Key results achieved by the EMN

activities (resulting from the

effectiveness criterion)

• Level of clarity of the Council

Decision’s provisions

• Level of coherence, adequacy and

burdens of the EMN twofold

mechanism (Council Decision e

Work Programmes)

• Level of adequacy of the

financing mechanism to the types

of activities implemented by the

Desk sources:

• Council Decision

2008/381/EC

• EMN products

• EMN back-office documents

Field sources

• Strategic interview with the

Commission

• Online surveys targeted at:

56

EMN and their key features

• Type of limitations of the Council

Decision as reported in EMN

products/back-office documents

and by stakeholders

• EMN NCPs

• Targeted interviews with:

• EMN SB national members

EQ12.2 Does Council Decision 2008/381/EC provide the sufficient flexibility for the EMN to address new objectives and

emerging priorities?

• The Council Decision is the

most appropriate legal basis

to fully meet new objectives

and emerging priorities

included in the Work

Programmes

• Other legal instruments (e.g.

Directive, Regulation)

provide a more appropriate

legal basis to EMN to fully

meet new objectives and

emerging priorities included

in the Work Programmes

• List of objectives and priorities

included in the Work Programmes

since 2018

• Level of correspondence between

the objectives and task set out in

the Council Decision and the

objectives and priorities of the

Work Programmes

• Alignment of changes in the EMN

mandate and activities with key

changes in the policy field

• Level of flexibility and

adaptability of EMN as reported

in EMN back-office documents

and by stakeholders

Desk sources

• Council Decision

2008/381/EC

• EMN Work Programmes

• Legal basis of selected

similar Networks

• EMN products

• EMN back-office documents

Field sources

• Strategic interview with the

Commission

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• Targeted interviews with:

• EMN SB national members

EQ13 Could the results, delivered through the implementation of the Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried

out by the EMN have been achieved with less European funding? Could the use of other policy instruments or mechanisms,

at European and/or national level, have provided better cost-effectiveness?

EQ13.1 To what extent does the achievement of the identified outcomes and impacts depend on AMIF resources? Could

other sources have been used to achieve the same or better results?

• Identified results and impacts

can be achieved with less

AMIF resources

• Identified results and impacts

are better achieved through

other EU funding streams

• Identified results and impacts

can be achieved through

national funding

• Amount of resources allocated to

the different EMN activities

• Burdens and procedural features

linked to the use of AMIF

resources

• Results of EMN activities (as

resulting from the effectiveness

analysis)

• List of alternative EU funding

Desk sources

• EMN back-office documents

(i.e. documents on financial

management)

• Legal basis of selected EU

networks

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

57

mechanisms in the field of

migration and asylum (scope,

amount, administrative burden

and key features)

• Level of coverage of EMN

actions by alternative EU funding

mechanisms

• National funding mechanisms that

cover the activities implemented

by MS in the framework of the

EMN

• Extent to which alternative

funding mechanisms (EU and

national) allow the achievement

of similar/better results

• Types of funding mechanisms

used by other selected EU

networks and results achieved by

these networks

• EMN NCPs

• Targeted interviews with:

• EMN SB national members

• Case studies

1.5 RELEVANCE

Table 5 – Evaluation Matrix

Judgment criteria Indicators and descriptors Sources

EQ14 To what extent have Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried out by the EMN been relevant in view of

the EU’s needs/challenges and are they still relevant in view of current needs and challenges?

EQ14.1 To what extent have the Council Decision and the actions carried out by the EMN been relevant to evolving EU’s

needs/challenges?

• Objectives and tasks set out in

the Council Decision have

been relevant to migration

and asylum needs and

challenges as they evolved

over the years

• Objectives and tasks set out in

the Council Decision are still

relevant to current needs in

the field of migration and

asylum

• Type of changes occurred

between 2018 and 2021

• Level of correspondence

between identified

changes and the EMN

objectives and tasks

• Extent to which consulted

stakeholders agree that the

actions carried out by the

EMN matched key

information needs related

Desk sources

• Council Decision 2008/381/EC

• EMN products

• Scientific literature, as well as

relevant studies and reports,

focusing on migration and asylum

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

58

to migration and asylum

in the EU

• EMN NCPs

• National Migration Networks

• Targeted interviews with:

• EU bodies

• International and civil society

organisations

• Case studies

EQ14.2 To what extent have the actions carried out by the EMN been relevant and are still relevant to current and

emerging EU’s needs/challenges ?

• The objectives and priorities

included in the EMN Work

Programmes matched main

needs in the field of migration

and asylum as they evolved

over the years

• The objectives and priorities

included in the EMN Work

programmers are relevant to

new and emerging needs and

challenges in the field of

migration and asylum

• Type of new needs and

challenges in the field of

migration and asylum

• Number and type of new

objectives and priorities

set out in the EMN Work

Programmes

• Extent to which

stakeholders consider the

objectives and task set out

in the Council Decision

correspond to evolving

migration and asylum

related needs and

challenges

Desk sources

• Council Decision 2008/381/EC

• EMN Work Programmes

• EMN products

• EMN back-office documents

• Scientific literature, as well as

relevant studies and reports,

focusing on migration and asylum

Field sources

• Strategic interview with the

Commission

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• Targeted interviews with:

• EU bodies

• Direct observation of EMN

meetings

• Case studies

59

EQ15 To what extent have Council Decision 2008/381/EC and the actions carried out by the EMN been relevant in view of

specific needs of stakeholders, in particular MS and civil society?

EQ15.1 To what extent has the Council Decision been relevant in view of specific needs of stakeholders, in particular

national authorities and civil society organisations?

• Objectives and tasks set out in

the Council Decision have

been relevant to the needs of

national stakeholders

• Objectives and tasks set out in

the Council Decision have

been relevant to the needs of

relevant Civil Society

Organisations (CSOs)

• Level of adequacy of the

objectives and tasks set

out in the Council

Decision with specific

stakeholders’ needs

• Extent to which consulted

stakeholders (i.e. national

stakeholders and civil

society organisations)

consider the objectives

and tasks set out in the

Council Decision as

adequate their respective

needs

Desk sources

• Council Decision 2008/381/EC)

• EMN products

• EMN back-office documents

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• Targeted interviews with:

• EMN SB national members

• International and civil society

organisations

• Direct observation of EMN

meetings

• Case studies

EQ15.2 To what extent have the actions carried out by the EMN been relevant in view of specific needs of stakeholders, in

particular national authorities and civil society organisations?

• Objectives and tasks set out in

the EMN Work Programmes

have been relevant to the

needs of national stakeholders

• Objectives and tasks set out in

the EMN Work Programmes

have been relevant to the

needs of relevant CSOs

• The analyses and information

included in the EMN products

(e.g. ARM, studies) are

relevant to current

stakeholders’ needs

• The topics covered by EMN

activities and events are

relevant to current needs and

challenges faced by different

• Level of adequacy of the

analysis and information

included in the EMN

products with specific

stakeholders’ needs

• Extent to which

stakeholders (e.g. national

stakeholders and civil

society organisations)

consider the objectives

and tasks set out in the

EMN Work Programmes

relevant to their current

needs

• Extent to which

stakeholders (e.g. national

stakeholders and civil

society organisations)

consider the analysis and

Desk sources

• Council Decision 2008/381/EC)

• EMN products

• EMN back-office documents

Field sources

• Online surveys targeted at:

• EMN NCPs

• Targeted interviews with:

• EMN SB national members

• International and civil society

organisations

60

stakeholders. information included in

the EMN products

relevant to their current

needs

• Case studies

ANNEX IV OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

A fully-fledged quantification of costs (e.g. cost-benefit analysis and standard cost model)

was not possible in the context of the evaluation, as, e.g. the ex post financial reporting has

not been completed, and the actual level of budget implementation is not yet known.

Similarly, the one-in one-out approach was not relevant, as the Network is not directly

involved in legislating.

The focus of the evaluation was on the benefits to properly assess the added value for the

Member States of being part of the EMN and more emphasis was put on the analysis of the

NCPs as part of the case studies and most notably on: how they were structured, how they

engaged national constituencies and, eventually, what was the added value perceived at the

national level from being part of the EMN.

The perception of consulted stakeholders of the costs and benefits of various EMN activities

was analysed and is presented in Figures 1 and 2 and in Table 1 below.

