FINAL EVALUATION OF THE THEMATIC PROGRAMME
Anuncio
THE EUROPEAN UNION’S DCI PROGRAMME FINAL EVALUATION OF THE THEMATIC PROGRAMME "COOPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES IN THE AREA OF MIGRATION AND ASYLUM" Letter of Contract N° 2012/306987 Specific Contract N° 2012/311110 FINAL REPORT Prepared by Armand ROUSSELOT Luca AIOLFI Anna CHARPIN June 2013 The project is financed by the European Union The project is implemented by IBF International Consulting “The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.” TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 6 1. Evaluation Framework and Methodology .......................................................................................... 10 2. Context .............................................................................................................................................. 16 3. Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 24 EQ 1: To what extent is EU cooperation through the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum addressing the five dimensions of migratory phenomena (fighting illegal immigration and human trafficking, fostering links between migration and development, promoting well managed labour migration, protecting migrants’ rights against exploitation and exclusion, promoting asylum and international protection of migrants) as identified in the strategic documents and in line with the DCI regulation (art.16) ? .................................................................................................................... 24 EQ 2: To what extent does the Thematic Programme promote projects relevant to the needs and problems identified in the specific regions and countries that are included in the geographical focus and is flexible to respond to new and emerging issues ? ................................................................. 27 EQ 3: To what extent has EU cooperation through the Thematic Programme been implemented in ways which are appropriate to achieve its stated objectives? .......................................................... 30 EQ 4: To what extent has EU cooperation through the TPMA been coordinated with and complementary to cooperation in the areas of Migration and Asylum implemented through other instruments and by other donors?..................................................................................................... 33 EQ 5: To what extent has EU cooperation through the TPMA integrated democratic principles (human rights, rule of law, core labour standards) into strategy and implementation ? ................... 35 EQ 6 - To what extent did the Thematic Programme contribute to raise awareness of policy makers, civil society and citizens, both in Europe and beneficiary countries, of the EU response to the complex phenomenon of migration ? ............................................................................................... 37 EQ 7: To what extent is EU cooperation through the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum contributing to results related to fostering the links between migration and development? ............. 39 EQ 8 – To what extent is EU cooperation through the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum contributing to results related to “Fighting Irregular Migration and facilitating the readmission of illegal immigrants”? ....................................................................................................................... 44 EQ 9: To what extent is EU cooperation through the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum contributing to results related to promoting asylum and international protection? ............................ 48 EQ 10: To what extent is EU cooperation through the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum contributing to promoting well managed labour migration? ................................................. 51 EQ 11. To what extent is EU cooperation through the thematic programme on migration and asylum contributing to protecting migrants against exploitation and exclusion and supporting the fight against trafficking of human beings................................................................................................... 54 4. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 58 Annexes ................................................................................................................................................. 63 ANNEX 1 – CONSOLIDATED PROJECT LIST ANNEX 2 - EVALUATION QUESTIONS, JUDGEMENT CRITERIA AND INDICATORS MATRIX ANNEX 3 - PROJECT FICHE TEMPLATE ANNEX 4 - QUESTIONNAIRES FOR BENEFICIARIES AND FOR EU DELEGATIONS ANNEX 5 - PROJECT MAPPING ANNEX 6 – CALL FOR PROPOSAL 2011-2012 PROJECTS MAPPING ANNEX 7 – EU POLICY COMPENDIUM ANNEX 8 –TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE EVALUATION ANNEX 9 – QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DELEGATION ANALYSIS ANNEX 10 – QUESTIONNAIRE FOR BENEFICIARIES ANALYSIS ANNEX 11 – LISTS OF PERSONS MET ANNEX 12 – DOCUMENT AND BIBLIOGRAPHY LIST Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 3 of 63 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AAP Annual Action Programme AENEAS ASEAN Programme for Financial and Technical Assistance to Third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum Association of Southeast Asian Nations CARDS Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation CARIM Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration CBSS Capacity Building on Strengthening the Civil Society CfP Call for Proposal CSO Civil Society Organisation CSP Country Strategy Paper DCI Development Co-operation Instrument DEVCO Directorate General for Development and Cooperation - EuropeAid EC European Commission ECOWAS Economic Commission of West African States ECRE European Council on Refugees and Exiles EDF European Development Fund EIDHR European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights ENPI European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument EASO European Asylum Support Office EU European Union GAMM Global Approach to Migration and Mobility ICMPD International Centre for Migration Policy Development INAFI International Network of Alternative Financial Institutions GCIM Global Commission on International Migration ILO International Labour Organisation IOM International Organization for Migration JMDI Joint Migration and Development Initiative LAC Latin America and the Caribbean LCO Local Community Organisation MDGs Millennium Development Goals MEDA Mesures D'Accompagnement (Euro-Mediterranean partnership) MIDSA Migration for Development in South Africa MIDWA Migration for Development in West Africa MIEUX Migration EU expertise NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NIP National Indicative Programme OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development PBMM Promoting Better Migration Management Programme (Nigeria) PICT Pacific Island Countries and Territories PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper RG Reference Group Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 4 of 63 RPP Regional Protection Programme RSP Regional Strategy Paper SADC Southern African Development Community TACIS Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States ToRS Terms of Reference TP Thematic Programme TPMA UNDAF Thematic Programme on Cooperation with Third Countries in the areas of Migration and Asylum United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNDCP United Nations International Drug Control Programme UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 5 of 63 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objectives of the evaluation The overall objective of this evaluation was to assess the achievements of the Thematic Programme “Cooperation with Third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum (TPMA)”, taking into account its evolution since its inception in 2007. As stated in the Terms of Reference, the specific objectives of the evaluation were: to assess the overall capacity of the TPMA programme to achieve its objectives, as well as the appropriateness of the chosen management modalities and to evaluate the implementation, outputs and expected long-term impact of specific TPMA projects in 8 selected countries (Armenia, Brazil, Colombia, Georgia, India, Lebanon, Nigeria and South Africa). While the evaluation has focused primarily on the period from 2010 to 2012, it has also taken into account key remarks of the Mid-Term Review of the TPMA (covering the period 2007-2009) and of other pertinent evaluations (such as the “Evaluation of the concrete results obtained through projects financed under AENEAS and the TPMA”), in order to provide the European Commission with overall findings and recommendations covering, to the possible extent, the entire life cycle of the TPMA. Methodology This evaluation was carried out on the basis of a logical structure consisting of 11 Evaluation Questions (EQs). These questions, of both general and sub-thematic nature, were answered by the team as a result of an analysis of specific Judgement Criteria and relevant Indicators (see Annex 2 for a complete Evaluation Questions Matrix). During the inception phase, the lists of projects to be visited in the field or to be assessed through a desk study were finalized (Annex1) and all the related methodological tools were developed (see Annexes 3 – Project Fiche and 4 – Questionnaires for beneficiaries and EU Delegations) and approved by the EC Reference Group. The implementation phase consisted of a combination of an extended desk study of the context, EU policy compendium and of relevant documentation on the selected projects and field visits to the targeted eight countries (Armenia, Brazil, Colombia, Georgia, India, Lebanon, Nigeria and South Africa), which took place from March to early May 2013. Multiple sources were used to gather evidence during the evaluation (including experts' interviews in the field, project mapping, analysis of responses provided by project beneficiaries and EU Delegations to specialised questionnaires etc.); this allowed for a reasonable amount of confirmation and consistency-checking. Final synthesis of all the collected evidence took place during the reporting phase which led to the preparation and submission of the final report. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 6 of 63 Context Global context The European Union remains a major destination region and hosts approximately 23% of the world’s international migrants. In 2011, it is estimated that out of the 33.3 million migrants living in the EU, 1 20.5 million (61.5%) were third country nationals (nationals of non-EU countries). While the economic crisis appears to have reduced the irregular migration flows, it has not had a dramatic effect on the overall migration flows which have not declined significantly. Ageing population, compounded with an overall negative fertility rate, remains one of the biggest challenges faced by European countries. As population ages, the number of persons of working age relative to the number of persons above working age will decrease over the next 50 years by 50% and it can be safely said that migration will no doubt have to contribute to the renewal of the European working force. There has been a rapid evolution in the European Commission’s external engagement on migration issues, characterized by a re-orientation from considering migration as primarily a security challenge to an area for constructive cooperation with partner countries. 2 The Agenda for Change clearly spells out the nexus between development and migration calling for assistance to “developing countries in strengthening their policies, capacities and activities in the area of migration and mobility, with a view to maximize the development impact of the increased regional and global mobility of people.” EU Policies Among the major relevant policies and instruments developed by the EU in the area of Migration and Asylum, the Stockholm Programme (Council Doc 17024/09), calls for the development of a comprehensive and sustainable migration and asylum policy framework, in line with the principles and instruments set out in the Global Approach to Migration and the European Pact on Migration and Asylum. The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (SEC (2011) 1353 final) of 18/11/2011 (GAMM) is the most recent policy instrument developed by the European Union to respond to the challenges of changing migration trends. In line with the Stockholm Programme and its Action Plan, the GAMM sets the path towards a more consistent, systematic and strategic policy framework for the EU’s relations with all relevant non-EU countries, including specific proposals for developing key partnerships with countries and other partners sharing concerns and interests with the Union in the area of migration and Asylum. The GAMM is migrant-centred and the observance of the human rights of migrants is a cross-cutting dimension, of relevance to the four GAMM pillars and to be applied in all interventions in origin, transit and destination countries alike. While governments are still at the core of the EU relations with partner countries, the document recognises that civil society has an important role to play that should be reflected in financial and contractual agreements. The Thematic Programme The general objective of the Thematic Programme on Cooperation with Third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum is to support third countries in ensuring better management of migratory flows in all their dimensions. The Programme covers all the essential thematic facets of the migratory phenomenon (migration and development, labour migration, irregular immigration, trafficking in human beings, migrant’s rights, asylum and international protection). The Thematic Programme seeks to enhance capacity building and encourage cooperation initiatives in the areas of migration and asylum 1 2 OECD (2012) International Migration Outlook 2012, Paris: OECD http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0637:FIN:EN:PDF Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 7 of 63 and is implemented in complementarity with geographic instruments such as the ENPI, EDF, and the geographical programmes of the DCI, through which the root causes of migration may be addressed directly. Conclusions and Recommendations Following the mission findings, the team has elaborated five core conclusions: 1. It can be positively assessed that the TPMA is implemented in relevance and coherence with the external dimension of the EU policies on migration and asylum and complying with its legal basis (DCI Art 16) in all five dimensions of the migratory phenomenon. Improvements in some areas would however increase its efficiency 2. Although the rate of participation of CSOs in the TPMA equals the IOs participation, the project beneficiaries remain largely the International Organisations, International CSOs and to a lesser extent EU MS Governments. The participation of partner country CSOs remains low and would benefit from an adjustment of the TPMA implementing modalities 3. The participation of Partner Country Governments as active stakeholders can be assessed as acceptable in the areas of irregular migration (border management and readmission) and to a lesser extent labour migration, but often too weak in other areas, resulting in low level of ownership and sustainability 4. Most migratory movements take place at regional level and mostly for economic reasons. While effective in capacity building, return and reintegration and protection, of migrant workers, the TPMA is not efficient in reaching regional organisations and doesn’t effectively complement geographical and other relevant donors' programmes in a South-South migration context 5. It can be positively assessed that overall the TPMA has been implemented following modalities which are appropriate to achieve EU cooperation objectives in the field of migration and asylum. However, improvements in the ways these modalities are structured and used would increase the effectiveness and impact of the programme In turn, these conclusions have led to the following five clusters of core recommendations which are listed here in full version and in an order of priority reflecting the team’s view. In the text of the report, the recommendations have been listed differently as linked to the five conclusions they relate to. Priority 1 (Recommendation 3) We recommend that partner countries governments be involved from the onset in the development of all projects. For projects developed at national level, efforts have to be made to involve all government stakeholders and not only the sectoral Ministries and Agencies so as to develop a national sense of ownership and limit as much as possible inter-agency competition. The role of EU Delegations in this regard is important, not only in the project design but also in ensuring complementarity with other EUfunded instruments. This recommendation is also valid for global or multi-country projects so that third country governments are fully informed and willing to participate. EU Delegations need to maintain a high level of coordination and information sharing with relevant Government counterparts, to support the integration of the TPMA outcomes in national and regional policies and strategies as well as to support the dialogue on EU policies. The coordination of strategies and interventions with other donors as well as with EU MS also needs to be strengthened in order to avoid duplication of efforts and resources. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 8 of 63 External and/or independent project evaluations are not compulsory in all TPMA projects; in order to have objective results and impact assessment, their use need to be better regulated. Furthermore, we recommend including in the future TPMA some project guidelines and a specific reporting process in order for the beneficiary governments to report on project(s) implemented in their country. This would also have the advantage of having better informed policy makers participating in the dialogue as well as raising the level of awareness for policy changes. Priority 2 (Recommendation 4) We recommend to increase the level of information sharing and communication with the Regional Economic Commissions, EU partners and other stakeholders (donors, EU Member States, International Organizations) active in South-South migration at regional level on the TPMA results and lessons learnt in order to foster the development of common knowledge bases, to enhance effective coordination of policies, strategies and interventions as well as to ensure a better synergy in the utilisation of resources and funding. We recommend to also increase the level of coherence and coordination in the areas of migration and asylum between the Thematic Programme and on-going or forthcoming Geographical Programmes. Furthermore, better coherence and coordination should also be sought among the various TPMA projects in a given country or region (when relevant), in particular between those selected through the CfP modality and the targeted initiatives awarded through direct negotiation. In relation to this recommendation, EU Delegations in the relevant geographic areas need to maintain the level of information-sharing and coordination necessary to support the process. Priority 3 (Recommendation 2) We recommend that different options are introduced in future Call for Proposals guidelines as regards minimum/maximum amounts and duration of proposals for different categories of beneficiaries in order, inter alia, to stimulate the participation of "non-traditional" applicants, allow national/local NGOs and smaller organizations to elaborate proposals which are more in line with their needs and operational capacity, and conversely introduce longer periods of implementation for complex initiatives and multi-country projects. To improve the level of support to NGOs and CSOs developing and implementing projects on migrants rights and protection of vulnerable groups or projects with a strong rights-based component. Governments need to be fully informed and made aware of the project at its early stage of development so as to foster acceptance, ownership and positive impact on policy changes or on their effective application. The role of EU Delegations is also crucial in bringing together national authorities and stakeholders in consultative processes to support project adoption. Priority 4 (Recommendation 1) We recommend the introduction of a new modality in the future TPMA, initially on a pilot basis and in parallel with a centralized Call for Proposals, by launching some local calls in carefully selected countries, taking into account the feedback of relevant Delegations. This is expected to increase the capacity to plan effective responses at country level for the various sub-themes, to avoid duplication and overlapping as well as to set up a more thorough coordination process with partners, which might be further replicated in future. The coordination and exchange of information between the HQ in Brussels and the EU Delegations on project development should be increased in order to ensure and enhance project efficiency and impact at national and regional level. Equally important is that multi-project beneficiaries inform the EU Delegations on upcoming and on-going activities taking place in their country. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 9 of 63 Human resource constraints in the EU Delegations should be addressed when appropriate in order to ensure effective implementation, monitoring efficiency and enable sustained coordination of activities in the field of migration and asylum. This could be done through the establishment of dedicated focal points on migration in selected EUDs where relevant and needed, whether at national or regional level. Priority 5 (Recommendation 5) As regards the main modality used for selecting TPMA actions, we recommend that in order to increase the flexibility and effectiveness of future TPMA, the period of time between the launch of a Call for Proposals and the actual start of selected projects is substantially reduced and, in case of changes of priorities affecting the original design of a proposal, a flexibility factor is built in the process to allow for such changes to be rapidly incorporated. See recommendations N° 1, 2, 3 and 4 as regards the role of EU Delegations, also valid for this recommendation 5. 1. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY 1.1 Brief background and purpose The overall objective of the assignment was to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the achievements of the Thematic Programme “Cooperation with Third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum (TPMA)”, taking into account its evolution since the inception in 2007. The specific objectives of the evaluation, as mentioned in the Terms of Reference, are as follows: 1. to assess the overall capacity of the TPMA programme to achieve its objectives, as well as the appropriateness of the chosen management modalities; and 2. to evaluate the implementation, outputs and expected long term impact of specific TPMA projects in 8 selected countries (Armenia, Brazil, Colombia, Georgia, India, Lebanon, Nigeria and South Africa) With regard to the first specific objective, the evaluation has covered primarily the period from 2010 to 2012 but it has nevertheless taken into account the key remarks of the mid-term review of the TPMA (covering the period 2007-2009) and of other pertinent evaluations (such as the “Evaluation of the concrete results obtained through projects financed under AENEAS and the TPMA”) in order to provide the European Commission with overall findings and recommendations covering, to the possible extent, the entire life cycle of the TPMA. For this reason, a preliminary analysis of a sample of projects recently selected - and to be implemented from 2013 onwards – has also taken place during the evaluation. In carrying out the evaluation, particular attention has been paid to the following additional issues: Overall capacity of the TPMA, including its strategies and its management modalities, to promote projects relevant to the needs and problems of a specific country/region; Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the projects funded through the TPMA in the 8 target countries; Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 10 of 63 Coherence and coordination between the projects funded through the TPMA and the overall national context, namely national migration policies/strategies, CSPs, interventions supported through geographic instruments or other TPs, interventions supported by other donors; Interplay between TPMA projects selected through a call for proposals and TPMA targeted initiatives, with a specific focus on global or multi-country facilities (JMDI, MIEUX etc.); Effectiveness of the Call for Proposals as modality of funding compared to other procedures (e.g. direct award, call for tender). 1.2 Phases of the evaluation, evaluation questions and methodological approach The inception phase started with a briefing meeting which took place at DG DEVCO on 18 February 2013. During the meeting, the Terms of Reference were discussed in detail and methodological aspects relating to the evaluation were presented by the evaluation team. The lists of projects to be studied for each of the targeted countries during the field visits were finalized soon after the briefing. In addition to projects in the targeted countries, an additional sample of 22 projects (to be studied during the desk phase) was drawn up. The selection was based on sub-thematic considerations - as not all typologies of projects were necessarily implemented in the target countries or regions visited and having regards as much as possible to ToR requirements, such as on giving particular attention to projects implemented during the period 2010-2012. The list also included two targeted initiatives (projects awarded through direct award) with multi-theme and global character, in order to complement the analysis of targeted initiatives performed during the visits. 3 Finally, the evaluation has also covered the preliminary analysis of 16 out of the 49 new projects selected from the Call for Proposal 2011-2012, which were recently contracted and will be implemented from 2013 onwards. This has enabled the evaluation to incorporate a perspective on more recent trends, main features of projects expected to start in the near future as well as statistical analysis relating to migratory themes, implementing partners, with a view to providing the evaluation with an overall picture of the TPMA. Annex 1 provides a consolidated list of projects assessed during the evaluation showing with separate colours the three blocks of projects chosen in line with the referred methodology: a):projects in target countries visited by the experts (Armenia, Brazil, Colombia, Georgia, India, Lebanon, Nigeria and South Africa); b) desk study; c) Call for Proposals 2011-2012. During the inception phase, the evaluation team has elaborated a set of 11 evaluation questions (general and thematic) which follow the logical structure adopted for the Mid-Term Review of the TPMA, with the necessary adjustments. The evaluation questions (see Annex 2 for a complete matrix which includes relevant judgment criteria and indicators) are: 3 Inclusion in the sample was made on the basis of approximately three new projects per migratory theme. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 11 of 63 General EQs EQ 1: To what extent is the EU cooperation through the TPMA addressing the five dimensions of migratory phenomena (fighting illegal immigration and human trafficking, fostering links between migration and development, promoting well managed labour migration, protecting migrants’ rights against exploitation and exclusion, promoting asylum and international protection of migrants) as identified in the strategic documents and in line with the DCI regulation (art.16)? EQ 2: To what extent does the TPMA promote projects relevant to the needs and problems identified in the specific regions and countries which are included into the geographical focus and is it flexible to respond to new and emerging issues? EQ 3: To what extent has EU cooperation through the TPMA been implemented in ways which are appropriate to achieve its stated objectives? EQ 4: To what extent has EU cooperation through the TPMA been coordinated with and complementary to cooperation in the area of Migration and Asylum implemented through other instruments or by other donors? EQ 5: To what extent has EU cooperation through the TPMA integrated democratic principles (human rights, rule of law, core labour standards) into strategy and implementation? EQ 6: To what extent did the TPMA contribute to raise awareness of policy makers, civil society, and citizens, both in Europe and beneficiary countries, of the EU response to the complex phenomenon of migration? Thematic EQs EQ 7: To what extent is EU cooperation through the TPMA contributing to results related to fostering the links between migration and development? EQ 8: To what extent is EU cooperation through the TPMA contributing to results related to fighting irregular migration and facilitating the readmission of illegal immigrants? EQ 9: To what extent is EU cooperation through the TPMA contributing to results related to promoting asylum and international protection? EQ 10: To what extent is EU cooperation through the TPMA contributing to promoting well managed labour migration? EQ 11: To what extent is EU cooperation through the TPMA contributing to protecting migrants against exploitation and exclusion and supporting the fight against trafficking of human beings? During the inception phase, the evaluation team has also developed a project fiche format/grid to be used during the field phase in order to summarize the most significant information on the projects to be visited. This format/grid (see Annex 3) has proved to be particularly useful for comparing different initiatives throughout the assignment and for facilitating the drafting of comprehensive answers to evaluation questions during the reporting phase. Project fiches of those projects that could be fully assessed during the visits are annexed to this report. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 12 of 63 Matrix of the linkages between the EQs and the Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation EQ1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 EQ5 EQ6 EQ 7 EQ8 criterion Relevance x x Effectiveness x Efficiency x Cross-cutting issue EU added value X X EQ10 EQ 11 x x x Impact 3Cs EQ9 X x x x x X x x Finally, two questionnaires were prepared, one specifically for beneficiary institutions and the other for EU Delegations (see Annex 4). These questionnaires were sent at an early stage of the implementation phase to the relevant beneficiaries (implementing organizations of most projects included in the samples) and selected EU Delegations. The analysis of the input provided by respondents proved to be very useful in defining overall answers to the various evaluation questions. The implementation phase consisted of a combination of an extended desk study and field visits to the eight targeted countries. In the desk study the experts have conducted an in-depth analysis of the TPMA’s legal basis, as well as of communications and policy papers directly or indirectly related to its objectives and priorities, multi-annual strategy papers, previous relevant evaluations (e.g. AENEAS, Mid-Term Evaluation of the TPMA, Evaluation of the concrete results obtained through projects financed under AENEAS and the TPMA), Annual Action Programmes, Calls for Proposals guidelines, and of documents and reports of the various projects included in the various lists. Unfortunately, for some of these projects documentation arrived quite late or was not always available (in particular interim and/or final reports); some projects were therefore analysed in rather general terms during the desk phase and only partially included in the evaluation. Likewise, a few completed projects could not be evaluated in the target countries due to unavailability of implementing organizations (either not anymore present there, or because they did not respond to the questionnaire) and other key stakeholders. These projects were therefore removed from the original country lists. With only a slight change from the Terms of Reference in the selection of the countries to be visited, 4 the Evaluation Team has undertaken field visits (from March to early May 2013) to the following eight beneficiary countries: Armenia, Brazil, Colombia, Georgia, India, Lebanon, Nigeria and South Africa. During the field visits, the experts conducted interviews with local representatives of the implementing organizations, with direct and indirect project target groups and, whenever possible, with present or former participants in project activities, as well as local authorities, representatives from international organizations and other active and relevant stakeholders in the area of migration and asylum. Information was collected and analysed by the experts using the project fiche template, the questionnaires (as applicable) and any other methodological tool which was deemed useful for the purpose of building up elements of answer to the evaluation questions. A few short visits to locations in Europe, originally envisaged in the Inception Report, for conducting interviews with a selected group of beneficiaries and/or key stakeholders could not take place due to timing constraints. 4 The three experts have travelled independently from each other to the various countries (2 to 3 countries each) after an internal repartition of tasks. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 13 of 63 At the end of the implementation phase, the experts have proceeded to prepare the draft final report which has been submitted to the EC Reference Group on 21 May 2013. Following review by the European Commission and the time required to incorporate comments and amend the draft, the Final Report and relevant annexes were submitted to DG DEVCO on 30 May 2013. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 14 of 63 Intervention Logic Thematic Priorities Expected results Intermediate impact Specific impacts Global impact Capacities for migration management are improved and used in national policy development Mobility partnerships are facilitated and better supported Fostering the links between migration and development Circular movements of skilled migrants are facilitated Contribution of diasporas to national development is increased Migrants are better informed and trained to respond to needs of Labour markets in EU MS Legislative frameworks for migrant workers are improved Promoting well managed labour migration Labour Migration management tools are developed in beneficiary countries Links between migration and Development fostered Rights of migrants and of their families are better protected and respected Well managed Labour Migration is promoted Border management, travel document management and fraud detection capacities are improved Fighting Irregular Migration and facilitating the readmission of illegal migrants Capacities to fight Smuggling and trafficking in human beings capacities are improved Readmission agreements implementation is facilitated Management of illegal migration and policies are better coordinated Irregular Migration fought ; readmission of illegal migrants is facilitated Asylum and International Protection are promoted Migrants are protected against exploitation and exclusion International standards and instruments on refugee protection are promoted Promoting asylum and International Protection Better assistance and protection are provided to Asylum seekers and Refugees Regional Protection Programmes are better supported Protecting migrants against exploitation and exclusion Vulnerable migrants are better protected against exploitation and exclusion Human and Migrants Rights international standards and instruments implementation are supported NationalProgramme legislations and policies are improved to fight Final Evaluation of the Thematic "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" exclusion and xenophobia Page 15 of 63 Third countries better manage migratory flows in all their dimensions Support to the eradication of poverty by enhancing the developmental benefits of migration for migrants and countries alike in the respect of democracy and human rights. 2. CONTEXT 2.1 Migration patterns and trends in Europe There are approximately 230 million international migrants worldwide. Since the 1990s, the EU has emerged as a major destination region. It is now home to approximately 23 per cent of the world's 5 international migrants, making it second only to North America as a destination region . 6 Figure 1: number of international migrants by destination region in 2010 (in millions) . Prior to the economic crisis, immigration to the EU Member States was running at between 3 and 4 million people per year. In 2008, when the crisis hit, 3.8 million people migrated to and within the 27 Member States, while 2.3 million emigrated, resulting in a positive net migration of 1.5 million people. Approximately 55 per cent of these migrants originated from outside the EU, while 44 per cent moved from one EU country to another. In 2009, immigration fell to approximately 3 million and emigration fell 7 to 1.9 million, resulting in net migration of 1.1 million . By 2011, there were 33.3 million foreign citizens living in EU Member States, out of which 20.5 million were third country nationals (i.e. nationals of non-EU countries). The number of foreign-born (which includes those who have naturalized or are dual nationals) was 48.9 million or 9.7 per cent of the total population. Of these, 32.4 million were born outside the EU and 16.5 million were born in another EU Member State. Most foreigners (over 75 per cent of the total) live in one of the following five Member 8 States: Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy and France . The composition of legal migration flows in terms of the types of migration (e.g. work, study, family, humanitarian reasons) also varies between Member States. Free movement migration (i.e. movement of EU nationals from one Member State to another) accounts for a significant proportion of migration in all EU Member States. Family reunification is the second most important category in many EU 5 International Organisation for Migration, World Migration Report 2010, Geneva: IOM International Organisation for Migration, World Migration Report 2010, Geneva: IOM 7 OECD (2012) International Migration Outlook 2012, Paris: OECD 8 Vasileva, K. (2012) ‘Nearly two-thirds of the foreigners living in EU Member States are citizens of countries outside the EU-27’, Eurostat Statistics in Focus 31/2012 6 Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 16 of 63 Member States, while work-related migration of non-EU nationals accounts for 30 per cent or more: immigrants to Italy (40 per cent), to United Kingdom (33 per cent), to Spain (30 per cent).Nonetheless work-related migration of non-EU nationals constitutes only less than 9 per cent of inflows to Germany. Across the EU, humanitarian migration (asylum-seekers and refugees) exceeds 10 per cent 9 of total inflows only in Finland (17 per cent) and Sweden (19 per cent) . While the economic crisis has certainly affected migration flows, the overall effects are both less dramatic and more mixed than might be expected. Migration flows to the EU peaked in 2007, but the overall decline since then has not been especially marked. In some countries immigration has dropped dramatically, while in others it has remained stable or even increased. The number of irregular migrants living in the EU is, by definition, difficult to estimate. Irregular migrants are a 'hard-to-reach' population and for obvious reasons are often reluctant to engage with government officials. Thus there is a lack of reliable quantitative data on irregular migration, including source countries. Perhaps the best attempt to date to calculate the number of irregular migrants across Europe is the Clandestino project, which produced aggregate country estimates for 2002, 2005 and 2008. There have been substantial variations in the size of the irregular migrant population across Member States. The United Kingdom is estimated to have the largest irregular migrant population, 10 followed by Italy, Germany, France and Spain . The number of asylum applications in the EU plus Norway and Switzerland fell dramatically between 2002 and 2006, from 459,274 to 209,400 applications. Since 2006, the number of applications has increased again, reaching 270,480 in 2009, dropping back slightly to 263,990 in 2010, and increasing to 306,264 in 2011. The downward trend until 2006 was due largely to a reduction in asylumgenerating conflicts as well as asylum policy tightening. The recent increases are largely due to new 11 refugee-producing situations . While Europe receives a large proportion of the world's asylum-seekers, it hosts a much smaller proportion of the world's refugees. By the end of 2011 there were 15.2 million refugees worldwide, 10.4 million under United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' (UNHCR) mandate, and 4.8 million refugees registered with UNRWA. The vast majority of refugees were resident in regions of origin, often in countries bordering those from which they had fled. In absolute terms, the top three 12 refugee hosting countries in 2012 were Pakistan (1.6 million), Iran (868,200), Germany (the only EU Member State in the top ten) hosting 589,700 refugees and Kenya (565,000).. Overall, developing countries host 80 per cent of the world's refugees compared to 70 per cent ten years ago. Pakistan hosted the largest number of refugees in relation to its economic capacity with 552 refugees per 1 USD GDP (PPP) per capita. Ethiopia (303) and Kenya (301) ranked second and third, respectively Europe hosts a total of 1.6 million refugees (approximately 15 per cent of the total under UHNCR's mandate). In addition to size, migration also impacts on the age structure of populations. One of the biggest challenges facing European societies in the coming decades will be population ageing. In the context of sub-replacement fertility rates across the EU, migration is an important factor influencing the size and age-structure of European populations. For developed countries, the replacement fertility rate is approximately 2.1 children per woman. The EU's fertility rate is well short of this level. It reached an 13 historical low of 1.45 in 2002 before increasing to around 1.6 today . For the overwhelming majority of European countries the natural rate of population growth (which excludes migration inflow and 9 OECD (2012) International Migration Outlook 2012, Paris: OECD Clandestino (2009) final report : undocumented migration 11 UNHCR (2012) 12 http://unhcr.org/globaltrendsjune2013/UNHCR%20GLOBAL%20TRENDS%202012_V05.pdf 13 European Commission (2011) Demography report 10 Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 17 of 63 outflows) is negative. As population ages, the number of persons of working age relative to the number of persons above working age will decrease over the next 50 years by 50%. It can be safely said that migration will no doubt have to contribute to the renewal of the European working force. 