Financial Framework of EU Migration and Asylum Policy

Reforming the Common European Asylum System

at the time of what seemed (but turned out not) to be the photo finish of the negotiations of the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) -the European Commission proposed the New Pact on Migration and Asylum with the appended package of new legislative proposal. The aim of this article is to look at the financial implications of the Migration Pact and examine whether the ambitions of the new Pact are reflected in the 2021-2027 MFF. The text will try to respond to two questions. Firstly, it will examine whether the Migration Pact generates new costs for the EU and its Member States and whether these costs have been calculated into the MFF; and secondly, it will consider whether the creation of additional costs by the Migration Pact could interfere with its successful adoption and implementation.

Studia Europejskie - Studies in European Affairs, 2018

The present migration and refugee crises in Europe required not only operational and legal EU responses but also budgetary ones. Additionally, the EU has resorted to use funds allocated to external action for migration purposes much more extensively than ever. This has turned the au-thors' attention to the external dimension of the EU migration and asylum budget. In a spirit of emergency accompanied with the urgent search for fl exibility the following budgetary measures on the external side were proposed: two trust funds: the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa and Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis along with the EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey. These actions had serious budgetary consequences since they resulted in establishment of new fi nancial solutions and hence caused budget reorganisation, refocus and reprioritisation. The new external developments have not only introduced cash pooling but also diminished the role of the European Parliament at the expense of the European Commission's one. Such an approach may have far-reaching consequences for the EU as it conveys new fl exibility, limits the role of the long-term programming and redefi nes the relationship between the EU and third countries.

This paper sets out three fundamental structural reasons for the failure to deliver a comprehensive and effective EU approach to the refugee crisis. It unpacks the complex decision-making processes on EU migration and asylum policy and highlights the barriers. It traces the evolution of EU migration and asylum policy, the complex system of competences that underpin decision-making, conflicting interests and approaches, and today’s financial arrangements, to set out where the constraints lie. Short-term approaches have failed to address the long-term nature of the problem. This paper concludes with recommendations to overcome some of the key constraints. This paper was co-authored with Mikaela Gavas (ODI) and Anna Knoll (ECDPM).

2019

To my parents, who once migrated to Madrid, and to my sons, Marco and David, who are also children of emigrants and for whom the world is their home He would also like to thank: Mauro Lanati, from the Migration Policy Centre of the EUI, for useful discussions on the relationship between aid and development and for sharing some of his data; Alessandro D' Alfonso, EU Fellow at the RSCAS and European Parliament official, for many helpful exchanges on the budgetary and financial implications of the EU's migration policy; Sergio Carrera (EUI and CEPS), for discussion and documentation on the new EU facilities for refugees and on EU cooperation with third countries on returns and readmission; Sonia Plaza, Dilip Ratha and Eung Ju Kim, from the World Bank, for data, documentation and insights on remittances; Caroline Bahnson and Thomas Djurhuus, also from the World Bank, for support on the IDA and GCFF refugee facilities; and Manuela Naessl (EBRD) for input on the EBRD. He is also very grateful to the following colleagues from the European Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) for providing valuable documentation, data or insights: Johan Bendz (DG BUDG), on the EU' s Multi-Annual Financial Framework; Antonella Colavita (DG NEAR and DG DEVCO) and Laszlo Csoto and Jean-Martial Marenne (both DG ECFIN), on the EIB, the External Investment Plan and the multilateral facilities for refugees; Joern Griesse and Dirk Lenaerts (DG ECFIN), on Macro-Financial Assistance; Frederik Schutyser (SG) and Dan Rotenberg (DG HOME), on the new Partnership Framework and EU policy on returns; Lucas Spieser (DG NEAR) and Sibylle Bikar (EEAS) on the EU-Turkey Statement and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey; Joanna Athlin (DG NEAR) on the Madad Fund; and Ignacio Burrull (DG DEVCO) on the EU's trust fund for Africa. Finally, the author is very grateful to Giorgio Giamberini for his superb job in formatting the book. i Table of Contents List of abbreviations iii 1. Introduction 2. Can aid work? A fresh look at the academic debate 2.1 Development and migration 2.2 Aid and migration: the direct link 2.3 The recent literature on aid and migration: a more encouraging view 3. Is EU ODA responding to the migration challenge? 3.1 General evidence from the academic literature 3.2 The actual response of EU aid: an updated analysis of ODA data 3.2.1 ODA flows and forced displacement 3.2.2 Regional breakdown of ODA and overall migration flows 3.3 The role of EU institutions and the MFF for 2021-2027 4. The EU's new trust funds and facilities for refugees 4.1 Basic features and rationale of the new facilities 4.2 Performance of the new facilities: achievements and criticism 5. Other external financial instruments of the EU 5.1 The EIB's External Lending and its Economic Resilience Initiative 5.2 The European External Investment Plan 5.3 Macro-Financial Assistance 6. The new multilateral facilities for refugees 6.1 The IDA's refugee facility for low-income countries 6.2 The Global Concessional Financing Facility 6.3 The EBRD´s refugee response package ii 7. The relevance of climate change finance 7.1 The debate on the relationship between climate change and migration 7.2 The EU's climate finance response in an international context 7.3 Scope for improvement in the composition of climate change finance 8. The role of remittances 8.1 A financial flow of growing importance 8.1 Why remittances matter for migration 8.3 An EU policy strategy for remittances 9. Increasing aid effectiveness through compacts 9.1 Compacts as a developmental approach to refugee protection 9.2 The EU-Jordan Compact 9.3 The EU-Turkey Statement 9.4 The Partnership Framework with Third Countries on Migration 9.5 A new framework for refugee aid: the UN's Global Refugee Compact 10. Conclusions and policy recommendations