61

Figure 1 – Perception of consulted stakeholders on the cost burden at the NCP level

entailed by EMN activities1

Source: Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021. Final report.

Figure 1 presents the analysis results of the perception of consulted stakeholders2 of the cost

burden generated by the various categories of EMN activities for the NCPs, on a 6-level scale

of: very high (dark green), high (light green), medium (yellow), low (orange), very low (red)

and no opinion (gray).

62

Figure 2 – Perception of consulted stakeholders on the benefit-cost ratio of the various

EMN activities3

Source: Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021. Final report.

Figure 2 presents the analysis results of the perception of consulted stakeholders4 of the

benefit-cost ratio generated by the various categories of EMN activities for the NCPs, on a 6-

level scale of: very high (dark green), high (light green), medium (yellow), low (orange), very

low (red) and no opinion (gray).

Table 1 presents the perceptions of consulted stakeholders5 on the cost burden (on the scale

from 0 to 4 where 0 stands for no cost, 1 for low cost, 2 for medium cost, 3 for high cost and

4 for extreme cost) and on and cost-effectiveness (on the scale from 0 to 4 where 1 stands for

extremely low, 1 for low, 2 for medium, 3 for high and 4 extremely high cost-effectiveness)

of the various EMN activities.

According to the results, organisation of national events and participation in NCP meetings

were perceived as the most cost-generating activities (medium cost), while the perception

regarding the remaining activity categories was between the low and medium cost levels.

Cost-effectiveness of all the analysed activities was perceived to be situated in the middle of

the scale (between medium and high cost effectiveness).

63

Table 1 – Perception by consulted stakeholders of the cost-benefits ratio of EMN

activities

Activity Costs6 Benefits Cost-effectiveness7

Monitoring 1.6

• Provision of comparable information

• Contribution to the development of indicators and

statistics

2.6

Launching/addressing

AHQs 1.6

• Provision of quick responses to urgent needs

• Provision of information to design national legislation

• Approximation of national policymaking

2.6

Organising national

events 2.0

• Exchange of knowledge and practices

• Increased awareness of the EMN activities

• Networking opportunities

• Fostering open debate

2.7

Contributing to EMN

products 1.8

• Eased access information

• Spread knowledge and raise awareness

• Shaping policy and legislative initiatives

2.6

Participating in EMN

meetings 2.0

• Networking opportunities

• Identification of synergies among organisations

• Establishment of cooperative working practices

2.6

Disseminating EMN

products at the

national level

1.6

• Increased awareness of the information produced by

the EMN beyond the Network’s members

• Provision of updated information

2.5

Source: Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021. Final report.

64

Table 2 – Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation

Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation

Citizens Administrations of EU Member

States

European Commission

Quantitative Comment Quantitative Comment Quantitative Comment

EMN functioning

Costs

identified

Direct

compliance

costs one-off

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A

Direct

compliance

costs

recurrent

Implementation

of the WPs by the

NCPs (co-

financing from

the national

budgets)

N/A Grants for the

operation of

NCPs (up to

95%)

EMN Service

Provider-

related costs

(procurement)

EMN IT (EMN

IES) - related

costs

(procurement)

Enforcement

costs one-off

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Enforcement

costs

recurrent

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Indirect costs

(indirect

compliance

or

transaction

costs)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Benefits

identified

Direct

benefits: one-

off

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Direct

Provision of Provision of

Provision of

65

benefits:

recurrent

comparable

information

on migration

Knowledge

spreading and

awareness

raising

Fostering

open debates

comparable

information and

contribution to

the development

of migration-

specific

indicators and

statistics

Provision of

quick reliable

responses to

urgent requests

for information

Safe exchange of

information

through the EMN

IES

comparable

information and

contribution to

the development

of migration-

specific

indicators and

statistics

Provision of

quick reliable

responses to

urgent requests

for information

Safe exchange

of information

through the

EMN IES

Indirect

benefits: one-

off

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Indirect

benefits:

recurrent

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

66

Figure 3 – EMN grants allocated to Member States (2017-2022)42

Source: Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021. Final report.

Figure 4 – Percentage of EMN grants awarded per Member State (2017-2022)43

Source: Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021. Final report.

42 Data concerning grant allocation to Ireland were not available for 2021-2022. 43 Grant allocation data were not available for Romania. In addition, grant data for Austria, Belgium, Cyprus,

Germany, Estonia, Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Slovakia were not

available for the 2021–2022 work programme period.

0 €

200.000 €

400.000 €

600.000 €

800.000 €

1.000.000 €

1.200.000 €

1.400.000 €

AT BE BG CY CZ DE EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK

2017-18 2019-2020 2021-2022

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

AT BE BG CY CZ DE EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE SI SK

2017-2018 2019-2020 2021-22

67

Figure 5 – Percentage of EMN grant spent per Member State (2017-2022)44

Source: Independent external evaluation of the European Migration Network 2018-2021. Final report.

44 Grant allocation data were not available for Austria, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia. Data for Croatia were

not available for the 2017-2018 Work Programme period. Data for Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Estonia,

Spain, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal and Sweden were not available for the 2021-2022 period.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BE BG CY CZ DE EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE SI

2017-2018 2019-2020 2021-2022

68

ANNEX V STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION. SYNOPSIS REPORT.

1. Feedback received on the Call for Evidence

Twenty-five stakeholders submitted feedback on the evaluation call for evidence (feedback

period 16 January 2023 - 13 March 2023). Twenty-four stakeholders providing their feedback

were EU citizens while one was under ‘Other’ category. None of the feedback was directly

related to the EMN while most of the submissions were general statements in favour of

tightening the EU migration policy.

2. Consultation strategy

The objective of the consultations was to collect relevant information and insights on the

effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value and relevance of the EMN as well as to

collect inputs on lessons learned. To do so, a wide range of EU, international and national

level stakeholders were consulted.

The consultations that took place during the implementation of the supporting study included

the following:

• online survey,

• strategic interviews,

• targeted and flash interviews,

• case studies and workshop with NCP coordinators.

Table 1 – Overview of the stakeholders reached through each consultation tool/method

Type of stakeholder Online

survey

Strategic

interviews

Targeted

interviews

Flash

interviews

Case

studies

Workshop with

NCP

coordinators

Commission X

NCPs X X X X X

SB members X

National Migration

Networks X X

EU bodies X

69

International

Organisations X

Civil Society

Organisations X

Researchers/academics X

2.1 Online survey

An online survey was launched to (i) collect information on the effectiveness, efficiency,

coherence, EU added value and relevance of the EMN, (ii) understand the problems/gaps

affecting the functioning and effects of the EMN, as well as (iii) gather suggestions for

future-looking recommendations.

Two different survey questionnaires were used, targeted respectively at 29 National Contact

Points (NCPs), and 555 National Migration Network members.

The survey ran from 5 September 2023 to 29 October 2023. The survey has been

administered and centrally managed by using the Qualtrics tool.

2.2 Strategic interviews

A strategic interview was conducted at the beginning of the evaluation with the EMN chair -

Head of Sector, Task Force Irregular Migration and the Policy officer responsible for EMN

budget. The strategic interview explored thefollowing points:

• Changes occurred since the last evaluation, as regards both the EMN working

mechanisms and its context of reference

• Current state of play of migration and asylum in the EU, including known problems

and main issues at stake.

• Level of engagement of various stakeholders in the EMN activities

• Relationships/partnerships with other EU agencies/bodies

• State of implementation of the objectives set in the WPs, along with factors that might

have adversely/positively affected their achievement.

• Categories of costs/benefits associated with participation in the Network.

2.3 Flash interviews

10 flash interviews were performed with NCPs which volunteered to be interviewed in the

occasion of the 129 NCP meeting held in Brussels on 29 June 2023. These interviews focused

on the following points:

70

• Overview of the NCP participation in and contribution to the EMN activities

• Main strengths and weaknesses of the EMN activities

2.4 Targeted interviews

A total of 33 targeted interviews were conducted online via Teams, with 23 members of the

EMN SB, 4 EU bodies, 2 international organisations, 3 CSOs and 1 academic.

Interviews with EU-level stakeholders focused on:

• Developments in the EU migration and asylum landscape

• Role of EU Agencies contributing to migration and asylum policies, and challenges

faced in achieving higher coordination.

• Collaborations/partnerships developed with the Network.