2.2 Migration and development As the migration and development debate has largely developed with a ‘northern’ perspective, its core concepts largely represent ideas commonly accepted in Europe and North America. It is a common assumption that migration can be significantly reduced once the origin countries reach a higher level 14 of development. However, empirical evidence suggests that the relationship between migration and development is much more complex and that development often leads to more rather than less migration. Development is often associated with economic growth, leading to a decreased need to migrate. However, one should go beyond this view, and take into account the many social, cultural, economic and political dimensions of development and how these affect people’s livelihoods. In countries of origin, governments have tended to have a laissez faire attitude towards migration and in some cases migration may have contributed to economic dependency. The reliance on remittances and migrants’ support for local projects often results in promoting development via migrants rather than encouraging the involvement of migrants in a coherent development strategy. Countries of origin need to be more active on developing structural and policy reforms which are a precondition for enhancing the development potential of migration. The global economic crisis has reinforced the existing tendency among governments of destination countries to encourage immigrants to return to their origin countries through a variety of initiatives, such as return bonuses. Such policies often fail as they typically seek to limit migrants’ rights. Retention of residency rights, portability of pension’s rights and rights of visit for returning elderly migrants as well as a successful integration and naturalization in destination countries are some of the issues to be addressed to better support and empower migrants to engage more fully in the development of their countries of origin. 2.3 Irregular Migration Irregular migration is a sensitive political and policy issue in all countries. Irregular migrants are frequently perceived as a threat by governments which are reluctant to create legal channels for their entry and by the general public which perceives that their presence contributes to insecurity or unemployment. Across the world, migrants suffer exploitation (mainly by employers), mistreatment (by employers and official authorities) and discrimination (from employers, authorities and society at large). The criminalization of irregular entry further increases the vulnerability of migrants and their families to abuse, exploitation and often prevents their access to health and social services. Three key elements underline the policy responses to irregular migration: 14 The first is the enforcement of sovereignty: governments use migration control measures to demonstrate their sovereign control over territory and to palliate public concerns that sovereignty is being undermined. Hein de Haas: Migration transitions and the migration hump – International Population Conference, session 195, Oct. 2009 paper presented at the XXVI IUSSP Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 18 of 63 The second is linked to economic interest. Migrants often fill gaps in the labour force of societies with dwindling birth rates. They generate wealth, sustain services, are often a dynamic and creative element in society and frequently cost less to employ. The success of many economies is due partly to the energy and creativity of their migrant communities. The third key element of policy has been protection. Almost all governments recognize, and it is certainly accepted in law, that states have a duty to protect and safeguard the basic rights of all individuals who are in their territory including migrants, whether regular or irregular. Unsurprisingly, of the three strands of motivation that underpin migration policies, states are most likely to marginalize the protection element. The protection of irregular migrants does not self-evidently advance the interests of states or those of citizens. In some regards, a state’s legal obligations towards migrants may also be considered less clear, and less extensive, than its obligations towards 15 its own citizens . Despite the development of an EU policy framework that favours voluntary return over forced removal, the latter remains the most predominant across a number of EU Member States. However, removing or deporting all irregular migrants is not a realistic goal. EU migration policies need to consider and address the needs and preoccupations of source countries and countries of transit. A greater involvement of civil society actors would be welcome, too, in host, transit and origin countries as they have an important role to play in facilitating the return process. 2.4 Asylum The "durable solutions to refugee populations, as defined by UNHCR and governments, are the voluntary repatriation to the country of origin, the local integration into the country of asylum and the resettlement to a third country. All asylum seekers should be entitled to a fair and effective 16 procedure” . The externalization of the function of asylum of EU Member States requires first, that the use of the safe third country notion strictly respects some substantive and procedural guarantees (effective protection in the third country, and the existence of a sufficient link between the asylum seeker and the third country); and, second, that the development of the External Dimension of the European asylum policy ensures a fair balance between the interests of the States and their duty to provide protection to 17 the people who deserve it, which is the core of the asylum function of States . In 2011 the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) became fully functional and was tasked to strengthen and support the EU countries whose asylum system is under pressure, by enhancing the implementation of the Common European Asylum System. Established with the aim of enhancing practical cooperation on asylum matters, EASO developed training capacities and training material helping Member States to fulfil their European and International obligations to give protection to people in need. For external actions, and under the umbrella of the GAMM that provides the framework for asylum and migration, EASO starts to externalize its training and capacity building actions with the involvement of UNHCR. The European Asylum Curriculum is the training material designed for asylum officials and covers core aspects of asylum procedures in interactive modules. 15 International Council on Human Rights policy : Irregular Migration, Migrant Smuggling and Human Rights: Towards Coherence - 2010 16 17 (GUILD et al., 2009). GRITIM : the externalisation of the Asylum function in the European Union Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 19 of 63 Together with the Country of Origin Information, it ensures quality assurance for the Refugee status Determination by facilitating access to asylum officers to have an objective evidence-based information for evaluating risks of persecution in the country of origin. 2.5 Labour Migration The Stockholm Programme and the EU Europe 2020 Strategy clearly recognize that labour mobility is part and consequence of the globalization and of the global economy. Therefore, migrant worker mobility should be factored into economic recovery at the national and European Union level, including any reforms to the financial system or future stimulus packages. Moreover, the human capital of existing and potential migrants could play a crucial role on the path towards economic recovery and raising the competitiveness of the European economy by filling labour shortages and contributing necessary skills. Most Western countries have temporary worker programmes as a solution for labour shortage in certain sectors of the economy, and particularly those related to agriculture, construction, health care provision and tourism. Today, the majority of these programmes are circular in nature. According to the Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM), the desired transition in the management of temporary workers is towards voluntary circular migration programmes, instead of guest worker programmes such as those of the post-war years. The European Council, composed of heads of state from each EU Member State, has presented mobility partnerships as a "novel approach" capable of enhancing cooperation with third countries of origin and transit. The European Commission, in a communication dated November 2006, presented mobility packages as agreements made "with a number of interested third countries which would enable their citizens to have better access to the EU." Mobility partnerships includes cooperation in the area of temporary labour-migration schemes. Their effective implementation is not only contingent on enhanced cooperation with selected third countries. It also depends on the extent to which such partnerships will respond to labour migrants' aspirations for better employment opportunities, increased incomes, skills acquisition, equal treatment, and rights. Labour migration is a policy area where competence is shared by the European Union and the Member States; the EU has the task of developing a common immigration policy aimed at ensuring the efficient management of migration flows, and the Member States are responsible for the numbers of non-EU nationals they admit for work. Therefore, this is a project that the European Union and the Member States must take forward together. A common need should be met with a common response, that of an EU-wide migration policy. 2.6 Migrants Rights Today, some 214 million people live temporarily or permanently outside their countries of origin. In many countries, legal application of human rights norms to non-citizens is inadequate or seriously deficient, particularly as regards irregular migrants, those without authorization to enter or remain in the country. Extensive hostility, abuse and violence towards migrants and other non-nationals have become much more visible worldwide in recent years. Research, documentation and analysis of the character and extent of human rights problems regarding migrants and of effective remedies remain minimal. A telling indication is that, until very recently, the topic or area of human rights of migrants was simply not a category in most of the published bibliographies and research lists regarding migration. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 20 of 63 International and national efforts to defend human rights of migrants and combat xenophobia remain scattered, fragmented and relatively limited in impact. The few specific activities by UN and other inter-governmental organizations remain resource-starved to the extent that they can respond little more than symbolically to expectations and mandates. While a number of active migrant and nongovernmental organizations have emerged in Asia, the Americas and Europe, there is still little international coherence in civil society efforts. 18 The EU has followed the trend on the international level and put forward an EU migration and development policy under the GAMM. The European Commission has been the driving force in proposing and discussing initiatives that serve the purpose to manage migration so as to entail beneficial development outcomes. While the EU has admittedly strengthened migrants’ rights in the field of legal migration by means of directives and regulations and by reinforcing general human rights protection, the EU’s migration and development policy has incorporated into its agenda the need to protect the human rights of migrants in a comprehensive way only in November of 2011. The EU has straightforward goals for its migration policy, such as attracting highly-skilled workers to boost the economies of the EU Member States. Still, the EU should also assume responsibility for poorer parts of this world. Policies that envisage putting the migration-development-nexus successfully into practice must be migrant-centred and rights-based in order to empower migrant populations for a simple 19 reason: people are the real wealth of a nation. 2.7 Global EU development policy strategic objectives and priorities The European Consensus on Development, signed on 20 December 2005, provides the general framework for action by the Union on development matters. It also reaffirms that the objectives of this policy are poverty reduction, sustainable economic and social development and the smooth and gradual integration of developing countries into the world economy. The EU report on Policy Coherence for Development stresses the importance of interaction between sectoral EU policies and development objectives. In its conclusions of its November 2009 report on PCD (COM(2009) 461 final), the EC has made “Making Migration work for Development” one of the five global development challenges for PCD. The primary and overreaching objective of EU development cooperation is the eradication of poverty in the context of sustainable development, most particularly achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. It also takes the view that the fundamental objective of poverty reduction is closely associated with the complementary objectives of promotion of good governance and respect for human rights, these being shared values underpinning the EU. The fight against poverty also implies achieving a balance between activities aimed at human development, the protection of natural resources and economic growth and wealth creation to benefit the poor. In its communication "Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change" (COM(2011) 637 final) of the development-migration nexus, the EC recommends that the EU should assist developing countries in strengthening their policies, capacities and activities in the area of migration and mobility, with a view to maximizing the development impact of the increased regional and global mobility of people. The EU is dedicated to working with all development partners to improve the quality and impact of its aid as well as to improve donor practices, and to help partner countries to use increased aid flows more effectively. National ownership, donor coordination and harmonization, starting at field level, alignment to recipient country systems and results orientation are core principles in this respect. 18 19 Migrants Rights International Katharina Eselle : Reinforcing Migrants’ Rights? The EU’s Migration and Development Policy under Review Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 21 of 63 The Development Cooperation Instrument (2007-13) The legal basis of the Thematic Programme on Cooperation with Third Countries in the Area of Migration and Asylum is funded under the Development Cooperation Instrument - or DCI - Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006. The Regulation is implemented through two types of instruments: • geographical instruments encompassing cooperation in appropriate areas of activity with partner countries and regions determined on a geographical basis; • five thematic budget lines (Investing in People, Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, Non-state Actors and Local Authorities, Food Security and Migration and Asylum). The geographic part of the DCI replaces the Asia and Latin America (ALA) Regulation. The instrument is valid for the period from 2007 to 2013 and is funded directly from the Community budget to the extent of Euro 16,897 million (nearly a quarter of the total available for external relations). The Thematic Budget Line on Migration and Asylum is indicatively allotted Euro 384 million for 2007-13. The overall goal of the DCI instrument is the eradication of poverty in partner countries and regions in the context of sustainable development, including pursuit of the MDGs, as well as the promotion of democracy, good governance, respect for human rights and for the rule of law. Priorities are countryspecific. Funds are allocated following CSPs which include multi-annual indicative programmes specifying the priority objectives and the indicative multi-annual financial allocations. The DCI defines a non-exhaustive list of 26 different types of actions over ten major areas of co-operation. Cooperation in migration and asylum under the DCI is set apart from cooperation in the same area under other instruments by several factors: • First, although any country eligible under other instruments such as the 10th European Development Fund (EDF - designed for the Africa-Caribbean-Pacific or ACP countries) or European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI - designed for Europe’s Eastern and Mediterranean neighbours) is eligible under the Thematic Budget Line, the budget line is concerned mostly with migration to the EU including associated transit issues. • Second, the budget line will not finance projects and programmes concerning the root causes of migration; this is considered to be better dealt with using other instruments. Nor will the budget line support humanitarian operations, for which other instruments are also available. 2.8 Overview of the Thematic programme The objective of the Thematic Programme is to help Third Countries to better manage all aspects of migratory flows. It is set forth in Article 16 of Regulation 1905/2006 establishing the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) for the period 2007-2013 and covers five specific dimensions: − − − Fostering links between migration and development; Promoting well-managed labour migration; Fighting illegal immigration and facilitating the re-admission of illegal immigrants; Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 22 of 63 − − Protecting migrants against exploitation and exclusion and supporting the fight against trafficking in human beings; Promoting asylum, international protection and the protection of stateless persons. Established for a period of 7 years (2007-2013), the Thematic Programme has an indicative total budget earmarked for 384 million EUR. All third countries covered by the DCI, the ENPI and the EDF are eligible beneficiaries of the programme. Guided by the Multi-Annual Strategy Papers, the Thematic Programme is implemented through calls for proposals and direct awards supported by Annual Action Programmes. Three Calls for Proposals have been launched under this Programme: 1) CfP 2007-2008: 62 projects selected – 62 Million EUR 2) CfP 2009-2010: 65 projects selected – 70 Million EUR 3) CfP 2011-2012: 49 projects selected – 75 Million EUR The multi-annual strategy programmes describe the challenges created by the migratory flows and define the priorities of intervention under the Thematic Programme in the five thematic dimensions set forth in the DCI regulation. They reflect the state of the policy evolution, on-going debates in the European Union in the areas of Migration and Asylum and the priorities. Two multi-annual strategy papers have been developed to cover the period 2007-2013: 1. The multiannual strategy for the period 2007-2010 was based on a geographic approach adjusted in the light of the “migratory routes concept” with a priority of addressing, but not exclusively, the migratory flows affecting directly or indirectly the European Union: - The Southern migratory flows (south/north migration), including flows originating from or transiting through the Northern and Sub-Saharan African countries; The Eastern migratory flows (east/west migration), including flows originating from or transiting through Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus and Central Asia; The flows from and through the Middle East and Gulf Countries; The flows from Southern and Eastern Asia and the Pacific; The flows from Latin America and the Caribbean. As foreseen in the 2007-2010 strategy, a mid-term evaluation of the Thematic Programme was conducted between October 2009 and February 2010. The evaluation’s conclusions and recommendations (figuring also in the present evaluation’s ToRs) were included in the preparation of the second multi-annual Strategy Paper covering the period 2011-2013. 2. The Thematic Strategy for 2011-2013 addresses the recent changes in migration patterns, numbers of migrants, and increased migratory pressure on industrialized countries as well as the EU’s Southern and Eastern borders. While the programme considers migration issues around the world, priority is given to the Southern Mediterranean, African and Eastern European regions. The themes and initiatives that will receive priority for the 2011-2013 strategy are Mobility Partnerships, Regional Protection Programs (RPPs), Readmission Agreements, Migration Profiles, protection of migrant’s human rights, unaccompanied minors, the fight against trafficking in human beings, labour migration, support to circular migration and links between migration and development. In terms of Geographic priorities the regions prioritized remain linked to the Southern and Eastern routes but attention continues to be paid to other countries and other regions confronted with important migration and asylum issues. The Multi-Annual Strategy Programme 2011-2013 distinguishes the following routes: Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 23 of 63 • The South – Southern Mediterranean (Northern Africa), Sub-Saharan Africa and Middle East; • The East – Eastern Europe (including the Southern Caucasus) and Central Asia; • Other regions (South, Southeast and East Asia, Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean). 