2018

The EU faces major challenges in asylum and migration policy: reorganize the EU asylum system, secure the external border, curb irregular immigration through cooperation with African governments, and support developing countries that host large numbers of refugees from Syria and elsewhere. These challenges are inter-connected and require a comprehensive approach with broad support by all EU member states. However, member states are affected by immigration in substantially different ways and the political preferences of policy makers and voters also vary widely–necessitating implementable proposals to overcome the EU’s asylum and immigration impasse. In the '2018 MEDAM Assessment Report', we propose a comprehensive strategy for EU asylum and immigration policies that is both politically feasible and effective, based on the concept of flexible solidarity between EU member states.

2006

The European Union plays an increasingly influential role in the management of asylum-seekers and refugees in Europe. This paper addresses the question why European states have decided to cooperate in this policy area and why they have been prepared to give EU institutions an increasingly greater role in this process. It seeks to offer new insights into the motivation for international cooperation in this area, analyzing in particular how the EU has sought to address collective action problems that states are faced with when dealing with asylum seekers. EU asylum policies initiatives both before and after 9/11 will be scrutinized and assessed in view of their success in providing an effective and equitable regulatory framework for asylum and refugee policy in Europe.

ReSOMA Discussion Brief, 2018

Asylum is a common concern for both Northern and Southern European countries, although they look at the problem from different perspectives. Southern countries are in fact exposed to pressures of irregular migration and asylum seeking because of their geographical proximity to zones of instability and conflict and have to find ways to effectively filter mixed flows, providing international protection to those who need it and managing irregular migration. On the other hand, Northern European countries are more "protected" from irregular migration because of their geographical position but have been traditionally the preferred destinations of asylum seekers and hence face mostly the problem of properly processing applications rather than that of filtering them at their borders. There is an important gap, though, in the asylum acquis that needs to be addressed. While rejections are valid throughout the EU, hence if a member state rejects the application of an asylum seeker s/he cannot apply in another member state, positive decisions do not provide for an EU status nor member states are obliged to recognize such decisions.

The European asylum system is a relatively advanced regional protection framework, in both legislative and policy terms. However, that same system lacks a mechanism to distribute responsibility fairly among the Member States, as well as legal avenues by which persons in need of protection can access it. To the backdrop of the Syrian crisis and the rising toll of migrant deaths in the Mediterranean Sea, this brief analyses achievements and shortcoming in the area of solidarity and fair-sharing of responsibility between Member States, as well as the external dimension of EU's common asylum system. In view of the adoption by the European Commission of a "European Agenda on Migration", it offers tangible ideas for EU policy action that could meaningfully develop this policy and help address the humanitarian tragedy on the EU's borders.

What has been the impact of the EU's multifaceted crisis on asylum law and policy development? The article argues that the EU has sought to safeguard the core of its asylum policy by adding new layers of policy instruments in response to both the financial and economic crisis post-2008 and the refugee crisis starting in 2015. These instruments have had the overarching aim of providing EU member states facing high migratory pressures and/or financial constraints with additional support. Their efficiency, however, has remained questionable, reflected by a widening gap between the EU's asylum laws and actual asylum practices of member states. By avoiding a paradigm shift in asylum policy, the EU has come to face a difficult situation: the implementation of the existing EU asylum rules may overburden southern member states while the perpetuated ignorance of these rules risks overburdening northern member states.