• Burdens/benefits associated with engaging with the EMN.

• Recommendations to improving the EMN functioning and mandate.

• Good practices to be considered.

Interviews with national stakeholders focused on:

• Relevant national developments in the field of migration and asylum

• Dissemination/outreach of the Network at the national and local levels

• Categories of costs/benefits associated with participation in the Network.

• Collaboration/partnership developed with/through the Network.

• Factors that might have adversely/positively affected the achievement of the EMN

objectives.

• Good practices implemented at the local/regional level.

Interviews with international and civil society organisations focused on:

• Opinion on relevance, quality, availability and accessibility of EMN outputs, as well

as any suggestions for improvement

• Experience in using EMN tools.

• Involvement in EMN networking activities

• Channels/networks/organisations preferred to the EMN.

71

Targeted interviews with representatives from academia focused on:

• Overall quality of the EMN publications

• Relevance of the topics covered by the EMN activities.

• Added value of the EMN

2.5 Case studies

Six case studies were performed on Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Italy, and the

Netherlands in order to better demonstrate some aspects of the evaluation, gain further

insights and draw recommendations to improve the functioning of the EMN.

Case study consultations were conducted via Microsoft Teams and included:

• Six group interviews with the NCP.

• Five focus groups with members of the National Migration Networks.1

2.6 Workshop with NCP coordinators

A workshop with NCP coordinators was organised at the end of the evaluation process with

NCP coordinators (24 participants) to present the evaluation findings and related conclusions,

and to discuss the feasibility of the preliminary recommendations under assessment.

The workshop consisted of a (1) plenary session, where the evaluation team presented the

objectives of the study and the key evaluation findings, followed by a Q&A section with

participants; (2) two break-out sessions during which preliminary recommendations and

lessons learnt were addressed and discussed with smaller groups of participants; and (3) a

second plenary session in which the outcomes of the break-out sessions were presented.

3. Results of the consultation activities

3.1 Online survey

3.1.1 Effectiveness

The majority of NCPs agreed that the EMN supported EU policymaking in the field of

migration and asylum. In particular:

• 89% believed that the information produced by the EMN has been used to identify

and respond to EU policy priorities and has supported the design and implementation

of new EU policy initiatives.

• 59% agreed that the EMN highly contributed to informing national policymaking.

Moreover,

72

• 56% agreed that the EMN supported cooperation between Member States.

• 86% agreed that that participation in EMN Working Groups enhanced operational

cooperation 93% agreed that that participation in EMN Working Groups enhanced

knowledge sharing among the Member States.

Moreover, most NCPs and National Migration Network members agreed, from a medium to a

complete extent, that the information produced by the EMN was accessible (99%; 91%),

comparable (97%; 93%), easily readable (89%; 89%), objective (100%; 100%), reliable

(100%; 95%) and up to date (92%; 90%). Finally, while 89% of NCPs highlighted that the

EMN was increasingly used as a platform for knowledge exchange in the field of migration

and asylum in their respective countries, only 58% of members of the National Migration

Networks agreed with this statement.

Concerning the provision of information to the general public, some divergencies emerged

between the opinions provided by NCPs and those provided by the National Migration

Network members. In particular:

• 44% of NCPs believed that the EMN contributed to providing information on

migration and asylum to the general public, against 13% of the national network

members.

• 70% of NCPs agreed that the EMN dissemination activities contributed to increasing

the Network’s visibility within the EU, against 22% of the national network members

who believed that the EMN dissemination activities contributed to increasing the

EMN visibility in their respective countries.

Finally, both NCPs and National Migration Network members agreed that the EMN played a

limited role in countering false narratives on migration, as well as in enhancing

communication with the media on migration and asylum policies.

3.1.2 Efficiency

Most consulted NCPs (75%) believed thatAMIF resources were sufficient to implement

EMN activities. Moreover, NCPs highlighted that the costs were proportionate to the benefits

obtained from such activities.

With regards to the EMN’s governance, NCPs largely agreed that the EMN’s internal

structure was appropriate, as it allowed for the efficient management of the Network’s

activities (52%) which is facilitated by a substantial level of awareness of internal roles and

responsibilities (48%).

The majority of NCPs were satisfied with the support both provided by the SB (51%) and the

Service Provider (63%).

73

3.1.3 Coherence

NCPs believed that the EMN was overall consistent with the New Pact on migration and

asylum (66%), the EU Blue Card Directive (40%) and the EU Action plan against migrant

smuggling (48%). National Migration Network members however, proved to be more

hesitant in this regard, as 37% believed there was consistency with the New Pact on

migration and asylum, 21% with EU Blue Card Directive and 21% with the EU Action plan

against migrant smuggling.

Concerning the consistency of the EMN with other relevant EU Agencies, 7 NCPs

highlighted a degree of overlap between the EMN activities and those of EUAA, which leads

to a duplication of work for those who are involved with both agencies.

3.1.4 EU added value

Most of the NCPs agreed that many advantages brought by the EMN could not have been

achieved without the support of the Network. Such advantages include the capacity to

respond to the information needs of national policymakers (71% NCPs) and to facilitate the

exchange of good practices among the Member States in the field of migration and asylum

(86% NCPs). Moreover, many NCPs and national network members agreed that the

information produced by the EMN is better in terms of quality (67%; 49%),

comprehensiveness (85%; 60%) and relevance (56%; 42%) compared to the alternative

sources available in their respective countries. Finally, it was found that it would be difficult

to ensure continuation of EMN activities such as ensuring existence of national networks,

exchanging information with third countries and drafting annual policy reports on the

national situation in the field of migration and asylum, if EMN was discontinued.

However, 82% NCPs and 66% national network members believed that regular collection of

national data relevant to migration and asylum would continue in the absence of EMN.

Similarly, 78% NCPs and 52% national network members believed that the exchange of

information with other Member States would not be affected.

To conclude, around 40% NCPs agreed that Council Decision 2008/381/EC provides

sufficient mandate towards the achievement of the EMN objectives.

3.1.5 Relevance

Most of the NCPs and the national network members consulted during the study think that

the EMN products have met their information needs in the field of migration and asylum.

Yet, while 46% of NCPs and 33%of national network members agreed that the information

and knowledge produced by the EMN responded to the information needs of the national

policymakers in their respective countries, most national network members (52%) believe

that the EMN is only partially aligned with the information needs of the general public.

74

All the NCPs and majority of the national network members (77%) think that the existence of

a European Network is still needed to meet the information needs related to migration and

asylum in their countries.

3.2 Strategic interviews

The following points were discussed:

The functioning and scope of the EMN. The EMN has a strategic and operational nature. It is

a complex entity regulated by formal rules (e.g. Council Decision 2008/381/EC, WPs, etc.)

and works on a dynamic basis, based on discussions and negotiations between the

Commission and the Member States towards maximising the Network’s results and influence.

Its scope of activities recently broadened to include new relevant topics in the field of

migration and asylum, such as children in migration, unaccompanied migrants, and displaced

persons caused by the war in Ukraine.

The added value of the EMN. The EMN allows for regular and practical interaction among

the Member States towards tackling challenges related to migration and asylum in the EU.

EMN outputs support national policymaking in the Member State. For instance, they are

taken into account during national parliamentary debates as well as in court proceedings in

high courts of justice, impacting on all migrants of those countries. Moreover, EMN supports

the daily operational activities related to the management of migration flows in the EU.

The challenges that the EMN is currently facing. The constantly changing trends in migration

and asylum, largely affected by societal events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in

Ukraine, etc., require the EMN work and organisation to frequently adapt to new and

emerging needs. One of the biggest challenges that the EMN recently faced was the shift to

fully online meetings as a result of the lockdown in times of COVID, as well as the

management of many people being in the EU territory with invalid visas though unable to

return to their counties due to the pandemic.

The EMN budget. Pursuant to Council Decision 2008/381/EC, the Steering Board approves

the minimum and maximum amount of the EMN budget to be allocated to EMN NCPs to

finance EMN activities in accordance with the objectives set in the Work Programmes

(Article 4). The budget is allocated to each NCP through a Direct Award process launched

annually. The grant allocation procedure is fully digitalised and is managed by DG HOME.