3. FINDINGS EQ 1: To what extent is the European Commission cooperation through the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum addressing the five dimensions of migratory phenomena (fighting illegal immigration and human trafficking, fostering links between migration and development, promoting well managed labour migration, protecting migrants’ rights against exploitation and exclusion, promoting asylum and international protection of migrants) as identified in the strategic documents and in line with the DCI regulation (art.16) ? Migration is in constant evolution and new trends need to be integrated into the development of adaptable instruments and policies. Although the Thematic Programme is based on a geographic approach, it is built with a flexibility factor which allows for adjustments in the migratory routes and in the prioritisation of areas of interventions. In this context, the programme takes into account the international situation, the EU context, the activities of other international donors and the lessons learnt. The evolution of EU policies is well reflected in the Thematic Programme documents. The multi-annual strategy paper 2011-2013 has been developed on the basis of two main elements: the EU policy framework on Migration and Asylum and the political and technical dialogue of the EU with Third Countries whether at bilateral, regional or international level. It also incorporates the lessons learnt from past programmes starting with the B7-667 initiative, the AENEAS programme and the 2007-2010 phase of the Thematic Programme, including their evaluations and related recommendations. The paper equally includes references to the Stockholm Programme (Council 17024/09) which identifies the EU political priorities in the area of migration and asylum for the period 2010-2014. The key challenge for the EU remains the flows of irregular migrants to which the EU is confronted. It confirms the EU Global Approach as the strategic framework for the EU external policy in this area and reaffirms the need to accelerate its balanced implementation through a more strategic use of all its existing instruments and improved coordination. To assess the degree to which the five dimensions identified in the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility have been addressed by the projects approved under the TPMA, we have used official lists provided to the evaluation team at the start of the assignment. The range of projects used for statistical purposes was set at 137 already contracted projects covering the period 2007-2012. The findings are summarised in the table below: Thematic Priorities Nb Perc. Fostering the linkages between migration and development 27 20% Promoting well managed labour migration 19 14% Fighting illegal migration and facilitating the readmission of illegal migrants Protecting migrants’ rights and protecting them against exploitation and exclusion and supporting the fight against trafficking in human 27beings Promoting asylum and international protection of refugees 38 18 28% 13% 27 19% Multi-themes 8 6% Total Projects 137 100% Projects implemented through Call for Proposal 118 Projects implemented through Targeted Initiatives 19 Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 24 of 63 As shown, the five dimensions of the Thematic Programme are largely represented in the projects funded under the programme. The coherence between the Thematic Programme and the EU relevant policies remains high, whether in terms of engaging in cooperation, partnership and dialogue with third countries and in addressing the five thematic priorities defined in the strategic documents. The TPMA is also in line with the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum (Council Doc Ref 13440/08 dated 24.09.2008) commitment on creating a comprehensive partnership with the countries of origin and of transit as well as on controlling illegal immigration and irregular migrants returns on a rights based basis. As regards the geographic route repartition, the priorities set up in the strategic documents are also respected: Eastern Europe (including the Southern Caucasus), Northern and Sub Saharan Africa are the regions of origin and transit that are receiving the largest amounts of funding. In line with the Stockholm Programme, the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM) and the 2011-2013 multi-annual strategy recommendations, the diversification of mixed migratory flows to Europe is also addressed by the TPMA in other regions (South, South-East and East Asia and the Pacific; Latin America and the Caribbean) and countries of interest in the mobility dialogue such as China, India, South Africa or Nigeria (Annex 5). To assess the geographic distribution of resources, we have used the same range of projects selected (on the basis of the information provided by DG DEVCO) that we have used in thematic area assessment. According to the repartition of funding allocation shown below, there is a clear correspondence between the geographic distribution of resources and the priority migratory routes. Southern routes 61 93 705 519 45% Eastern routes 45 53 656 235 26% Other regions 26 30 672 350 15% Global 5 29 497 090 14% Total 137 207 531 194 100% The allocations by migratory route are broadly defined in the Annual Action Programmes but it is in the CfP guidelines that the priorities per sub-routes and areas of intervention are more precisely identified. The existing TPMA implementing instruments serve well the relevance, effectiveness and flexibility of the Thematic Programme to implement the EU external dimension of migration and asylum. The multi-annual strategy papers set up indicative priorities per geographic routes and sub-thematic areas of intervention according to their relevance to EU policy changes, on-going dialogue and political processes, and other initiatives meant to secure and increase the level of cooperation with Third Countries in the field of migration and asylum. The Annual Action Programmes allocate financial envelopes yearly per geographic routes according to the set priorities. It is also through the AAPs that the repartition of funding is made between Calls for Proposals and targeted initiatives aiming to complement the Call for Proposals with projects concluded through direct negotiation. Project beneficiaries of targeted initiative projects are mainly International or Intergovernmental Organisations selected on the basis of their specific mandate, comparative advantage and added value in relation with the thematic and objectives. In accordance with Article 23 of the DCI Regulation, the AAPs reserve a certain amount of funding for Special Measures. The Special Measures budget line can be used to fund initiatives related to migration flows due to natural disasters, civil unrest or crisis. This measure increases further the flexibility and response capacities of the Thematic Programme and was used for example in South Africa by UNDP to respond to xenophobic attacks of foreign migrants in 2008 as well as in Libya. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 25 of 63 The Calls for Proposal is by nature a flexible modality as it allows the European Commission to select, according to the foreseen procedures, the projects which are best suited to address the priorities set in the strategic documents and Annual Action Programmes. It also allows to fund innovative projects or grass-roots initiatives. There was a mixed response from beneficiaries as regards the effectiveness of multi-country and inter-regional projects developed with a migratory route approach, i.e. targeting countries of origin, transit and destination. Migratory flows are not fluid or uni-directional, national priorities vary from country to country and project partners do not always have the same level of implementing capacity. Project documents and in particular logframes show that these projects are often too ambitious as regards their objectives and activity range. They appear to be too general or difficultly achievable within project duration, resulting in lessened impact and benefits for the beneficiary countries. Attention to language and culture is also often under-estimated in developing this type of project. To summarize beneficiary comments, while capacity building and awareness raising have an overall positive impact, multi-country projects often experience difficulties in coordination and cooperation among beneficiary countries. Another gap in the migratory route approach is that it is extremely difficult for a single EU Delegation to monitor or oversee multi-country projects implementation and follow up the complementarity with the national country programmes. Although not a priority for the Thematic Programme, one of the mid-term evaluation recommendations was to increase the percentage of interventions to support South-South migration flows. The evaluation findings show that there are few projects addressing directly or indirectly the management of migration flows in a South-South dimension and targeting regional and interregional policy makers and stakeholders. It is however to be noted that the issue of addressing SouthSouth migration has been included only recently in the Call for Proposal 2011-2012. While it is too early to assess the effectiveness and impact of projects selected under this specific Call for Proposal, it can be said that a progress has being made in addressing South-South migration by the TPMA, notably in the area of Labour Migration (EQ10). Noteworthy projects are the project DCIMIGR/2009/228441: “Support for the Africa-EU partnership on Migration, Mobility and Employment”, implemented by ICMPD, which specifically mentions the Regional Economic Commissions and the African Union as targets of its interventions on Migration and Governance; or the new project DCIMIGR/2012/283-369: “Enhancing the capacity of Pacific Island Countries to address the impact of climate change on migration” implemented by ESCAP, which is also a good example of project supporting the South-South dimension of migration. Multi-country projects focusing on data management or migratory flows analysis can be useful to south-south migration management, if their results are shared with all relevant stakeholders, in order to feed the dialogue and policy making at regional and inter-regional level. They must also serve the programme objective of linking countries of origin, transit and destination to generate a better understanding of the migration and asylum challenges and to adapt their policies to answer these challenges. Geographical programmes are probably best suited to address South-South migration issues with a support to regional organizations as it is the case in West Africa where an EDF funded programme will support the Economic Commission of West African States (ECOWAS); they can also address the root causes of migration and finance structural needs such as equipment and human resources. The TPMA has an important role to play in complementing and supporting the geographical programmes due to its flexible nature and capacity to respond to a broad range of needs. Efficient complementarity however requires a better coordination between these instruments and a mainstreaming of the results and lessons learnt of the TPMA projects into the dialogue and processes the EU maintains with the RECs, their Member States and its relevant partners. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 26 of 63 EQ1 SUMMARY The coherence, relevance and effectiveness of the Thematic Programme are found positive and in line with EU priorities, whether in terms of engaging in cooperation, partnership and dialogue with third countries or in addressing the five thematic priorities defined in the strategic documents. However, Third Country governments are not sufficiently involved in the projects development phase, creating situations in which projects are not sustainable due to a lack of ownership by the beneficiary governments. Multi country/inter-regional projects are often too ambitious, resulting in under-achieved objectives and lessened impact at national level. A better identification of priority needs and achievable results with target governments would help focusing interventions and improve inter-country coordination, including at EU Delegation level since it is difficult for one single Delegation to oversee this type of projects. If progress has been made by the TPMA to address South-South migration issues, there is still a need to better coordinate its interventions with geographical programmes, better suited to support regional/continental institutions as they can address the root causes of migration and finance structural costs even if lacking the TPMA capacities and flexibility to respond to third country specific needs and identified gaps. Results and lessons learnt from the TPMA projects need to be mainstreamed into the dialogue and processes the EU maintains with Third Countries and its international partners (reflected in CSPs and RSPs) so as to support a promotion of migration and asylum policies in third country priorities and development strategies Data management remains a challenge for most beneficiary countries in which migration data is often scattered among various services. In addition to capacity building, Global projects on data management need to be more efficient in information sharing and fostering data management coordination in and between beneficiary countries. EQ 2: To what extent does the Thematic Programme promote projects relevant to the needs and problems identified in the specific regions and countries that are included in the geographical focus and is flexible to respond to new and emerging issues? TPMA projects do take beneficiary countries' needs and priorities into account as required by the DCI regulation and reflected in all the Thematic Programme strategic and policy documents. However there are disparities in the way projects respond to country needs and priorities, particularly at design and development level. Governments are not always involved in project development, creating situations where the project outcomes are not sustainable due to a failed sense of ownership by the beneficiary government. However, since the Mid-Term Review, there have been marked improvements in this regard with more pre-project preparation and consultation activities leading to the incorporation in the TPMA actions of concrete needs and problems identified in the targeted regions and countries, as evidenced during field visits and in the response to the questionnaires. The fact remains that the legal basis of the TPMA does not permit government entities in beneficiary countries to apply and therefore direct inclusion of national priorities is not a given under the TPMA. While this is understandable, since geographical programmes are available to fulfil that purpose, it is nevertheless very important to ensure that Governments are effectively involved as active stakeholders. This seems to be the case for a high percentage of the more recent projects assessed during the country visits. Furthermore, amongst new projects selected from the Call for Proposals 2011-2012, in addition to actions implemented by Member States, there are three which were elaborated by public companies and think tanks who are closely linked to beneficiary government's needs and therefore fully express their position. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 27 of 63 It is however not only a question of direct and active participation of Governments in project implementation; as mentioned in the Mid-Term Review, “third country governments do not necessarily agree with European policies on migration and asylum” (particularly in the sub-thematic areas of legal migration or migration and development), or with their almost exclusive focus (at least previously) on migration to the EU which has characterized the TPMA. In this context, pre-project dialogue is necessary to ensure that TPMA initiatives are developed in seeking coherence between national and EU priorities. In countries that place a priority on security issues with little consideration for migrants’ rights and assistance, NGOs and CSOs do not always involve national authorities in project development but tend to respond to gaps in the application of government policies on migration and asylum. However they do include national authorities in their capacity building and awareness raising actions with the objective of fostering policy changes to benefit the vulnerable groups of migrant populations. Another critical aspect is the degree of involvement of national NGOs (from third countries) as project beneficiary of the TPMA. It remains minimal. While 20 out of 49 projects selected from the Call for Proposals 2011-2012 will be implemented by NGOs (41%), very few of them are national NGOs (0 out of 12 for Lot 1 – The South, for instance) and these are exclusively from Lot 2 –The East – Eastern Europe (including South Caucasus). There has been a very high number of applications from national NGOs (including from Africa, Asia and Latin America) in the last Call for Proposals but none were selected from these regions. As it happened, their quality was often not satisfactory (or manifestly very low) which means there is a long way to go in terms of capacitating local organizations in developing good quality proposals in the areas of migration and asylum. More on this subject is explained at EQ 3, but one reason could be, in addition to the complexity of the migration theme, that the rules do not differentiate among categories of applicants as regards financial size/volume of proposals and NGOs have often developed top bracket proposals (close to the maximum amount allowed) to be implemented in a relatively short period of time, often with a multi-country focus and encompassing a broad range of sub-themes. The final result being that they have not satisfied assessment criteria in terms of design quality, likely feasibility, required operational capacity or, when they did, have encountered serious efficiency problems at the implementation stage. Evidence of this has emerged in interviews with some EU Delegations. It was noted that “the quality of applications from national NGOs under the last TPMA Call was not satisfactory while we have received very good proposals for EIDHR and NSA-LA”, including sometimes by the same applicants. This is reinforcing the point made above, since the latter proposals were smaller, more focused, and manageable by this typology of applicants. Finally on this aspect, it was also noticed that national NGOs who had previously successfully implemented TPMA projects in partnership with international NGOs, were now not successful in their attempts to develop autonomously new proposals. In countries where Mobility Partnership agreements with the EU have been signed (Cape Verde, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia) needs and problems of the targeted regions and countries have been more comprehensively taken into account. However, for Armenia and Georgia (which were visited for the purpose of this evaluation), the very substantial number of TPMA projects approved during the period 2008-2010 has generated a significant degree of overlapping and duplication of objectives and activities. The EUDs do not always have the dedicated human resources to coordinate and ensure a follow-up and sometimes do not have the capacities to adapt the activities to other and similar needs in order to attain a common objective. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 28 of 63 It should be underlined that these projects are in partnership with several government institutions and ministries which are understaffed and lack capacity and knowledge but have the willingness and the 20 motivation to work under EU guidance. They need «structured support» and «knowledge» of the migration phenomenon and are not able to follow all the projects’ activities in which they are focal points. The impression is of an avalanche of projects, agreements and partnerships that are at the same time producing new needs requiring new capacities for the governments to handle and manage. It is also observed that the EU-MS involvement and participation in these projects is not at the same level and not always active and does not attain the same results. Some Member States are more involved than others and the approaches are different from one to another creating sometimes confusion. For example, regarding support to legal migration, the MS need to be more engaged in order to give better recognition to all the agreements. Their involvement should not be only as partners or «experts» to transfer knowledge but also and mainly as beneficiaries, especially when return and readmission is on stake. The EU-MS need also to be prepared and ready to fully implement the agreements and have the necessary staff. It was observed that «the EU is not taking the measures to really utilize what has been produced by the projects». Coordination is not only necessary among TPMA projects but also on a country level among projects from other instruments. In spite of the number of projects in South Caucasus, the CSPs do not consider migration as a priority nor as an intervention field and not at all a cross-cutting issue. For this reason, it can be recommended that a specific evaluation takes place for countries having signed a Mobility Partnership agreement. The evaluation should look at the projects’ achievements at country and regional level and be equally focused on the involved and relevant EU MS, in order to see how these agreements are managed on both sides and what are the results and impacts. South Caucasus, and in particular Georgia and sometimes Armenia, are given as examples where it has been possible to follow changes and achievements and where the migration phenomenon, in all its aspects, has become a government strategic priority. TPMA has been important to widen and broaden the subject, to enhance capacities and ownership and create a «migration expertise». This observation is also shared by the government representatives of the countries showing that there is «ownership» in efforts and capacities in managing migration issues. On specific visited projects more is provided in the answers to the respective thematic EQs and in the project fiches. Furthermore, a number of issues discussed under other EQs are also relevant here – in particular flexibility of the TPMA and the main features and pros and cons of the Calls for Proposals process (EQ 3), and the relatively weak state of coordination/complementarity (EQ 4). EQ 2 SUMMARY The findings have shown that the TPMA has increasingly been able, particularly in its more recent stages, to promote projects which respond to the concrete needs and problems identified in the targeted countries and regions. This is quite evident for countries where Mobility Partnership agreements with the EU have been signed although in two visited countries - where a large number of projects were approved in the framework of the respective Mobility Partnerships - inadequate consultation among stakeholders and weak coordination has resulted in overlapping and duplication of activities. 20 - Both words are from EUD Georgia, which underlines the fact that the representatives of the authorities are willing but do not always have the necessary knowledge to follow all the proposed EU processes , actions and partnerships. