| Dokumendiregister | Riigikogu |
| Viit | 1-2/26-458/1 |
| Registreeritud | 30.06.2026 |
| Sünkroonitud | 01.07.2026 |
| Liik | EL dokument |
| Funktsioon | |
| Sari | |
| Toimik | KOMISJONI ARUANNE EUROOPA PARLAMENDILE, NÕUKOGULE, EUROOPA MAJANDUS- JA SOTSIAALKOMITEELE NING REGIOONIDE KOMITEELE Euroopa rändevõrgustiku hindamise kohta (2018-2021) - SWD(2026) 173, COM(2026) 322 |
| Juurdepääsupiirang | Avalik |
| Adressaat | |
| Saabumis/saatmisviis | |
| Vastutaja | |
| Originaal | Ava uues aknas |
| Taotle dokumendi eemaldamist või parandamist |
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.