Generally, Member States ask for a co-financing rate of 80-85% of EMN budget to support

EMN-related activities. The EMN budget is mostly spent to support the production of

outputs, especially those based on desk research (e.g. EMN studies, informs, glossary). Issues

of underspending have been observed for the period 2018-2021, mainly due to limited

activities undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Areas of improvement. There should be higher alignment between the Commission and the

NCPs, as well as among the NCPs, on what are the strategic and operational priorities in the

field of migration and asylum. Also, shortcomings in the EMN implementation procedures

75

were highlighted, including the lack of sufficient expertise within the NCPs in terms of

management of EU funds application procedures. It was also underlined that such expertise is

not specifically requested by the Council Decision.

3.3 Targeted interviews

3.3.1 Effectiveness

Overall, it was confirmed that the EMN provided accessible, comparable, easily readable,

objective, reliable and up-to-date information. Most NCPs interviewed during the study

highlighted that the EMN provided updated information mainly through the regular

publication of the ARMs and their statistical annexes, as well as through quarterly Bulletins.

Objectivity and reliability of the EMN information were ensured through a multi-stakeholder

and multi-agency approach to the data collection process, which included the involvement of

the National Migration Networks. According to nine NCPs, three Steering Board members,

two EU bodies and one academic, EMN products were relevant sources of information, as

well as appropriate in terms of number and topics covered.

Moreover, as pointed out by one Steering Board member, four EU bodies and one CSO, the

information provided by the EMN was used by EU-level stakeholders in various ways,

including to assess and revise EU relevant initiatives (e.g. the Long-Term Residence

Directive and the Temporary Protection Directive), as well as to streamline the data

collection conducted by other relevant EU bodies.

The collaboration between the EMN and other EU bodies, CSOs and international

organisations was generally positive.

Concerning the provision of information to the general public, nine NCPs and 11 Steering

Board members highlighted that EMN products were properly disseminated withing and

beyond the EMN, through the EMN website and social media account. Moreover, the

majority of consulted stakeholders agreed that EMN conferences and events contributed to

disseminating EMN products, thanks to the budget specifically allocated to such activities.

3.3.2 Efficiency

According to 11 Steering Board members, the EMN budget was sufficient to implement the

Network’s activities, with costs being proportionate to the benefits obtained. Nevertheless,

five Steering Board members complained that the funding awarded for unit costs foreseen for

travelling and accommodation purposes was not sufficient.

EMN grant award procedures were seen as time-consuming. More precisely, as highlighted

by 11 Steering Board members, such procedures were not timely, with funding, often times,

not being available yet when the implementation of the activities foreseen by the Work

Programmes started.

76

Also, two NCPs, three Steering Board members and one EU body highlighted that the

Commission’s role as chair of the Steering Board created some conflict of interest, in

particular during the selection of topics to be covered by the EMN, when the Commission’s

priorities end up prevailing over those of the NCPs.

3.3.3 Coherence

The work conducted by the EMN was found to be consistent with the work conducted by

other relevant EU agencies, as confirmed by two NCPs, six Steering Board members, all EU

bodies, one international organisation and two CSOs.

3.3.4 EU added value

Through its direct support towards enhanced cooperation both within and beyond the EU, the

EMN brought about remarkable added value, as highlighted by nine Steering Board

members. Moreover, two NCPs, six Steering Board members and one academic highlighted

that the permanent nature of the EMN facilitated cooperation and mutual trust among

stakeholders involved in the field of migration and asylum, which were essential to retrieve

data and provide comprehensive and reliable information.

Consulted stakeholders (eight NCPs, four Steering Board members, three EU bodies, all

international organisations and two CSOs) agreed that if the EMN did not exist, the varied

and structured information it produced would not have been in place, as there is no other EU

network or organisation that offers the same quality of information.

EMN products, especially AHQs, ARMs, Informs, as well as the EMN Glossary, played a

pivotal role towards the creation of a common understanding of key migration-related

features among policymakers from different Member States, as highlighted by six NCPs, one

Steering Board member, one EU body, two CSOs and one academic.

3.3.5 Relevance

Overall, it was confirmed that EMN products covered all the priority topics suggested by

participants in the EMN meetings. Indeed, as highlighted by nine Steering Board members,

topics were proposed by the Commission but need to be approved by a two-thirds majority of

SB members.

Four NCPs and one EU body highlighted that EMN publication procedures were often too

lengthy, which led to information being made available too late, affecting the Network’s

timeliness and relevance.

3.4 Case studies

3.4.1 Effectiveness

77

Overall, consulted stakeholders from all six Member States selected as case studies, agreed

that the EMN, through its products and activities, supported EU and national policymaking in

the field of migration and asylum. Among EMN products, AHQs were highlighted as

extremely useful by stakeholders in four Member States. Nonetheless, in two Member States,

some stakeholders noted that there was no direct link between the information produced by

the EMN and national policies.

Concerning the provision of information to the general public, some stakeholders in two

Member States highlighted that there was a lack of public awareness of the EMN, noting that

dissemination efforts targeted at the general public should be enhanced.

3.4.2 Efficiency

Consulted stakeholders in five Member States agreed that the funding allocated for EMN

products and activities was appropriate, while stakeholders in one Member State disagreed,

stating that the funding they received was not sufficient to cover all expenses, preventing the

organisation of events at the national level, as well as participation in other NCPs’ events.

With regards to grant allocation procedures, stakeholders in four Member States complained

that such procedures were lengthy and burdensome, with grants often being available only

after the start of the activities envisaged by the Work Programmes.

3.4.3 Coherence

According to stakeholders from all six Member States, there was a high level of coherence

between the policy areas covered by EMN products and national policy priorities and

strategies in their respective countries.

Concerning consistency between the EMN and other EU agencies and initiatives,

stakeholders from one Member State highlighted a degree of overlap between the activities of

the EMN and those of EUAA, while stakeholders from another Member State highlighted a

degree of overlap between the activities of the EMN and those of the EU Blueprint. This

results in duplication of work for those involved with the EMN and other agencies and

initiatives.

3.4.4 EU added value

Stakeholders from all six Member States agreed that the EMN, through its provision of

timely, up-to-date, high quality and reliable information, brought remarkable added value.

Moreover, stakeholders from four Member States highlighted that a key advantage of the

EMN was the establishment of a formal, structured, and comprehensive platform for the

provision of comparable information. Other identified advantages were the networking

opportunities provided by EMN meetings and events (one Member State), facilitation of

national policymaking (two Member States), quick access to information through AHQs

(three Member States), cooperation and exchange of information and good practices among

78

Member States (four Member States), approximation of national approaches to migration and

asylum (one Member State) and provision of public information (one Member State).

Even in cases where mechanisms exist to ensure the sustainability of the EMN’s activities,

the consulted stakeholders largely agreed that the above-mentioned advantages would

disappear if the EMN were to be discontinued, and retrieving the same information provided

by the EMN would be extremely costly and time-consuming (three Member States).

3.4.5 Relevance

The EMN’s legal basis proved to be adequate to ensure the adaptability of the EMN to new

and emerging challenges, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the EMN swiftly

adapted the focus of its outputs to collect information and cover issues related to the

pandemic (all Member States). Yet, according to consulted stakeholders from one Member

State, the broad mandate of the EMN leads to the production of EMN outputs that are either

too broad or too specific, consequently reducing their relevance to all Member States.

Moreover, consulted stakeholders from three Member States highlighted that the topics

covered by the EMN matched the information needs of national policymakers in their

respective countries. Interestingly, consulted stakeholders from one Member State, noted that

national policymakers require information on the spot, which can be difficult to obtain from

the EMN, due to the lengthy topic selection and publication procedures of EMN outputs. As a

result, by the time EMN outputs are published, they are not as relevant. Yet, consulted

stakeholders from the same Member State highlighted that the EMN’s relevance resides in its

contribution to improving cooperation among Member States and facilitating the exchange of

expertise in the field of migration and asylum.

3.5 Workshop with NCP coordinators

Two NCPs that participated in the workshop, stressed the need to assess the way Work

Programmes are developed, as they tend to be too ambitious, leading to some objectives (e.g.

anticipate migration developments, prevent migration crisis and counter false narratives) not

being achieved. Moreover, they noted that the Commission plays a pivotal role in designing

the Work Programmes, which results in the Work Programmes mainly reflecting the

Commission’s priorities.