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 29 of 63 Logically, given the broadness of the programme, there are disparities in the way projects respond to country needs and priorities, particularly at design and development level. In this connection, governments are not always involved in project development and the limited sense of ownership of beneficiary governments has certainly affected sustainability. International organizations have been more successful than other implementers (notably NGOs and CSOs) in involving governments as active stakeholders in project implementation, although in some cases, for instance in countries having security issues as priority, rather than on migrants rights and assistance, this is quite natural since NGOs and CSOs tend to respond to gaps in the application of government policies on migration and asylum. While NGOs, broadly speaking, represent a predominant typology of implementer for projects funded under the TPMA, the degree of involvement of national NGOs as project beneficiaries of the TPMA remains quite low. Although a large number have indeed applied under the last CfP, very few were successful; further efforts should be made to build the capacities of local organizations in developing good quality proposals in the complex areas of migration and asylum. EQ 3: To what extent has EC cooperation through the Thematic Programme been implemented in ways which are appropriate to achieve its stated objectives? 21 This question relates to multiple aspects which were structured along five judgement criteria (see Annex 2) and can be measured through several indicators. In addressing these aspects, a variety of tools were used. In addition to interviewing key stakeholders in the target countries, and reviewing project documentation and reports of previous evaluations during the desk phase, specific questions on these aspects were included in the two questionnaires forwarded to beneficiary organizations (Q10) and EU Delegations (Q6 and Q7). As a result, substantial information was gathered on how the Call for Proposals modality has worked as the main tool for selecting actions under the TPMA and for achieving its objectives. The modality was generally praised by key stakeholders for its flexibility in allowing a broad range of actors to apply and enabling the selection of a mix of interventions incorporating different perspectives (i.e. governments, international organizations, civil society, academia, etc.) and combining elements related to priorities for different themes, which was often required given the mixed focus of many proposed interventions. The main challenge encountered by implementing organizations in relation to the Call for Proposals development cycle has to do with the long process of evaluation and selection of the proposed actions. The timeline between the submission of the project proposal (especially the Concept Note) and the starting date was considered very long. Given that migration flows and specific patterns are dynamic and that the evaluation process (from the first step of concept notes) normally takes around one year plus the administrative time needed to conclude contracts - it has happened that priorities set during the concept note phase had changed due to evolving patterns. In addition, or as a result of this, stakeholders who previously committed to support the project (either financially or technically) could also change. 21 1. Degree to which the CfP modality in the TPMA works well to achieve its stated objectives; 2: Degree to which CfPs and targeted initiatives (in combination) are the appropriate tools for selecting activities to be implemented; 3: Support to civil society organisations and local authorities in accessing Calls for Proposals funding ; 4:Satisfactory repartition of responsibilities between EC relevant services at HQ and EU Delegations; .5: Degree to which the funding modalities of the call for proposals approach are appropriate to the financial management of the TPMA by the EC and by the beneficiaries. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 30 of 63 As regards other procedural aspects, one respondent considered the Full Application form (Grants Application Form – Part B) as too repetitive; a few had some problems relating to the approval of an Addendum (for project extensions, for instance) – in one case activities had to be halted pending preparation of an actualized financial report (with part of the extension period consumed by activities required to justify such extension, rather than for project-related activities) – and in terms of receiving clarifications on budgetary aspects and management procedures. Issues relating to project duration have been carefully analysed by the evaluators. A large number of projects required an extension of the original timeframe (a time-consuming process and an administrative burden). Delays experienced in the start-up phase (in setting up operations, negotiating MoUs with national authorities, establishing working modalities with partners etc.) were the main causes. While delays were sometimes unavoidable (for example because of slow reactivity of national counterparts which are often linked to internal and administrative requirements), they do reflect in most cases an inadequate degree of pre-project cooperation (among partners, for instance) and of the necessary preparatory work at the planning stage. In general terms, the duration of many projects was found to be too short. In many instances, applicants have structured the implementation of complex interventions, including multi-country actions involving several partners/associates, over an inadequate two-years period with the result that the most important activities do take place at the very end (considering the delays accumulated in the first year); the result is little prospect of putting in place adequate exit strategies, appropriate handing over of outcomes and processes to counterparts, consolidation/dissemination of results or reflection on lessons learnt. Although limitations as regards project duration have been underlined in previous evaluations and ROM exercises, applicants have often indulged in an over optimistic assessment of expected project efficiency and maintained a short timeframe for their projects in subsequent Calls. One factor that might have contributed to this is the provision of the Guidelines on minimum/one year to maximum/three years duration for TPMA projects which is indirectly steering applicants towards a middle ground solution, while one year interventions are in reality unheard of and three years seems to be the optimal (rather than maximum allowed) timeframe for most types of actions. There were no specific comments in relation to project size (from EUR 500.000 to EUR 2.000.000) which seems acceptable to most stakeholders. However, the possibility of smaller projects could be conceived in order to stimulate participation of local authorities in the programme (currently very low) as well as to enable CSOs to propose more focused interventions, with higher effectiveness and impact prospects. It should be noted that some NGOs have been awarded projects with a very high financial threshold which they were eventually unable to implement in a satisfactory manner. This has occurred especially (but not exclusively) before the decentralization drive in the management of TPMA projects, including when reservations were raised by the concerned EU Delegations who ended up “picking up the pieces” through the daily management of the projects. Clearly, the direct effect of an excessively high budget has been the scaling up of the implementing partners’ co-funding contribution (with difficulties, especially for local NGOs, in securing such high levels of financing). Smaller projects could of course become a valid proposition in case a decision is taken in future to use local calls for proposals in the field of migration and asylum. A specific question has been asked to targeted EU Delegations on their views about the possible future use of local calls. Analysis of the answers saw a clear split in two almost equivalent groups. Some Delegations were totally in favour so that priorities could be set by the Delegation to match its objectives vis-à-vis the GAMM for that country, while others did not see the added value of localized CfPs for their specific countries. One respondent was quite pragmatic, recognizing the potential usefulness of a local call but underlining the fact that human resources are currently inadequate for taking up additional tasks. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 31 of 63 When commenting on how the current system of centralized Call for Proposals has worked so far, a couple of Delegations were fully satisfied while others were only relatively satisfied and pointed out the limitations of the current approach such as lack of control over the project design and project outcomes, little say of EU Delegations on the priority areas of the Guidelines, ,being these calls managed centrally, i.e. in Brussels, and the need to be more thoroughly consulted before signing contracts. If this should prove internally feasible, future versions of the TPMA could experiment on a pilot basis, in parallel with a centralized Call for Proposals, the introduction of a new modality by launching a few local calls in selected countries, taking into account the feedback of relevant Delegations. As regards reporting it has been found, by evaluators and at least two Delegations, that it is sometimes difficult to understand from the final report (which is developed by activity) whether the results were actually achieved or not. Reports are often structured as a very long sequence of subactivities (and relevant explanations) which does not follow, as it should, a synthesis of the level of attainment for each specific results. For managers to be able to form an opinion on the degree of achievement of results for these projects, it is necessary to go back to the description of each and every activity in the project document and to match them accordingly to the statements contained in the final report (this should not be allowed to happen – it is the responsibility of implementers to report clearly on the level of project achievement). Genuine external evaluations of individual projects are very important and useful (they should be foreseen more frequently in project design – and the EC should request this accordingly) and in fact it was deemed essential for most of the visited projects; some implementers, however, have the tendency to make without this important tool, stating for example that “internal evaluation (selfperformed) is an on-going process”, a point we cannot really accept. The combination of Call for Proposals and Direct Negotiation approach has ensured that core EU objectives were addressed through targeted initiatives, while leaving the door open for new ideas 22 elaborated by a wide range of actors . The possibility of negotiating direct grants, in addition to allowing inclusion of EU priorities into the proposals, has made possible the mobilization of specialized knowledge for particularly complex and broad initiatives and, at least in principle, to maximize the comparative advantage of international organizations. However, it remains to be seen to what extent the targeted initiatives financed so far have contributed to the achievement of the EU objectives in the areas of migration and asylum. It does not appear that results were particularly satisfactory for various projects implemented with this modality. The external evaluation of some initiatives (as JMDI) was not very positive in terms of the overall impact of the initiative and as regards ownership and sustainability. Another project attributed to UNDP in South Africa was clearly not matching its area of competence. During the visits to target countries, it has emerged that much less information is locally available about targeted initiatives than for projects selected through CfPs. In some cases, EU Delegations were totally unaware of these important initiatives (which are managed centrally) particularly when these have a regional (rather than country) dimension. Even when some knowledge exists (through participation to a workshop organized in that country, for example), project documentation is not usually shared at that level and this makes it difficult for the EU Delegations to take any role in terms of coordinating more broadly these activities or sharing information with relevant national counterparts in the migration field (who, at times, are different from those involved in the implementation of the targeted initiative). Similar problems as regards flow of information have been experienced also by the evaluators in accessing reports for some targeted initiatives included in the project sample. 22 Mid-Term Review of the Thematic Programme for cooperation with third countries in the areas of migration and asylum. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 32 of 63 Generally speaking there is therefore the need for more coordination to avoid overlapping and duplication of projects chosen through the Call for Proposals and the targeted ones. For instance, three projects focusing on return and reintegration, which were selected after the entry-into-force of the readmission and visa-facilitation agreements in Georgia, had very similar components and activities to those of the Targeted Initiative for that country. Although the EU DEL was able to coordinate these projects effectively and avoid duplications, a better coordination before the actual start of the Targeted Initiative could have helped to identify other actions, through the CfP modality, and ensure a higher degree of complementarity. EQ 3 SUMMARY The findings indicate that overall the choice of a dual system in the implementation of the TPMA was appropriate to achieve EU cooperation objectives in the areas of migration and asylum. While the Call for Proposals modality has served as the main tool for selecting actions under the TPMA, its combination with the Direct Negotiation approach ensures, at least in principle, that core EC objectives are addressed through targeted initiatives. The CfP modality was generally praised by key stakeholders for its flexibility in allowing a wide range of actors to apply and enabling the selection of a mix of interventions incorporating different perspectives and to combine elements related to priorities for different themes. The main challenge for implementing organizations appeared to be the long process of evaluation and selection of the proposed actions in an area which is by definition dynamic and where specific migration patterns can change rather rapidly. Other findings indicate there is room for improvement as regards procedural aspects, project duration and size, as well as on reporting systems and the effective use of independent project evaluations. As regards Delegations, however, the current centralized approach does not enable them to participate in the setting of priorities for the CfP Guidelines or allow them to be more fully consulted on projects being selected (for improving project design and outcomes, for instance). The introduction of a new modality by launching a few local calls in selected countries, taking into account the feedback of relevant Delegations, appears to be a useful proposition for future version of the TPMA. With respect specifically to targeted initiatives, it was found that much less information is locally available (including at EU Delegations) than for projects selected through a CfP. Overlapping and duplication of activities among projects selected through the two modalities has resulted in some countries visited by the evaluation team. It is therefore felt that extensive coordination before the actual start of targeted initiatives should take place to ensure a higher degree of complementarity between these initiatives and the other projects selected through CfPs" EQ 4: To what extent has EC cooperation through the TPMA been coordinated with and complementary to cooperation in the areas of Migration and Asylum implemented through other instruments and by other donors? As regards coordination with other donors at the country level, facilitated by EU Delegations, a variety of situations apply. In some of the countries visited, interaction/consultation between EU Delegations and donors in the migration field takes place only on a bilateral basis depending on specific situations or need. In such countries anyway, coordination fora bringing together donors, government, civil society, etc., to discuss issues relating to migration might not in fact exist (since there are other more pressing priority issues – such as conflict or poverty alleviation, for example) and therefore no other alternatives to bilateral consultations seems viable, although a more structured dialogue is needed in order to be more productive, create synergies and reduce duplication of efforts. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 33 of 63 While generally contributing to the same global objectives as socio-economic development, poverty reduction, good governance, reaching the MDGs or human rights protection, agreed upon in high level and political international fora, other donors have their own priorities, policies and intervention modalities. A good example is the multiplication of country strategy papers: the World Bank has its PRSP, the UN system the UNDAF, while the EU has its own CSP and NIP. According to our observations in visited countries, there is no coordination among these institutions in the development of these strategic documents. As a result, the mainstreaming of migration into national development strategies (when it exists) is uncoordinated, donors channel their funding through established partnerships with risks of duplication as national agencies and ministries often compete for access to project management and resources. An important area addressed in the evaluation is whether there has been an acceptable degree of coordination and complementarity between the TPMA and other EU geographic and thematic instruments. There is not much evidence that the Thematic Programme has been coordinating systematically with the geographical instruments, or with other thematic programmes or vice versa. Separating the root causes of migration from the migration and development theme is difficult, if not impossible. The synergy in addressing both of these issues can be handled better by geographical instruments which follow either a national or regional approach than by the Thematic Programme which focuses principally on managing migration flows towards Europe. In some other countries there are however sub-thematic working groups or committees (for instance the Working Group on Protection, coordinated by UNHCR in South Africa; a similar mechanism in Lebanon; various working groups in the Philippines, etc.) through which the EU can coordinate on a regular basis and share relevant information. In Brazil, where interventions in the area of migration (either financed through the TPMA, or Support to Sectoral Dialogues) have so far focused primarily on one specific theme or strand of migration, coordination works very well since all key stakeholders (including government departments) know each other from the regular management of the various on-going initiatives (from ICMPD, ILO, UNDCP) and it is possible for the EU Delegation to interact effectively with all of them and to ensure that coordination is enhanced to the maximum extent. As such, Brazil is one of the very few countries where duplication of activities is avoided. With reference to coordination with Member States, various modalities, some of them quite significant, have been witnessed in the target countries. In India, for instance, the EU Delegation is organizing/facilitating ad hoc meetings on migration issues with Member States and the participation of national authorities or other stakeholders as observers, which take place rather regularly (on this subject see EQ 10 for more information on the role played by the EU Delegation as regards policy dialogue). Coordination with Member States is often focused on themes of specific interest and concern on a country basis. In Nigeria, there is a working group on Migration and Development that meets to share information and prepare the political dialogue on M&D with the Nigerian authorities. In Brazil, the Delegation provides coordination with Member States - among other areas - through the local EU Human Rights Group (EU + MS) - with meetings every two or three months, to discuss important issues on the HR National Agenda. In the Philippines, the EU Delegation meets regularly with MS, particularly with those sharing an interest on migration matters (for example Spain and the Netherlands) to discuss planned initiatives, including TPMA projects, and relevant EU policies. Finally, in Georgia, there are EU-MS coordinating meetings where all Schengen countries have the opportunity to share information and updates but the interest from MS is reportedly low. Most EU Delegations recognize that internal coordination of the various initiatives is difficult for a number of reasons: human resources constraints, lack of expertise in specific areas (such as migration), the fact that projects are sometimes managed elsewhere (in Brussels or, as it is for some multi-country projects, by other EU Delegations) and that relevant documentation on these is not always shared (for example in Nigeria the EU Delegation is not regularly informed on the JMDI). In some of the visited countries, knowledge about a few TPMA projects was for the first time provided by Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 34 of 63 the experts during the mission. Surely, at EU Delegation level, so many programs and actions exist in several areas, each of them belonging to a different coordination level, that reaching a satisfactory degree of coordination remains a challenge. In Armenia, the EU Delegation recognizes that many activities do overlap and is planning to introduce quarterly coordination meetings. In general, complementarity among EU programs and actions should be improved. One questionnaire respondent pointed out that “complementarity should be ensured at the beginning, i.e. during the selection of the projects. Since TPMA calls for proposals emanate from Headquarter, prior and timely coordination between Headquarter and EU concerned Delegations should be prioritised. This is to ensure that the proposed migration projects will complement and not duplicate on-going or previously done activities in that country”. A good example of complementarity can be found in Nigeria where the th new 10 EDF funded programme “Promoting Better Migration Management” (PBMM) has incorporated the results and the lessons learnt of past and on-going TPMA projects. It is also facilitated by the fact that the project beneficiaries are also beneficiaries of TPMA projects. As a result, some activities that could not be completed by the TPMA projects at national level will be implemented under the PBMM programme. As regards the MIEUX facility, the activities supported are in principle complementary with those implemented in the respective countries through TPMA or other instruments. As such the facility could prove potentially very useful in filling identified gaps and complementing existing efforts. However MIEUX, which can be mobilized rather quickly and has usually responded rapidly to initial requests with a first mission (for a needs assessment, mostly of a preliminary nature, or for establishing contact with the counterparts), experienced also problems later on in following up the process with the requesting authorities. In a number of cases, the beneficiary countries are thus not making use of the facility and some of the planned activities have remained on hold for a long time, as witnessed in India and Brazil. EQ 4 SUMMARY Coordination of the TPMA with other donors activities (including EU MS) cannot be assessed as high or regular in visited countries. Added to the fact that migration is not generally at the top of national priorities, each donor has its own funding strategy instrument, creating situations of duplication of efforts and resources. Technical working groups exist at country level but they are usually focusing on specific thematic and do not allow for strategic planning. Some EU Delegations also recognize that they can have human resource constraints as well as a lack of migration specific expertise that lessen their efficiency in project monitoring and in the migration and asylum dialogue. At the exception of one of the visited countries, there is not much evidence that the Thematic Programme has been coordinating systematically with the geographical instruments, or with other thematic programmes. There is a need for a better complementarity check at the time of the project development and of the selection phase, also to lessen the risks of duplication or overlapping. Another limiting factor of project coordination is that EU Delegations are not involved in all project development and monitoring activities. Multi-country projects for example are managed by Brussels or by EU Delegations in a different country. For these projects, interviewed EU Delegations recognized a low level of information sharing with Brussels or among EU Delegations with a resulting difficulty to influence the project activities and the dialogue at country level. EQ 5: To what extent has EC cooperation through the TPMA integrated democratic principles (human rights, rule of law, core labour standards) into strategy and implementation? Migration management should have fundamentally a human rights’ approach. The TPMA has been very active in promoting this approach and raise awareness to change perceptions related to migrants’ rights. In Lebanon, the CARITAS project «Protection and Support of Migrants in Lebanon» Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 35 of 63 (MIGR/2007/129864), funded under AENEAS, worked in an intensive way on the only detention centre of the country, where domestic female workers are detained. The project was able to introduce advocacy, to transfer the most vulnerable and the children to the CARITAS shelter. As final and sustainable impact, the project was able to change perceptions, especially those of the officials and prison guards regarding the detainees. Every person residing illegally in Lebanon or staying in this detention centre was followed by a criminal offence and received a commensurate treatment. Through intense advocacy work that sometimes went to court, the project was able to change this perception and from criminals these persons became «victims» with a case that could be submitted to judicial action. As «the majority of the problems before and during the detention stem from language 23 difficulties and miscomprehension» , the project has produced linguistic guides and dictionaries addressed to the domestic workers and their employers as well as leaflets on labour migrants’ rights distributed at the airport. CARITAS will continue its efforts in this area with a new TPMA project (Lot 156 of the cfp 2011-2012) together with governments of the countries of origin as partners. This project is a good example of continuity in addressing important migration issues and in integrating democratic principles. Those who are left behind is another aspect. Usually, labour migrants leave behind their families, children or the elderly. In Armenia, UNICEF has just started a TPMA project on this issue (Lot 2-40 “Mitigating social consequences of labour migration and maximising migrants involvement in local development”) and in Georgia and in Moldova the University of Maastricht is just completing an important qualitative and quantitative research and survey work on the children and the elderly (“The effects of migration in Moldova and Georgia on children and elderly left behind”, DCI/MIGR/2010/229604). If the subject matter is the same, the two projects are completely different in their priorities and in their objectives, thanks to the plurality of the TPMA approach. While in Moldova the project focuses on procedures, in Armenia the project is field-based. This latter is targeting four remote provinces that have high rates of labour emigrants. The project cooperates with the local authorities and within the national framework of Poverty Reduction Strategy building on government existing structures. Hence, the project ensures a positive impact on its focal beneficiaries, children and families left behind, by empowering them for self-reliance. It strengthens the capacities of the local and regional social case managers (fifty officers of the Ministry of Social Affairs) to work with these vulnerable persons and families. The impact will be dual: on the vulnerable families, that are the direct beneficiaries and on the social workers, who will be empowered and capable to treat these cases. By focusing on migration, this project is mainly aiming at reducing poverty and vulnerabilities in remote areas. The Danish Refugee Council project in Georgia, “Consolidating Reintegration Activities in Georgia” (DCI/MIGR/2010/229714) focusing on a totally different theme, is empowering the local authorities and the municipalities of remote areas by making them hubs for employment and business creation for returnees indirectly promoting democratic approaches. The TPMA projects in the labour migration sub-sector have also represented an important input in organising, creating or managing public or private local employment agencies. The impact is on attitudes that gradually change towards the appreciation and the protection of labour migrants’ rights. All IOM, ILO or Pôle Emploi projects financed under the Programme in Georgia, Armenia, Russia, Bangladesh, Morocco, Tunisia and Mauritania have this basic «meta» approach where human rights and labour migrants’ rights are the common denominators. These projects have sought associations/NGOs, Trade Unions, lawyers and other partners to defend these rights; at the same time they have made important progress in raising awareness of authorities and institutions in accepting and promoting these rights. These projects have worked on a regional basis promoting rights and dialogue among sending and receiving countries of migrant work force. Many international organisations have been involved worked within the TPMA. UNHCR is one of the most important covering specifically the sub-theme on asylum and refugee protection for which it has an international mandate. UNHCR trains and strengthens local national and institutional capacities on 23 Mrs N.Chahda, CARITAS, Lebanon. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 36 of 63 advocacy, refugee laws and international conventions and standards. Many TPMA projects have been initiated on these issues by NGOs that had previously worked with UNHCR. The TPMA project in South-Western Uganda (DCI/MIGR/2009/228933) focusing on the refugee camp aims to enhance self-reliance of refugees by providing support to commercialise their dairy and agricultural products; it is initiated by an NGO that had previously worked with UNHCR. Another successful project in this regard, which is elaborated and implemented by local actors, is “Provision of humanitarian assistance to the deported population illegally residing in Georgia and support for prevention of their illegal movement between Georgia and Azerbaijan” (DCIMIGR/2010/229-841) implemented by the Tolerant Association of the Samtskheti-Javakheti region. In the difficult context of Meskh communities scattered in Georgia and Azerbaijan, the project aims to promote regulated and legal migration of the deported population providing humanitarian and social assistance. This action is initiated by local actors and stakeholders who are sometimes better informed than international organisations on how and where to initiate actions and better respond to the main needs. Through the Call for Proposals the TPMA promotes this kind of initiatives, which are also results of previous efforts in strengthening capacities and raising awareness. EQ5 SUMMARY In all the TPMA projects the approach is based on promoting human rights and democracy. Activities such as training, capacity building and awareness raising have been important to promote democratic approaches and respect of basic human rights. In some areas, they have contributed to operate a shift in perceptions and attitudes towards migrants. This shift is not final but long lasting and it helps perceiving migrants as human beings instead of «illegal» or «criminals», sometimes as victims or as entrepreneurs and active participants of the economy of sending and receiving countries. By focusing on migration management in sending and receiving countries, the TPMA projects have necessarily promoted dialogue among different countries on a regional level creating partnerships and establishing agreements and enforcing mutual respect of democratic values. These efforts in their turn had some effects on policy and legislation of some countries. Generally speaking, TPMA projects have had an impact on promoting democratic values, rule of law and human rights. An overarching aim present in some results is also the reduction of poverty and vulnerabilities not only of migrants themselves but also of sending communities. Results regarding policies for managing migration, readmission of returnees and reducing illegal moves are better achieved and visible in small countries that benefitted in a continuous way form TPMA projects with diverse objectives and different implementing agencies like Georgia or Armenia. They are less visible on regional level and in other countries where the focus was more on asylum and refugees’ protection like in Lebanon, Egypt or Yemen. EQ 6 - To what extent did the Thematic Programme contribute to raise awareness of policy makers, civil society and citizens, both in Europe and beneficiary countries, of the EU response to the complex phenomenon of migration ? Based on the country visit interviews with stakeholders, the answer to this question varies from country to country. Governments do not always agree with EU policies on migration, considered too restrictive and oriented towards EU interests (interviews with officials). At project level, the perception of the EU role in migration and asylum management issues varies according to the relationships built up between the diverse stakeholders. In countries visited, the dispersion of projects and implementers in a given country does not help in building a comprehensive policy support background as inter–government agency coordination on migration management is generally poor. Promoting or reinforcing inter-ministerial coordination in order to have a common and constructive level of awareness is often one of the priority activities in Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 37 of 63 TPMA projects. However, the predominance of national priorities focusing more on security rather than on rights issues, added to the competition among ministries for responsibilities and resources do lessen project impact on policy changes. It is often in border management and in the fight against trafficking and smuggling that the EU technical support and advisory capacities are the most appreciated. The high quality of expertise and the participation of EU Member States generate a good level of cooperation between EU MS and Third Countries and a platform for on-going and future activities. The role of EU Delegation in awareness raising and information sharing on EU policy matters and in country activities on migration and asylum is very important. Some EU Delegations recognized a gap between the projects they oversee and the high level dialogue on migration and asylum issues with their national counterparts. The Government officials who participate in project management and implementation are not necessarily policy makers and their influence on policy change or development can be limited if it is not supported, especially if migration is not a national priority. The role of the EU Delegation should therefore be to ensure that policy makers are not only aware but also fully informed and able to participate in the international dialogue on migration issues. Sometimes this is also the case with EU MS representations in country. Gaps in information sharing have led to situations where EU MS are developing bi-lateral initiatives on migration and asylum without coordination with the EU Delegations. As regards NGOs perception and knowledge of the EU response to challenges of migration and asylum, it varies according to the category of NGO becoming a beneficiary of the TPMA. International NGOs, important national NGOs and international organizations are very much aware of the EU policies and of other international instruments. While some NGOs might not agree with EU policies on migration, found too restrictive in the interest of the EU, the mission did not find that it negatively affected their attitude once they became beneficiary of TPMA projects. In general NGOs certainly agree with EU policies on human rights and protection and adhere to their principles. They develop their projects and activities in conformity with these policies and in turn raise the awareness and the capacities of local NGOs and LCOs, less cognizant of EU policies, so that their activities are governed by the same principles in a migrant rights centred approach. In general, the requirements and guidelines of the Communication and Visibility Manual for European Union External Action are observed by the projects assessed by the mission, including in dedicated web-sites. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that ultimately it is the quality of an initiative or the impact of specific activities in a particular context - elements which often become evident only in the course of implementation - that can contribute to increase dramatically visibility, including well beyond the initial expectations of stakeholders. When this happens, it is essential to take the opportunity and - as it is 24 evidenced in at least two situations assessed during the country visits - fully utilize the projects, their best practices and lessons learnt as vehicles for expanding cooperation on migration and asylum matters, including high level policy dialogue at the national level. EQ6 SUMMARY Capacity building and technical assistance are the activities in which the EU support, including MS participation, is the most appreciated by the beneficiary countries and having the most sustainable impact. TPMA impact on policies is not as significant for various reasons: a) beneficiary countries do not always agree with EU policies on migration, considered too restrictive, b) migration issues are rarely considered a national priority in beneficiary countries and c) a lack of coordination at national agency level. 24 See remarks at EQ 10 and EQ 11 on DCI-MIGR-2008-153137 and DCI-MIGR-2011-229177 (Brazil) and DCIMIGR-2010- 229848 (India) Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 38 of 63 The role of EU Delegations in awareness raising and information sharing on EU policies and on promoting the TPMA outcomes and lessons learnt with their national and regional counterparts could be improved. The same goes for the dialogue with EU MS which are not always aware of the EU projects funded under the TPMA and which sometimes develop their own and uncoordinated initiatives. International Organisations and International NGOs (even if the latter do not necessarily agree with all EU policies) develop their projects and activities in conformity with EU rights based policies and in turn raise the awareness and the capacities of local NGOs and LCOs so that their activities are governed by the same principles in a migrant rights centred approach. The official EU guidelines on visibility are followed and applied by all projects assessed. While they contribute to raise and maintain the project (and beneficiary) visibility, they nevertheless represent the EU more as a funding source than as an active partner and policy adviser. The quality of an initiative or the impact of specific activities in a particular context can also contribute to increase dramatically visibility and become an opportunity for increasing the project benefits. EQ 7: To what extent is EC cooperation through the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum contributing to results related to fostering the links between migration and development? Migration and Development accounted for 24% of funding under the TPMA for the period 2007-2011. While a similar percentage would appear to be confirmed for the entire duration of the TPMA by a provisional analysis of the 49 projects selected from the last Call for Proposals for 2011-12, it is important to underline how approved projects addressing this theme are increasingly more concentrated in specific geographic areas. In this regard, Migration and Development initiatives will become predominant in the East-Eastern Europe region (including South Caucasus) with 7 out of 16 new projects to be implemented there (about 43 %), mostly in Armenia, Georgia and Moldova. While the theme will retain some presence in Africa (4 out of 20 new projects), it is noteworthy to say that none of the 10 new projects selected for Lot 3 (Other regions: South, Southeast and East Asia, 25 Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean) belongs to the migration and development category . Whatever the reasons for this – there was for instance a considerable number of concept notes for migration and development initiatives targeting the Andean region which were not successful - other themes seem to have acquired more significance in the extremely vast area covered by this Lot. Results on priority rating of the different themes in targeted beneficiary countries/governments, as perceived by the EU Delegations (see Annex 9), showed that Migration and Development is currently ranked from low (in most cases) to medium with the exception of Armenia where it ranked high. This is in contrast with the outcome of a similar exercise undertaken for the Mid-term Review of the TPMA when migration and development was ranked overall as a high-priority sector. While these findings are not conclusive as they are certainly influenced by methodological aspects (such as choice of target countries for the evaluation), information gathered during the field visits and the analysis of responses to questionnaires are indicative of some possible explanations, which are pertinent for specific countries but might be valid also elsewhere, on the perceived diminished significance of this subtheme vis à vis others. In the Philippines, for instance, migration (and its link to development) does not figure any longer prominently in the Philippines Development Plan owing to the policy shift in 2010 of 26 prioritizing local employment generation . Irregular migration and protection of migrants/countertrafficking have instead been ranked as high priorities for that country for the current exercise. 25 One project addressing a specific issue for Latin America in the two areas of Labour Migration and Migration and Development (DCI-MIGR-2012-283036 “Migracion de profesionales de salud – Oportunidad para el desarrollo compartido”) was selected under Lot 4 (Global Actions). 