Moreover, three NCPs suggested that the EMN’s limited contribution to anticipating

migration developments, preventing migration crises, and exploiting new technologies for

migration management should not be identified as an issue, as these are not part of the

Network’s mandate, though they were in the end included as specific objectives in the

EMN’s Work Programmes. In this regard, five NCPs highlighted that the Commission played

a stronger role that that of the NCPs when it comes to outlining the objectives of the Work

Programmes, leaving NCPs with not enough room to negotiate the objectives.

79

Concerning the identified issue on the moderate contribution made by the EMN to the

dissemination of national good practices, two NCPs noted that this was not an issue, as EMN

products included a section on good practices.

As for the issue related to the EMN’s limited provision of comparable statistics, two NCPs

agreed that the statistics needed for EMN outputs were based on the data collected through

administrative procedures which vary across countries. In this regard, one NCP noted that as

EUROSTAT already works with national statistics offices, including on data harmonisation.

As regards the issue of unit costs foreseen for travelling and accommodation purposes not

being sufficient, four NCPs highlighted that the only possible solution to tackle this issue is to

change the threshold of unit costs.

Three NCPs noted that is is essential to address the issue of grant allocation procedures being

too lengthy, which is caused by understaffing in the Commission to regulate grant allocation

procedures (one NCP) and by the excessive rigidity in the Commission hiring process (one

NCP).

One NCP, who is also part of the EMN Communication and Dissemination Working Group

(CDWG), noted that since 2018 there had been a lot of focus on improving the issues

highlighted concerning the provision of information to the general public, and centrally

produce material that could be adapted to national needs and disseminated to the general

public. The same NCP further noted that at the national level the NCP’s communication

efforts are supported by a national private service provider. Three NCPs highlighted their use

of Destination Europe to reach the general public from universities and be in close contact

with all associations of teachers that deal with the topic of migration. Among the main issues

hindering the provision of information to the general public, the following were identified:

the excessive number of outputs to be provided, which prevented NCPs from properly

focusing on dissemination efforts (two NCPs), internal constraints related to the fact that the

NCP was part of the Ministry of Interior (MoI) and that all communication efforts had to go

through the PR office of the Ministry (one NCP) and internal constraints related to hiring

additional staff (three NCPs).

Five NCPs highlighted that overall, there is not enough room to make changes once

modifications were made to the first draft of Work Programmes by the Commission. The

process of drafting the Work Programmes was not a bottom-up process and NCPs were not as

involved as the Commission.

Finally, an NCP stressed that the fact that lengthy process to launch and produce a Study

affects the visibility of the EMN at the national level, and that this is partially caused by the

fact that the EMN is a European Network and as such, requires several steps before finalising

the approval of a topic or product.

ET ET

EUROOPA KOMISJON

Brüssel, 29.6.2026

COM(2026) 322 final

KOMISJONI ARUANNE EUROOPA PARLAMENDILE, NÕUKOGULE, EUROOPA

MAJANDUS- JA SOTSIAALKOMITEELE NING REGIOONIDE KOMITEELE

Euroopa rändevõrgustiku hindamise kohta (2018-2021)

{SWD(2026) 173 final}

1

1. TAUST

Euroopa rändevõrgustik (edaspidi „ERV“) on ELi rahastatav võrgustik, mis loodi nõukogu

otsusega 2008/381/EÜ1 ning mida muudeti Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrusega (EL)

nr 516/2014,2 eesmärgiga koguda ja jagada rände- ja varjupaigaalast teavet liidu

institutsioonide ning liikmesriikide ametiasutuste ja institutsioonide vahel, et vastata

poliitikakujundajate ja muude sidusrühmade vajadustele neis valdkondades.

ERV eesmärk on ühtlasi toetada praktilise koostöö arendamist rände- ja varjupaigavaldkonnas

liidu ja valitud kolmandate riikide vahel, sealhulgas heade tavade ja teabe vahetamist

halduskokkulepete sõlmimise kaudu.

Kooskõlas nõukogu otsuse 2008/381/EÜ artikliga 13 esitab komisjon Euroopa Parlamendile,

nõukogule, Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomiteele ning Regioonide Komiteele ERV arengut

käsitleva aruande, mis põhineb sõltumatul ja välisel hindamisel. Käesolev aruanne käsitleb

nelja-aastast ajavahemikku (2018–2021)3. Ajavahemikku 2018–2021 iseloomustasid COVID-

19 pandeemia ja sellega seotud liikumispiirangud, mis mõjutasid rände- ja

varjupaigadünaamikat ning tekitasid kiiresti muutuvaid operatiiv- ja teabevajadusi. Samal ajal

esitas komisjon 2020. aasta septembris uue rände- ja varjupaigaleppe ettepaneku, millega

määrati kindlaks ELi peamine poliitikareform. Komisjoni ettepanek uue rände- ja

varjupaigaleppe kohta oli oluline tegur, mis suunas pärast ettepaneku esitamist ERV tegevust

ja väljundeid. Geograafilise ulatuse poolest hõlmab aruanne kõiki liikmesriike, välja arvatud

Taanit, kuna Taani ei osale nõukogu otsuses 2008/381/EÜ, millega loodi Euroopa

rändevõrgustik ning mis esitati meetmena EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 66 alusel (nüüd ELi

toimimise lepingu kolmanda osa V jaotise alusel), ning kooskõlas protokolliga Taani seisukoha

kohta. Aruanne hõlmab ka Gruusiat, Moldova Vabariiki ja Norrat, kes osalevad ERVs

vaatlejariikidena.

Hindamisel keskendutakse ERV asjakohasusele, tulemuslikkusele, tõhususele, sidususele ja

ELi lisaväärtusele. Ühtlasi hinnatakse, kas ERV mandaat on ajakohane ja vastab eesmärkidele,

milleks see loodi, ning kui tulemuslikud on olnud muudatused tegevuste ulatuses. Samuti

analüüsitakse ERV ja ERV teenuse osutaja töökorraldust, sealhulgas teabevahetust, ning

esitatakse saadud kogemused ja soovitused, et ERV suudaks pidevalt muutuvas keskkonnas

tekkivatele probleemidele paremini reageerida.

ERV 2024. aastal lõpule viidud sõltumatu hindamisuuringu tegi komisjoni nimel eraõiguslik

konsortsium, et toetada hindamist ja anda selle jaoks vajalikku teavet. Tõendusmaterjali koguti

järgmistest allikatest:

1 Nõukogu 14. mai 2008. aasta otsus 2008/381/EÜ Euroopa rändevõrgustiku loomise kohta (ELT L 131,

21.5.2008, lk 7). 2 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 16. aprilli 2014. aasta määrus (EL) nr 516/2014, millega luuakse Varjupaiga-

, Rände- ja Integratsioonifond, muudetakse nõukogu otsust 2008/381/EÜ ning tunnistatakse kehtetuks

Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu otsused nr 573/2007/EÜ ja nr 575/2007/EÜ ning nõukogu

otsus 2007/435/EÜ (ELT L 150, 20.5.2014, lk 168). 3 ERV tööprogrammide ajavahemikke (2017–2018, 2019–2020, 2021–2022) arvestades on hindamise raames

osaliselt hinnatud ka 2021.–2022. aasta tööprogrammi andmeid, kusjuures 2021. aasta kohta ei olnud

võimalik konkreetsetele andmetele juurde pääseda.

2

- veebipõhine küsitlus, mis hõlmas 29 riikliku kontaktpunkti ja 555 riikliku

rändevõrgustiku liiget;

- kolm strateegilist intervjuud komisjoni talituste ja muude ELi tasandi sidusrühmadega;

- 33 suunatud intervjuud ja 10 lühiintervjuud erinevate sidusrühmade esindajatega;

- kuus juhtumiuuringut, milles dokumendianalüüs ühendati kuue riiklike

kontaktpunktidega tehtud rühmaintervjuu ja viie riiklike rändevõrgustike liikmetega

korraldatud fookusrühmaga;

- töötuba 24 riikliku kontaktpunkti koordinaatoriga;

- dokumentide analüüs.