26 Although it is recognized that (see questionnaire from the EU Delegation in the Philippines)” the link between migration and development is appreciated differently by the migration agencies at various levels, with local (…..as Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 39 of 63 In Colombia, where migration and development actions under AENEAS and at the beginning of the TPMA have traditionally focused on the Colombia-Spain migration corridor, and targeted accordingly returning migrants, it is the cumulative impact of the economic crises in Europe, already felt from 2009, that had somehow led to the abandonment of co-development (quite successfully applied in earlier initiatives) as a strategy in fostering the link between migration and development. Considering that remittances from Spain have further decreased by 18,54% in 2012 (for the first time since 2007 Spain is not the top country of origin of remittances to Colombia), that employers there (and elsewhere in Europe) are less keen in supporting co-development, and that to accompany migrants throughout the migration cycle has become more demanding and costly for potential implementing partners, it is not surprising that more recent engagement in this area has taken the form of short-term and pilot small-scale initiatives (often incorporated in projects focusing on other themes) targeting small groups of migrants selected upon return (often on the basis of vulnerability) and lacking the comprehensive approach required for effectively linking migration with development. With the exception of South Caucasus, there weren’t many specific migration and development projects in the target countries visited. For the analysis of this rather broad theme, which is not always 27 easy to define precisely in the TPMA context , it was therefore important to include the study of a few other projects (including targeted initiatives and newly contracted actions) selected on the basis of their specific typology or sub-theme which are basically five (return and reintegration, remittances, diaspora, circular migration, and brain drain) but often elaborated/addressed in combination with each other in the various actions. As regards the South Caucasus, five projects were visited in Armenia and Georgia for this category, out of which four focus on returnees and their reintegration (the remaining one DCI-MIGR- 2010229604 targets children and elderly left behind in Georgia and Moldova). These four return and reintegration projects (see country lists) have very similar components and activities showing that needs are quite similar in both countries. Reintegration is so far approached mainly through the economic prism and the main activities implemented relate to: employment, vocational training, business start-ups and capacity training for economic integration. Provision of information and awareness raising both for the returnees and for the potential migrants are important activities in all of these projects. Overlapping of sub-themes is rather frequent. Another common aspect is the direct involvement of diaspora communities in Europe. These countries (especially Armenia) have a strong diaspora presence in Europe and these expatriate communities are often involved, through close links with the relevant Ministries, in the return of migrants and their reintegration in Armenian and Georgian societies. The importance of return and reintegration for these countries should clearly be understood within the context of the Eastern Partnership and the Prague Process. The three South Caucasian Republics are included in this Partnership together with Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus. The process aims to strengthen the European Neighbourhood Policy with tailored assistance for improving administrative capacity in all relevant sectors where also mobility and security play a relevant role. Within this framework, Georgia signed the Mobility Partnership Declaration in November 2009 and Armenia in October 2011. For Georgia, the conclusions of Readmission and Visa-Facilitation agreements have also entered into force in March 2011 making the integration of returnees a high priority. opposed to central) government more responsive and active in mainstreaming migration into their development planning and services (by encouraging migrant-focused local development planning and practices)”. 27 It has already been noted in previous evaluations that “in the AENEAS and TP MIGRAS context, overlapping of sub-sectors with respect to international migration is rather frequent. Circular migration projects, in particular, have alternatively been considered either within the migration and development and/or the labour migration subsectors as a further demonstration that exact categorization is sometimes elusive. For instance, projects funded under the two thematic programmes and classified under migration and development would better fit in some cases into the labour migration category”. See Aiolfi and Charpin, “Evaluation of the concrete results obtained through projects financed under AENEAS and Thematic Programme for Migration and Asylum” Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 40 of 63 Several projects have been funded under the TPMA in various regions for the purpose of enhancing the impact of remittances for development. These were often small-scale initiatives which have experienced sustainability problems. However, it is generally recognized that not much existed prior to (or outside) AENEAS and the TPMA and it is through these programmes that forward-looking experimentation (and understanding of constraints) was made possible. In Sub-Saharan Africa, some on-going initiatives are particularly interesting and either show potential impact or should at least produce a solid corpus of lessons learnt, identify best practices and lead the way to further progress in this area. As already mentioned in the Mid-term Review, the TPMA is significantly contributing to a better understanding of the scope and role of remittances in that region through DCI-MIGR-2009-153157 “African Institute for Remittances (AIR)”, implemented by the World Bank. The future establishment of the AIR within the African Union Commission (AUC) is the first of its kind in the world and the project, which is part to the Africa-EU partnership on migration, mobility and employment, is expected to provide a very comprehensive analysis of all the recognized problem areas and propose recommendations accordingly (for instance as regards putting in place a legal and regulatory framework for remittances in the targeted countries; on how to increase the development impact of remittances; on reducing remittance transaction costs in a selected number of countries etc). While this is possibly the most significant TPMA action addressing the sub-theme, it cannot be seen as a one-time initiative since “a full-fledged process would be required to further build the capacity of the AIR to perform its functions and for sustaining the work being initiated under the project in the AU 28 Member States” through the different pilot activities implemented. In particular, in order to see more substantial impact, efforts will have to be made to increase government ownership in the targeted AU countries, for instance as regards involving Central Banks “in order to foster the interest and buy-in of participating financial authorities, Central Banks and Ministries of Finance”. DCI-MIGR-2009-153811 “Harnessing the potentials of migration for development by linking microfinance institutions (MFIs) and immigrant associations”, implemented by Oxfam and Novib in partnership with INAFI, was based on a multi-pronged approach which included: research on the needs and actual wishes of remittance senders (not always appropriately consulted in many projects that talk almost exclusively to government institutions); strengthening microfinance institutions and designing remittance-based products to be sold through mainstream and alternative marketing mechanism; and facilitating the link between these MFIs and immigrant associations based in ten EU countries to identify and engage in joint investment schemes. However, while quality research covering the EU countries and training of target groups were successfully carried out, the main purpose of the project could not be achieved owing mostly to lack of support from the ultimate beneficiaries: MFIs and migrants associations. Oxfam/Novib have honestly recognized that the complexities of the project environment (difficulties in partnering with a very fragmented milieu of migrants associations in Europe and in dealing with the intricacies and excessive regulations/restrictions of the world of finance and remittances in Africa) were not duly taken into account and that project design turned out to be, for this reason, unrealistic. It is evident that some projects in the sub-sector were not successful. For example, the ongoing project DCI-MIGR-2011-228991 “Remittances Developing Moldovan Communities - Sustainable use of Remittances by Generating Local Income in the Republic of Moldova”, while certainly relevant in principle, was formulated without the necessary analysis of the local context and the articulation of synergies required for its successful implementation (including lack of involvement of the State Migration Authority; inadequate consultation with main stakeholders, such as IOM; before cooperation with Moldovan communities abroad and links with the Diaspora had been established; without taking into account lessons learned from other initiatives etc.) and this has compromised effectiveness, 28 See The World Bank, African Institute for Remittances (AIR) project, First Annual Status & Progress Report June 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011 Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 41 of 63 expected impact and potential sustainability. Project monitoring has so far underlined the insufficient commitment demonstrated by the local authorities and a rather low involvement of potential beneficiaries (with very few of them expressing interest in using remittances for business development, a fundamental pre-condition at the conceptual stage). The TPMA has funded a good number of projects which focused on the contribution that human (in addition to financial) resources of the Diaspora can make towards national development in several countries. It is difficult to provide an overall judgment on this sub-theme when only a couple of projects could be visited in the target countries. Some initiatives were by nature rather preparatory and aimed at gathering baseline information which was not previously available. They included activities such as the mapping of diaspora organizations in the EU, the identification of the most suitable entities that could be mobilized in future as development actors in the countries of origin, the assessment of their capacity building needs etc (main components of the EAPD project - DCI-MIGR-2010-254033 – implemented by the Africa Diaspora Policy Centre) and were certainly quite significant although, particularly as regards mapping of African diaspora associations, a degree of duplication might have occurred given that multiple actors have conducted similar analysis in the same EU countries. Other initiatives targeting the African diaspora were meant to actually promote the return of selected migrants as entrepreneurs and, through the setting up of small and medium enterprises and a more effective use of remittances, to contribute to economic development in the countries of origin/return. It is the case of DCI-MIGR-2008-152922 “Returning Enterprising Migrants Adding Development and Employment (REMADE)” implemented by HIVOS. In spite of the implementing partners’ experience on the topic, the project main goal (promoting the return to Ghana, through entrepreneurship, of at least 70 qualified Ghanaian expatriates living in the Netherlands and the UK) proved to be very ambitious and could not be met. Only a few of the expatriates trained by the project were actually willing to return to Ghana and to translate their business ideas into consistent business plans. Quite interestingly, a monitoring mission noted that a more promising area was to support local entrepreneurs (young, with innovative ideas but lacking experience, access to credit and in need of initial investment resources), a completely different proposition altogether, whereby in such case the link between migration and development would be based on economic development in prevention of brain drain (rather than return). Precisely as regards human capital development and brain drain, the TPMA has supported, among others, a few projects focusing especially on the health sector. DCI-MIGR-2009-153183 “Migration of Physicians within and from Sub-Saharan Africa: Internal, Regional and International Movements” - in principle a very significant action, which was accordingly included in the project sample – proved to be over-ambitious in practice, encountered unprecedented difficulties in its execution and had to be cancelled. Nevertheless, a much more focused initiative, covering just one country in that region, DCI-MIGR-2012-282970 “Reintegration of Highly Qualified Medical Staff (Specialists) into the Health Sector in Malawi”, has been recently contracted. The implementing partner (GiZ) is expected to address health sector constraints caused by the outmigration of medical specialists through a strategy combining permanent return, temporary return and circular migration and incorporating elements such as coaching, individualized return packages, capacity building for receiving institutions and networking. The project, once fully consolidated, is likely to have multiplier effects and could be adapted to specific situations in other African countries. In Latin America, DCI-MIGR-2008-152804 “Migration of Health Professionals between Latin America and Europe: analysis and generation of opportunities for shared development”, implemented by the Escuela Andaluza de Salud Publica (EASP), has clearly contributed to increase the knowledge of the migration dimension relating to health sector professionals for the entire region and has led to an intergovernmental consensus on how to guide the flow of health professionals by managing migratory trends in a way that generates beneficial effects for the professionals, as well as for the health Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 42 of 63 systems, both in source and destination countries. As mentioned in previous evaluations, “impact in the area of brain drain and brain drain mitigation is a long term question since progress very much depends on a process of change involving stakeholders at origin and destination over a protracted 29 period of time” . It is therefore a positive development that further support for the process set in motion by this action was made possible with the recent approval of a follow-up initiative: DCI-MIGR2012-283036 - "Migracion de profesionales de salud. Oportunidad para el desarrollo compartido" which is expected to start in 2013. Two targeted initiatives relating to migration and development were partially analysed by the 30 evaluation team . Input on the outcome of DCI-MIGR/2007/147242 - Joint Migration and Development Initiative (JMDI) was provided by UNDP through the questionnaire for beneficiary institutions and during the mission to Nigeria. Although the JMDI did contribute to a certain extent to advancing understanding and strategy-setting at national and international levels in this field (for instance through its contribution to the Global Forum on Migration and Development), the conclusions 31 of the Final Evaluation of the JMDI as regards the expected overall impact of the initiative, and sustainability of the specific projects funded through the initiative, were not very positive. It was recognized that the assessment of impact carried out should be considered “in progress” and therefore not final; nevertheless structural flaws were detected in several areas (project design, type/size of actors, lack of field study prior to identification of interventions; lack of involvement of local authorities; limited focus on migration per se, etc.) which have a clear bearing on overall impact. Likewise, financial sustainability appeared quite limited as only about half of the 51 individual projects funded under JMDI were considered at least partially sustainable. A second targeted initiative, DCI-MIGR-2010-259532 “Strengthening the dialogue and cooperation between the EU and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) to establish management models on migration and development policies”, currently being implemented by IOM, is one of the few actions on this theme (outside countries with Mobility Partnerships) devoted to integrating migration broadly speaking into policy making. The project was specifically designed to support the EU-LAC Structured and Comprehensive Dialogue on Migration and its objective is to contribute to the process of cooperation between EU and LAC in the field of Migration and Development and to strengthen regional capacity within LAC for a permanent exchange of information and good practices between interested countries in the region, as well as between these countries and EU Member States. In this regard, the expectations of primary stakeholders are that improvements in the flow of information and expertise on statistics/ data collection and on the link between migration and labour remittances between countries from the two regions will enable relevant parties to assume their respective responsibilities for the management of migratory flows. Some difficulties have arisen at the beginning in terms of priorities and in involving the LAC states in the decision making body of the project. While it is too early to comment on impact, the main challenge of the project is that migration remains a sensitive topic for some LAC countries and EU Member States and it cannot therefore be excluded that disagreements on certain topics might have negative effects on the overall EU-LAC Structured Dialogue on Migration. 29 See Aiolfi and Charpin, “Evaluation of the concrete results obtained through projects financed under AENEAS and Thematic Programme for Migration and Asylum”, June 2011 30 In addition, there are two targeted initiatives in Georgia (DCI-MIGR-2010-254006) and Armenia (DCI-MIGR2012- 309112) focusing mainly on return and reintegration but considered under Irregular Migration and not as MD projects. 31 Final Report, Evaluation of the EC/UN Joint Migration for Development Initiative, Te Wildt and Versavel, June 2011 Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 43 of 63 EQ 7 SUMMARY Migration and development is a rather broad theme with TPMA projects addressing at least five specific areas or sub-themes (return and reintegration, remittances, diaspora, circular migration, and brain drain) which are often targeted in combination with each other in the various actions. These sub-themes were not all well represented in the countries visited (except return and reintegration which is becoming quite prominent in the South Caucasus and in Eastern Europe) and a more comprehensive answer to this EQ would probably require an evaluation focusing specifically on migration and development. Several projects have been funded for the purpose of enhancing the impact of remittances for development or on the contribution that human resources of the Diaspora can make towards national development in many countries. Projects in these areas were often small-scale initiatives which have experienced sustainability problems. Furthermore, given the complexity of these sub-themes, our findings indicate that some projects were not successful as they were over ambitious, lacked the necessary analysis of the local context and the articulation of synergies required (including with national authorities) for their successful implementation. However, it is generally recognized that not much existed at all prior to (or outside) AENEAS and the TPMA and it is through these programmes that forward-looking experimentation and understanding of constraints was made possible. In this connection, some of the more recent initiatives appear to have drawn positive lessons from the initial experimentation and are expected to produce a more tangible impact, identify best practices and lead the way to further progress in this area. Findings are mixed as regards projects addressing the area of human capital development and brain drain, which is sometimes considered within the legal/labour migration theme. Here, achievement of results depends on the individual merit of a specific project rather than on a combination of cumulative approaches which have not emerged as yet. Finally, our findings indicate the need for a sustained and ideally permanent exchange of information and good practices between interested countries in the various regions or sectors, as well as between these countries and EU Member States. While this process has been effectively promoted by a few particularly successful projects selected through Call for Proposals, more significant and lasting progress could possibly be achieved, at least in principle, through dedicated targeted initiatives in this area, provided coordination and complementarity can be improved between the various actions from the outset. EQ 8 – To what extent is EC cooperation through the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum contributing to results related to “Fighting Irregular Migration and facilitating the readmission of illegal immigrants”? Fighting Illegal migration and facilitating the readmission of illegal immigrants remains the thematic priority which has received the larger amount of funding since the start of the TPMA with 29% of the total funding for the period 2007-2011. In terms of geographical priority, the Southern Route received 63% of the total funding allocated to the Irregular Migration projects (see Annex 5) for the same period. Out of the 38 projects on irregular migration funded for the period 2007-2011, 22 were attributed to International Organisations (58%), 9 to CSOs (24%) and 7 to Governments (18%), of which only one is a non-European Member State: Ghana with the project “Countering Human Smuggling and Other Irregular Migration”. Irregular migration continues to be linked to security issues rather than to be considered as a migration field needing a holistic and rights based approach. In South Africa for example, where a xenophobic sentiment towards foreign migrants is latent, the application of existing and relevant national policies is not encouraged at law enforcement agency level (beneficiary interviews). Migrants Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 44 of 63 and asylum seekers are seen as responsible for the high level of criminality prevailing in the country as well as accused of stealing employment and businesses from national citizens, a menace for the peace and diversity national policy. In such a security minded environment, irregular migrants and victims of trafficking are often criminalised rather than being seen as groups of populations having basic rights. If the Technical Assistance received through the TPMA is welcome and appreciated for its quality, it doesn’t necessarily result in policy changes, particularly as regards the observance and respect of migrants’ rights. Officials and practitioners dealing with migration issues at local level are often unaware of the international agreements and of their obligations signed by their government and, at times, not