Peamine tõendusmaterjal koosnes küsitlusele vastanute vastustest. Dokumentide analüüsis

kasutatud allikad andsid asjakohast teavet ja faktilist tõendusmaterjali ERV toimimise kohta,

sealhulgas selle struktuuri, juhtimise, tegevuse ja toodete kohta. Välitööd aitasid koguda

kvalitatiivseid teadmisi selle kohta, kuidas ja miks konkreetsed tulemused saavutati, ning

kindlaks teha saadud kogemused. ERV iga-aastased aruanded4 olid kasulikud, kuna need

annavad üksikasjaliku ülevaate tegevustest, mida ERV on konkreetsel aastal ellu viinud.

Tulemuste usaldusväärsus ja valiidsus tagati nii dokumentide analüüsi kui ka välitööde käigus

kogutud andmete ja teabe süstemaatilise triangulatsiooniga.

Käesolev aruanne esitatakse Euroopa Parlamendile, nõukogule, Euroopa Majandus- ja

Sotsiaalkomiteele ning Regioonide Komiteele ning sellele on lisatud komisjoni talituste

töödokument, milles esitatakse hindamise tulemused.

2. HINDAMISE PEAMISED JÄRELDUSED

Tulemuslikkuse seisukohast leiti hindamisel, et ERV peamised programmdokumendid on

kooskõlas selle õigusliku aluse eesmärkidega ning kajastavad neid. Seda kinnitavad

sidusrühmad, kes arvasid ülekaalukalt, et ERV tegevus aastatel 2018–2021 on kajastanud

nõuetekohaselt ameti volituste raames seatud eesmärke.

ERV toetas ELi poliitikakujundajaid rände- ja varjupaigavaldkonnas, aidates reageerida ELi

poliitikaprioriteetidele ning töötada välja ja rakendada uusi poliitikaalgatusi. Riiklikul tasandil

aitas see suurendada teadmisi ning parandada rände- ja varjupaigavaldkonna

poliitikakujundamist. Üldiselt peeti ERV koostatud teavet kättesaadavaks, võrreldavaks,

hõlpsasti loetavaks, objektiivseks ja usaldusväärseks ning regulaarselt ajakohastatuks. Lisaks

kõrgele kvaliteedile pidasid sidusrühmad ERV koostatud teavet poliitika seisukohast

asjakohaseks ja nende vajadustele vastavaks nii ELi kui ka liikmesriikide tasandil.

Juurdepääs ERV koostatud teabele paranes märkimisväärselt pärast seda, kui ERV

teabevahetussüsteem viidi üle uuele platvormile, mis aitas parandada süsteemi toimivust5.

ERV tegi rahvusvaheliste organisatsioonidega koostööd, et valmistada ette tooteid ja üritusi:

2020. aastal koostati koostöös Majandusliku Koostöö ja Arengu Organisatsiooniga (OECD)

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

reports_en. 5 Teabevahetussüsteemi põhjalik uuendamine viidi läbi 2024. aastal, mis jäi käesoleva hindamise

ajavahemikust välja.

3

neli teabelehte6 COVID-19 mõju kohta ning 2021. aastal üks teabeleht koostöös Euroopa Liidu

Varjupaigaameti (EUAA) ja Euroopa Piiri- ja Rannikuvalve Ametiga (Frontex)7. Lisaks

korraldas Soome riiklik kontaktpunkt 2021. aastal koostöös OECD ja Euroopa Nõukoguga

ühiselt ERV konverentsi.

ERV aitas kaasa heade tavade jagamise edendamisele, täites jätkuvalt vahendaja rolli, mis

võimaldas juurdepääsu liikmesriikides kindlaks tehtud headele tavadele ning rändevaldkonna

tavade kohta teabe vahetamist liikmesriikide vahel.

Oluline areng välissuhetes oli ERV koostöö kolmandate riikidega hindamisperioodi jooksul.

2021. aastal liitusid Gruusia ja Moldova Vabariik ERVga vaatlejatena,8 samal ajal kui

Armeenia, Montenegro, Serbia ja Ukraina väljendasid huvi ERVga liitumise vastu9. Komisjon

alustas kolmandate riikidega tehtava koostöö töörühma (Cooperation with Third Countries

Working Group, CTC WG) toel esialgseid mõttevahetusi nende riikidega10.

Kui hindamisel vaadeldi teabe edastamist üldsusele, tuvastati vajadus veelgi tugevdada riiklike

kontaktpunktide rolli riiklike partnerite kaasamisel ERV tegevuste tutvustamiseks, sealhulgas

parema koordineerimise kaudu poliitikakujundajatega.Hindamine kinnitas, et suurenenud

jõupingutused teabe edastamise tõhustamiseks üldsusele, sealhulgas selliste materjalide

koostamine, mida saab kohandada konkreetsetele liikmesriikide vajadustele, avaldas mõju

2021. aastal11.

Tõhususe seisukohast peeti ERVd rahaliselt kestlikuks ja kulutõhusaks ning Varjupaiga-,

Rände- ja Integratsioonifondi (AMIF) rahastamist piisavaks, samal ajal kui ERV

rakendamiskulud olid proportsionaalsed saadava kasuga. Riiklike kontaktpunktide sõnul olid

kõige ressursimahukamad elemendid enamasti riiklike ürituste korraldamine, ERV

koosolekutel osalemine ning panustamine ERV toodetesse, nagu rände- ja

varjupaigavaldkonna aastaaruanded ning uuringud. Sidusrühmad märkisid, et kuigi iga-aastane

toetustsükkel hõlmas mitut haldusetappi ja eelarveeraldis võib praktikas realiseeruda pärast

rakendamise algust, on riiklikud kontaktpunktid üldiselt saanud kavandatud tegevustega edasi

minna ja väljundid ettenähtud viisil saavutada. Lisaks toetasid 2018. aastal kasutusele võetud

lihtsustamismeetmed, millega anti riiklikele kontaktpunktidele suurem autonoomia teha

väikesi eelarvekohandusi ilma eelneva heakskiiduta, sujuvamat rakendamist ja aitasid kaasa

6 ERV teabelehed annavad poliitikakujundajatele konkreetse teema kohta peamised järeldused ja sõnumid.

Esitatud teave põhineb ERV kogutud ja analüüsitud teabe tulemustel, näiteks aruannetel ja uuringutel või

sihtotstarbelistel päringutel.

7 Euroopa Komisjon (2020), Euroopa rändevõrgustiku 2020. aasta aruanne. Kättesaadav aadressil:

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/00_eu_emn_status_report_2020_en.pdf. 8 2021. aasta aruanne. Kättesaadav aadressil: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-

01/EMN%20status%20report%202021%20final.pdf. 9 2021. aasta aruanne. Kättesaadav aadressil: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-

01/EMN%20status%20report%202021%20final.pdf. 10 27. juhtorgani koosolek. 11 ERV teabevahetusstrateegia aastateks 2021–2025 ja selle mõju jäävad käesoleva hindamise ajalisest

kohaldamisalast välja.

4

üldisele tõhususele. ERV rahastus osutus määravaks, et võrgustiku saavutatud tulemused ja

saadav kasu oleksid realiseeritavad ning kestlikud.

Juhtimise kohta kinnitas hindamine, et ERV eri komponendid toimisid kogu analüüsitud

perioodi jooksul kooskõlas ERV õigusliku alusega, sealhulgas osalesid juhtorgani koosolekutel

ja täitsid oma rolli vastavalt nõukogu otsusele 2008/381/EÜ. Kuna COVID-19 oli peamine

tegur, mis mõjutas ELi rände- ja varjupaigasüsteemi ning tõi kaasa suure hulga teemasid,

korraldati 2021. aastal kaks täiendavat juhtorgani koosolekut. ERV juhtimine pakkus

võrgustikule olulisi strateegilisi ja poliitilisi suuniseid, mida peeti märkimisväärseks

edasiminekuks võrreldes olukorraga, mis tuvastati eelmises, 2015. aasta hindamises. Samas

tehti kindlaks, et teaduseksperte ei olnud veel kaasatud juhtorgani abistamisse, nagu on nõutud

nõukogu otsuse 2008/381/EÜ artiklis 4, mistõttu selles küsimuses ei olnud alates 2015. aasta

hindamisest edusamme tehtud.

Riiklike kontaktpunktide koosseis oli kooskõlas nõukogu otsusega 2008/381/EÜ ning

hindamine kinnitas, et nad täitsid oma ülesandeid vastavalt selle otsuse sätetele.

ERV teenuse osutaja panust ERV toimimisse peeti tõhusaks ja toetavaks, kuid tuvastati vajadus

täiendavalt parandada dokumentide, sealhulgas koosolekute protokollide, õigeaegset esitamist.

Üldiselt kinnitas hindamine ERV sisemise struktuuri asjakohasust, mis võimaldas ERV-l oma

tegevust tõhusalt juhtida, ning ka head teadlikkuse taset rollide ja vastutuse sisemisest

jaotusest.

Hindamisel leiti, et ERV tegevus on kooskõlas Euroopa rände- ja varjupaigapoliitikaga,

sealhulgas rände- ja varjupaigaleppe ning muude valitud peamiste rändepoliitika algatustega.

ERV poliitikakujundamise toetamiseks ja üldsuse teavitamiseks koostatud väljundid olid

kooskõlas komisjoni eesmärgiga tagada õiglane ja tõhus varjupaiga-, tagasisaatmis- ja

integratsioonipoliitika ning ELi välispiiride parem haldamine. ERV panus praktilise koostöö

ja heade tavade vahetamise hõlbustamisse oli oluline vahend kehtiva ELi õigustiku

koordineeritumaks kohaldamiseks. See aitas kaasa jõupingutustele ühtlustada ühiste

standardite kohaldamist varjupaigamenetlustes, vastuvõtutingimustes ning rahvusvahelist

kaitset taotlevate kolmandate riikide kodanike taotluste rahuldamisel. ERV edendatud ühine

arusaam rändega seotud küsimustest toetas uue solidaarsusmehhanismi kasutuselevõttu

rändesurve olukorra lahendamisel. Usaldusväärse ja ajakohase teabe kogumine ja vahetamine

toetas parema kriisivalmiduse ja kriisidele reageerimise arendamist ning uute seaduslike

võimaluste kujundamist rände- ja varjupaigavaldkonnas.

ERV kogus ja esitas ELi sinise kaardi direktiiviga seotud asjakohast teavet12. Rände- ja

varjupaigavaldkonna aastaaruannetes ja riikide teabelehtedes ning kvartaalsetes bülletäänides

anti ülevaade liikmesriikide rakendatud riiklikest meetmetest, millega reguleeritakse

kolmandate riikide kodanike riiki sisenemist ja riigis elamist. See oli täielikult kooskõlas

direktiiviga, milles sätestatakse kolmandate riikide kodanike kõrget kvalifikatsiooni nõudva

töö eesmärgil liikmesriikidesse sisenemise ja seal elamise tingimused. Lisaks oli ERV panus

12 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 20. oktoobri 2021. aasta direktiiv (EL) 2021/1883, mis käsitleb kolmandate

riikide kodanike kõrget kvalifikatsiooni nõudva töö eesmärgil riiki sisenemist ja seal elamise tingimusi ja

millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks nõukogu direktiiv 2009/50/EÜ (ELT L 382, 28.10.2021, lk 1).

5

täiustatud rändeindikaatorite väljatöötamisse – sh koostöös asjaomaste ELi asutustega –

kooskõlas kõnealuse direktiiviga.

Samuti leiti, et ERV eesmärgid ja tegevus on kooskõlas rändajate ebaseadusliku üle piiri

toimetamise tõkestamise ELi tegevuskava eesmärkide ja meetmetega13. Mõlema algatuse

raames nähti ette rändajate ebaseadusliku üle piiri toimetamise kohta teabe kogumist,

haavatavate rändajate abistamist ning tihedamat koostööd kolmandate riikidega, et tõkestada

ebaseaduslikku rännet. Sellega seoses sisaldasid ERV rände- ja varjupaigavaldkonna

aastaaruanded ja riikide teabelehed aastatel 2018–2021 ülevaadet liikmesriikide viimastest

poliitika arengusuundadest rändajate ebaseadusliku üle piiri toimetamise tõkestamise

valdkonnas. ERV ja ELi tegevuskava toetasid koostööd kolmandate riikide ja asjaomaste ELi

asutustega ning objektiivse, ajakohase, usaldusväärse, asjakohase ja võrreldava teabe

koostamist.

Liikmesriikide tasandil võtsid liikmesriigid aastatel 2018–2021 meetmeid kõigis

poliitikavaldkondades, mida ERV hõlmab14.

ERV ja asjaomaste ametite (EUAA, Frontex ja FRA) vahelise koostöö analüüs näitas nende

eesmärkide ja tegevuste suurt sidusust ning kooskõla. Nii ERV kui ka ametite õiguslikud alused

sisaldavad konkreetseid sätteid, mille eesmärk on vältida kattuvusi, suurendades samal ajal

vastastikust sünergiat. Lisaks kutsuti ametite esindajaid regulaarselt ERV koosolekutele, et

edendada koostööd ja vältida töö dubleerimist.

Hindamise käigus kinnitati taas ERV ELi lisaväärtust, sest hindamine näitas, et paljud ERV

saavutused ei oleks olnud võimalikud ilma ERV töö ja toetuseta, eelkõige heade tavade

vahetamisel ja liikmesriikide vahelise püsiva praktilise koostöö tugevdamisel ning

liikmesriikide poliitikakujundajate teabevajaduste rahuldamisel.

Sidusrühmad kinnitasid taas, et ERV on loonud märkimisväärset lisaväärtust, sealhulgas

vahetult toetanud tõhustatud koostööd nii liidu sees kui ka väljaspool liitu. ERV stabiilne

iseloom ja selle ulatuslik haare paljude sidusrühmadeni nii valitsussektoris kui ka

valitsusvälises sektoris lõid keskkonna, kus kujunesid suhted ja sai areneda vastastikune

usaldus rände- ja varjupaigavaldkonna osalejate vahel nii liikmesriikide vahel kui ka

liikmesriikide sees. Püsivate suhete kujundamine liikmesriikide tasandil osalejatega oli oluline

selleks, et saada juurdepääs kindlatele andmetele ning tagada ajakohase ja tervikliku teabe

koostamine.

Hindamine kinnitas samuti, et ERV koostatud teave oli kvaliteedi, terviklikkuse ja

asjakohasuse poolest väga hea võrreldes muude liikmesriikide tasandil kättesaadavate

allikatega. Ükski teine ELi tasandi võrgustik ega organisatsioon ei olnud suuteline pakkuma

teabe kogumiseks ja jagamiseks samavõrd struktureeritud menetlusi ja kvaliteedistandardeid

ega tagama andmete edastamist ja vahetamist kõigi ERV liikmete vahel. Enamik sidusrühmi

13 Komisjoni teatis Euroopa Parlamendile, nõukogule, Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomiteele ning

Regioonide Komiteele, ELi tegevuskava rändajate ebaseadusliku üle piiri toimetamise tõkestamiseks (2015–

2020), COM(2015) 285 final. 14 Seaduslik ränne, rahvusvaheline kaitse, saatjata alaealised ja muud haavatavad rühmad, integratsioon ja

kaasamine, kodakondsus ja kodakondsusetus, piirid, viisad ja Schengeni ala, ebaseaduslik ränne, sh rändajate

ebaseaduslik üle piiri toimetamine, inimkaubandus, tagasisaatmine ja tagasivõtmine ning rände- ja arengu

alane koostöö.

6

pidas ERVd rändega seotud teabe, mida ei ole võimalik mujalt saada, ühe akna süsteemiks.

Hindamine näitas ka, et kui ERV tegevus lõpetataks, oleks keeruline tagada selle tegevuste ja

väljundite stabiilne jätkumine võrreldaval tasemel.

ERV asjakohasust kinnitas see, et ühelt poolt ERV väljundite, konverentside ja ürituste

temaatiline ulatus ning teiselt poolt ELi rände- ja varjupaigavaldkonna probleemid ja

prioriteedid olid suurel määral kooskõlas. Kuigi ERV põhieesmärgid jäid hindamisperioodil

muutumatuks, arenesid selle tööprogrammides loetletud erieesmärgid, milles pöörati üha enam

tähelepanu uutele tehnoloogiatele ja tõhustatud koostööle kolmandate riikidega. See muutuv

rõhuasetus kajastas esile kerkinud probleeme ja poliitika arengusuundi, mis on aastate jooksul

kujundanud ELi rände- ja varjupaigamaastikku.

Hindamisel kinnitati ERV toodete fookuse kooskõla liikmesriikide esitatud prioriteetsete

teemadega. Kuigi leiti, et ERV vastab liikmesriikide poliitikakujundajate vajadustele, kinnitati

vaid osaline kooskõla üldsuse vajadustega15.

3. JÄRELDUSED JA SAADUD KOGEMUSED

Hindamine kinnitas, et aastatel 2018–2021 oli ERV tegevus kooskõlas tema mandaadiga ning

toetas tema eesmärkide saavutamist. ERV tegevuste elluviimine osutus kulutõhusaks,

sealhulgas suure lisandväärtusega tegevuste puhul (liikmesriikide üritused ja osalemine ERV

koosolekutel).

ERV suurenevat tulemuslikkust kinnitas ka keskendumine tegevustele, mis suurendasid selle

nähtavust (veebis, väljaannete ja ürituste kaudu). Leiti, et seda rolli tuleb veelgi tugevdada, et

paremini kaasata riiklikke partnereid ERV tegevuste tutvustamiseks.

ERV tõhususe analüüsimine hindamise käigus osutus keerukaks, kuna metoodilised piirangud

puudutasid finantsandmete kättesaadavust: hinnatud aastate ja tõendusmaterjali kogumise

perioodi vahel oli ajanihe ning puudusid andmed konkreetse ajavahemiku 2018–2021 kohta,

sest hindamisperiood ei langenud kokku ERV tööprogrammidega. Seda leevendati, tuginedes

analüüsis eelarveeraldistele ning kaasates kättesaadavad finantsandmed 2017. ja 2022. aasta

kohta. Hoolimata piirangutest kinnitas hindamine, et AMIFi rahastus oli suuresti piisav ERV

toimimise katmiseks ning proportsionaalne ERV elluviidud erinevate tegevustega. Samuti leiti,

et ERV juhtimisstruktuur oli hindamisperioodil tööprogrammide kohaste erinevate tegevuste

elluviimiseks asjakohane. Samuti oli ERV teenuse osutajal oluline roll võrgustiku sujuva

toimimise tagamisel.

ELi tasandil kinnitati hindamisel ERV tegevuse ja ELi peamiste rände- ja varjupaigavaldkonna

prioriteetide sidususe kõrget taset. Leiti, et ERV eesmärgid olid kooskõlas hindamisperioodil

ELis võetud valitud asjakohaste algatustega, nimelt rände- ja varjupaigapaktiga, muudetud ELi

sinise kaardi direktiiviga ning ELi rändajate ebaseadusliku üle piiri toimetamise tõkestamise

tegevuskavaga. Neid algatusi tõsteti esile nende otsese asjakohasuse tõttu ERV analüüsi- ja

teabevahetustegevuse seisukohast. Hinnatud rahvusvaheliste raamistike käsitlus piirdus ERV

mandaadist tulenevalt rändega seotud tegevustega ELi liikmesriikides ja ERV vaatlejariikides.

15 Selle puudujäägi kõrvaldamiseks nähti ERV teabevahetuskavas aastateks 2021–2025 ette mitu

parandusmeedet.

7

Samuti leiti, et ERV terviklik lähenemine rändele on järjepidevalt kooskõlas kõigi nende

algatuste konkreetse tegevusulatusega. ERV toodete ainulaadsus seisneb nii nende

käsitletavate teemade laias spektris kui ka suutlikkuses koguda andmeid ja teavet otse

liikmesriikidelt, mis omakorda suurendas teabe usaldusväärsust ja võrreldavust. Lõpuks aitas

ERV ja ELi tasandi esindajate tõhustatud koostöö tagada, et ühiste eesmärkide elluviimisel ei

dubleeritaks jõupingutusi.

Liikmesriikide tasandil tehti samuti kindlaks, et ERV väljundites käsitletud teemad olid suurel

määral kooskõlas liikmesriikide poliitika arengusuundadega aastatel 2018–2021. See tulenes

eeskätt ERV konsultatsioonipõhisest teemade valikuprotsessist, mille käigus määrati kindlaks

toodetes prioriteediks seatavad teemad ja mis eeldas mitut konsultatsioonivooru komisjoni ja

liikmesriikide vahel nii juhtorgani kui ka riiklike kontaktpunktide tasandil ning aitas paremini

vastata liikmesriikide tasandil erinevate sidusrühmade vajadustele. Konsulteerimisprotsessi,

mis on võrgustiku eripära, nõrkuseks olid aeganõudvad korduvad konsultatsioonivoorud. Siiski

leiti, et konsultatsioonivoorudega seotud tajutud kulud kaalusid üles protsessist saadav kasu ja

saavutatud konsensus.

Hindamisel leiti ka, et ERV suutlikkus vastata üldsuse vajadustele jäi valdkonnaks, mis vajab

edasist parandamist. ERV koostatud teave oli kohati tehnilist laadi ega olnud seetõttu piisavalt

kohandatud üldsuse vajadustele. Vajadust paranduste järele nähti ka selles, kuidas ERV

tulemusi jagatakse. Kuigi ERV nähtavus ELi tasandil suurenes, osutusid liikmesriikide tasandi

teabevahetustegevused, sealhulgas suhtlus meediaga, nii arvult kui ka haardelt mõnevõrra

piiratuks ning ERV tegevustest teavitamine jäi peamiselt poliitikakujundajate ringi. Selle

lahendamiseks võttis ERV 2021. aastal mitu meedet, mille eesmärk oli parandada oma

tegevuste ja tulemuste tutvustamist ning avalikustamist laiemale üldsusele. Nende

jõupingutuste mõju analüüsitakse ERV järgmise hindamise käigus.

Hindamine kinnitas, et ERV on loonud märkimisväärset ELi lisaväärtust. Rände- ja

varjupaigavaldkonnas kvaliteetse ja võrreldava teabe ning heade tavade vahetamise ja

kättesaadavaks tegemise edendamist ning praktilise koostöö tugevdamist rändepoliitikas

liikmesriikide, ELi ja rahvusvaheliste organisatsioonide vahel ning liikmesriikide tasandil

osalejate seas ei oleks ilma võrgustiku tegevuseta olnud võimalik võrreldaval tasemel

saavutada. Lisaks aitasid ERV tooted kujundada ELi liikmesriikide poliitikakujundajate seas

ühist arusaama rändega seotud peamistest aspektidest.

Kui ERV tegevus oleks lõpetatud, oleks olnud keeruline tagada selle tegevuste jätkumist,

eelkõige liikmesriikide rändevõrgustike olemasolu, teabevahetust kolmandate riikidega ning

rände- ja varjupaigavaldkonna riiklike aruannete koostamist kõigis liikmesriikides. Selles

kontekstis leiti, et ERV õiguslik alus on asjakohane, kuna see tagas ERV eesmärkide

saavutamiseks piisavad volitused ja vastavad vahendid.

Hindamisel tuvastati viis valdkonda, millele tuleks edaspidi rohkem keskenduda, et parandada

ERV toimimist nii ELi kui ka liikmesriikide tasandil. Viis saadud kogemust on järgmised:

• täieliku kooskõla tagamine muutuvate ELi poliitikaprioriteetide ja tööprogrammides

määratletud ERV tegevuste vahel;

8

• selle tagamine, et Teadusuuringute Ühiskeskus (JRC) oleks regulaarselt kaasatud ERV

juhtorgani ja riiklike kontaktpunktide koosolekutesse;

• selle tagamine, et ERV rände- ja varjupaigavaldkonna aastaaruannetes ja uuringutes

oleks eraldi jaotis liikmesriikide heade tavade kohta;

• liikmesriikide rändestatistika koostamise juhiste väljatöötamine koostöös Eurostatiga;

• strateegia koostamine liikmesriikide rändevõrgustike loomiseks ja juhtimiseks.

Üldiselt tunnustati hindamises ERV positiivset panust ELi rändepoliitika

poliitikavajadustesse ja eesmärkide saavutamisse. Kõigi viie hinnatud kriteeriumi lõikes leiti

järjepidevalt, et ERV tulemused olid head: see oli tulemuslik asjakohaste tegevuste

elluviimisel, pakkus kindlat ELi lisaväärtust, kasutas kättesaadavaid ressursse hästi ja tõhusalt

ning tegutses sidusalt oma tegevusraamistiku piires. Hindamise käigus ei tehtud ettepanekuid

nõukogu otsuse 2008/381/EÜ muutmiseks.