trained in the implementation of their own national policies. However, the assessment made by project implementers and officials is that the TPMA projects have initiated positive changes in the attitude of governments. A main condition for such changes is involving the beneficiary government in the development and management of projects so as to build a sense of ownership and responsibility. The role of EU MS, whether as implementers or as project partners, is instrumental in fostering cooperation and collaboration with beneficiary countries, particularly with the provision of high level technical assistance as well as with study tours to Europe in which third country officials and practitioners are trained and sensitized to the EU approach and policies in the areas of Irregular Migration management, migrants rights and protection. In the project DCI-MIGR/2010/229-815:"Enhanced multi-stakeholder cooperation to fight human trafficking in countries of origin and destination", implemented by UNODC in Nigeria, the EU partners were NGOs of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland and UK. The project benefits were mutual: on the European side, an increased knowledge on the specificities of irregular migration and organized crime in Nigeria (including its cultural dimension) and on the Nigerian side, enhanced national capacities and a better inter-agency cooperation in support of the national action plan against trafficking. For both the project resulted in the creation of a platform for enhanced coordination between Nigeria and its European partners on coordination of victims support. Although hampered by delays in its implementation due to administrative procedures differences between ILO and its European partner, the project DCI-MIGR2008/153-526:"Enhancing the cooperation to fight trafficking in Human Beings from Nigeria to Europe" (Italy), implemented by ILO in Nigeria, resulted in a good collaboration with Italy. Multi-stakeholder platforms were constituted to support cooperation between Italian and Nigerian Law Enforcement Agencies on counter trafficking as well as on labour migrants’ exploitation issues. The participation of INTERPOL in the capacity building activities enhanced empowerment and a better inter-agency collaboration in Nigeria. The project DCI-MIGR/2008/153-785:"Strengthening law enforcement capacities (Border Control Operations) and Criminal Justice response to smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons", implemented by UNODC in South Africa is another example of project with a mitigated result. The capacity building of border agencies to support the implementation of the national border management strategy 2008-2010 and improve their skills in detection of fraudulent documentation was delivered trough technical assistance from The Netherlands and Europol, together with the provision of border control equipments. These actions were recognized of high quality by the relevant officials who also recognized that their impact and sustainability were lessened due to a lack of institutionalised cooperation among the various border management agencies. The sustainability of the training received and of the other project outputs was therefore linked to individual commitments and professional networks created among responsible individuals and not based on a sense of ownership by national authorities or on an increased awareness towards the needs of vulnerable groups of migrants. The project DCI-MIGR/2009/228-536:"Sahara-Med – prevention and management of irregular migration flows from Sahara Desert to Mediterranean Sea", built on the "Across Sahara I and II" projects funded by AENEAS, is implemented by the Italian Ministry of Interior in partnership with Greece and IOM. The project had to stop its activities at the beginning of 2011 due to the civil war. It was later redesigned and a new set of project documents was redrafted to take into account the new Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 45 of 63 developments and challenges of migration in the country and is now scheduled to end beginning of 2015. While the project had achieved good results before its interruption in March 2011, with the capacity building of the Libyan Navy by Italian and Greek specialists as well as the voluntary repatriation of 605 foreign nationals from Libya by the IOM, its results and the sustainability of its outcome are very much factors of the country evolution. Although in a lesser extent, Algeria was also affected by the Arab Spring. Due to a fear of terrorism contamination, Algeria remains a country with porous borders but stringent migration policies, penalizing not only trafficking offenders but also victims, irregular migrants and refugees with a lack of a rights based legislative framework. The project DCI-MIGR/2010/259-700: "Renforcer la protection des migrants et les capacités de gestion des flux migratoires mixtes", implemented by the Consiglio Italiano per i Rifugiati was developed by a mix partnership of Italian CSOs and international organisations (UNHCR and ICMPD) to reinforce the legal and judicial national capacities to address mixed flows as well as to raise civil society awareness and to enhanced migrants protection and assistance. The national counterpart, a para-statal organisation, is the interface between the state and the civil society on human rights promotion and protection. However it has no budget and no decision making power. It is too early to draw conclusions on the project impact on national policies but it is likely that the sustainability of the projects outcomes will be linked to individual commitments of the project partners and beneficiaries at civil society level and not to changes in national policies. Among the countries having signed readmission agreements with the EU, Eastern European countries received the most attention from the TPMA, particularly Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine and to a lesser extent, Russia while only one TPMA project was developed in favour of South Asian countries (Pakistan and Sri Lanka). The Targeted Initiative “Supporting reintegration of Georgian returning migrants and the implementation of the EU-Georgia readmission agreement” started on 1 November 2011. It has been an important input to the implementation of these agreements. Very recently, Armenia signed the readmission agreement with the EU (April 2013) after having signed the visa-facilitation agreement in December 2012. Both agreements will enter into force before July 2013. The Targeted Initiative for Armenia (DCI-MIGR/2012/309-112) with components and activities very similar to those of the Georgian project was launched recently in April 2013. In countries that have signed readmission agreements with the EU, one of the projects assessed by the mission: “Technical Cooperation and Capacity Building for the Governments of Ukraine and Moldova for the Implementation of Readmission Agreements with the European Union” (GUMIRA) implemented by IOM, shows that the positive support of the beneficiary country government has benefitted the project actions in favour of returning migrants as well as having an influence on the development and implementation of national policies on migration and asylum in both countries. The GUMIRA is also a good example of implementing agencies collaboration and synergy between various EU funded initiatives. At the same time when the GUMIRA project was implemented by IOM, the Danish Refugee Council implemented an EU-funded project (TPMA) focusing on refugee status determination in Ukraine; UNHCR implemented a project on access to protection in the framework of the RPP in Ukraine and ECRE implemented an EU-funded project (TPMA) on civil society and refugee assistance in Moldova, Russia and Ukraine. Close coordination among these projects was ensured through regular working level meetings as well as mutual attendance of Steering Committee meetings. The monitoring tools developed and utilized under the GUMIRA project were coordinated with and codesigned by both UNHCR and ECRE. For global projects, the assessment is to be made in relation with the global strategy underlining its design. The Targeted Initiative project DCI-MIGR/2008/165-055: "Promoting the implementation of the protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children", is implemented by UNODC in the framework of a UNODC global strategic approach in which it provides a continuous support to its member countries and institutional partners in the various areas of irregular migration. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 46 of 63 In terms of impact and sustainability, the project is therefore to be assessed within this overall strategy framework in which the European Union is part of a multi-donors pool aiming to reach the same objectives, in a time-frame having started before and going beyond the project life. The specific project outputs such as institutional capacity building, the hand-book for parliamentarians on the Trafficking protocol, the anti-migrants smuggling toolkit or the training modules on anti-trafficking and smuggling are relevant to this strategy in the sense that they are designed to be replicated and implemented (through the UNODC field offices) in countries making specific requests or sensitized to the project through the UNODC Conference of the Parties. So are the capacity building activities. Lessons learnt in pilot actions, in pilot countries or regions are mainstreamed in further actions contributing to reach the stakeholders common objectives. The specific sub-theme of "data collection" is complementary to the thematic priorities. Data oriented projects target compensating for the lack of reliable data on all areas of migration; this is a recurrent issue in most third countries beneficiaries of TPMA projects, which are not particularly successful in building inter-governmental cooperation on data sharing and on integrated data management systems. An observation also confirmed by the review of selected projects in which baseline surveys targeting a better knowledge of the project beneficiaries and context are often listed among the first actions to be carried out in project implementation. Out of the three projects supporting the Irregular Migration Theme, two are implemented by ICMPD: DCI-MIGR/2008/154-148 and DCIMIGR/2011/229-679. Although the first project is integrated into the "CARIM3" initiative both projects are part of the same framework, having both the objective of establishing an interactive map of migration flows between Africa, the Middle East and Europe, including practitioners’ capacity building, notably to support the informal Dialogue on Mediterranean Transit Migration (MTM). The other project is the DCI-MIGR/2010/229-554: "Beyond irregularity: measuring and improving outcomes for irregular migrants in transit from Sub-Sahara Africa to Europe", implemented by the Institute for Public Policy and Research. While the project aims to support the dialogue and cooperation between Europe and countries of origin and transit, it is not integrated in any specific dialogue framework and at its present stage of implementation its on-going action oriented research on irregular migration and trafficking covers only one of each: Nigeria, Morocco and the UK. If a qualitative assessment of TPMA projects on irregular migration can be evaluated through desk review, country visits and interviews, it is more difficult to gather quantitative results as data collection and processing remains a challenge to be addressed in most TPMA recipient countries. This is particularly true for statistics collected by law enforcement agencies on irregular migrants or on victims of trafficking as these agencies are most of the time resistant to share their data on the basis of national security. As a result, statistics and data shown by project beneficiaries in their reports are therefore and logically reflecting the project achievements but cannot realistically be used to measure progress made at national level. EQ8 SUMMARY This thematic area remains the most funded of the TPMA with a focus on the Southern Migration Route. It is also the area in which the participation of EU Member States, whether as beneficiary or as partners in project execution, is the highest. Irregular migration continues to be linked to security issues rather than to be considered as a migration field needing a holistic and rights based approach. However, it can be safely said that the TPMA initiatives are contributing gradually to initiate a positive change of attitude in the governments. The main contributing factors of success are the high quality of the technical assistance received, the active participation of EU MS in project activities and an efficient project monitoring by the EU Delegations. The sustainability of projects and their impact on policy changes are however another matter. Governments that are not systematically involved in project development do not feel ownership. This situation is often compounded by a lack of inter-ministerial coordination, various ministries competing for an overall responsibility on migration issues and for project benefits. As a result the sustainability of Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 47 of 63 a project results and of the training received at national stakeholders level is often linked to individual commitments and professional networks. At national policy level, the positive factor of a project impact and sustainability is also represented by the continuing presence of the international organisations and NGOs (international and national), beneficiaries of the TPMA, who can integrate the project results in their planning and activities. The absence or reliable data and of integrated data management systems remain a challenge to be addressed in most beneficiary countries, particularly in the area of irregular migration and fight against trafficking and smuggling. Research activities initiated by TPMA projects are result oriented and linked to their specific needs, global data management projects provide general information on migratory flows and good quality capacity building but fail to build inter-governmental cooperation and interconnected data management systems on a given migratory route. EQ 9: To what extent is EC cooperation through the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum contributing to results related to promoting asylum and international protection? The third pillar of the GAMM refers to promoting international protection and enhancing the external dimension of asylum policy. It underlines the need of the EU to increase cooperation with relevant non-EU countries to strengthen their asylum systems and national asylum legislation ensuring compliance with international standards. In this respect one of the priorities of the GAMM is the Regional Protection Programmes (RPPs). They are designed to enhance the protection capacity of the regions involved and to improve durable solutions. In close coordination with UNHCR, the Commission has so far developed RPPs in Eastern Europe, the African Great Lakes’ Region and the Horn of Africa. A new RPP was initiated in 2011 in Northern Africa and the second phase of the RPP in the Horn of Africa began in January 2013. A new RPP for refugees and host communities in the Middle East is being developed mainly for Syrian refugees. In addition, both Annual Action Programmes 2009-2010 and 2011-2013 stress the importance of promoting asylum and international protection by strengthening institutional capacities, support the registration of asylum applicants, the improvement of reception conditions and local integration. The two geographical regions Southern Mediterranean and Africa on one hand and Eastern Europe remain as main priority. The 'RPP in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia: providing support to UNHCR activities' (DCI-MIGR 2011/270894) has adapted its objectives to each country’s specific situation, needs and possibilities of action. After the Arab Spring some of the work done previously has to be repeated in different ways and with different stakeholders. In Egypt, the programme pursues most of its activities initiated under AENEAS (project MIGR/2005/103484) focusing on capacity building and training addressed to officials, university students and NGOs and continues its work with CARITAS. In Tunisia, work has been done with migrants in urban areas and in the Shousha camp (closed today) on migrants fleeing Libya; this represents a great change with the situation before the Arab Spring, during the AENEAS Global Project on Maghreb and Mashreq (MIGR/2006/126820). In Libya, there is no change of objectives and activities between the previous AENEAS project and the current RPP. In general, there is an impression of repetition, which may be a necessity in view of the changes that occurred with the Arab uprisings. However, as in the three countries the governments have not achieved yet total stability, the most important impact is to work on awareness raising, building capacities and having access to refugees. While the RSDs (refugee status determination) are long processes with a waiting period 32 exceeding «14 months» , the number of registered person is very small when compared to the number of «potential» refugees. 32 -Final EU-RPP Interim Narrative Report», Annex VI. - The present information is an assessment of the project proposal « «Asylum Systems Quality Initiatives in Eastern Europe and South Caucasus (DCI/MIGR/2011/282477), (Annex 1). 32 Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 48 of 63 The unstable situation in this part of the world might result in wasting some of the results and impact obtained through AENEAS interventions. There is a real necessity to redefine strategies and interventions in relation to the local and available capacities especially on the UNHCR’s side. Packages addressing issues through rapid interventions complementary to humanitarian aid, for example on stranded refugees in Libya or on Syrian refugees in Egypt, should be combined with longterm initiatives defining the interlocutors and the counterparts in a more in-depth, even anthropological way where socio-cultural forms are accounted. The whole capacity building activities of UNHCR through TPMA projects in Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, Jordan for instance, with officers, students, lawyers and local NGOs are likely to have a sustainable impact. The second priority expressed under this pillar in the GAMM is the support given the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in asylum capacity building in non-EU countries. UNHCR will soon start the implementation of a regional project "Asylum Systems Quality Initiatives in Eastern Europe and South Caucasus" (DCI/MIGR/2011/282477) for the period of 2013-2014. It addresses the 6 33 countries of the Eastern Partnership and has Russia as an observer . It counts also on 5 EU MS (Poland, Romania, Germany, Sweden and the UK) for good practice advice. The project was drafted in 2011 before the Syrian crisis that changed the whole situation. Georgia was then mainly a sending country with little issues related to refugees (whereas IDPs are essential) not counting more than 600 Chechen families. With the Syrian crisis Georgia is hosting Iraqi refugees who had the refugee status in Syria and have fled through Turkey. It also hosts Syrians, who are on a temporary basis and on transit and may become asylum seekers (in the country or abroad). In spite of progress made through the Prague Process promoting migration partnerships, Georgia has no instruments to deal with these 34 migrants/refugees. It has “no capacities, no resources and no knowledge” . The UNHCR shelter built through project DCI/MIGR/2008/153185 «Strengthening of protection capacity, local integration and prevention of secondary movements» is for 60 persons only. It is important that the project adapts its mechanisms to this recent and urgent need of the government to manage this influx with the necessary tools based on «durable solutions»? The current Armenian case with the Syrian crisis is somewhat different and this difference is essential to understand. Here UNHCR’s needs to review and adapt its approach after acquiring in-depth knowledge. It will be important for this project to create synergies with the targeted initiatives in Georgia and Armenia and the completed one in Moldova, in order to ensure the achievement of some of the general results of the TPMA. These projects are not drafted following evaluations or based on lessons learned. Already with the targeted initiatives there have been no lessons learned to be used as best practice for subsequent initiatives, as Moldova was implemented first, then Georgia and very recently Armenia. In the same way, which synergies should complement activities between the TIs and the asylum project (especially on the regional level), with returns, readmissions and regional resettlement activities? TPMA projects concerning the third pillar of the GAMM can address «durable solutions» and sustainability in different ways thanks to the Call for Proposals procedure that introduces a diversity of actors, approaches and implementing agents. In the project “Enhancing local capacities for selfreliance of Congolese, Rwandese, Somali refugees in the South-Western Uganda” (DCI/MIGR/2010/228-933) the focus is to promote self-reliance by increasing income and decrease dependencies of the former from UNHCR emergency assistance. The project is implemented by Action Africa Help International which has been present in the country since 1993 and has long-term experience and partnership with UNHCR. Danish Refugee Council (DRC) has also a long lasting partnership with UNHCR and a very active presence in the TPMA projects. It is present in Tajikistan since AENEAS (2004) and the project «Protection and integration of asylum seekers and refugees in Tajikistan» (DCI-MIGR/2009/239-705) is a very «classical» project aiming at strengthening the 33 34 - As the EUD expressed to the expert. - There is no other information or report to know better about the project’s performances. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 49 of 63 capacities of the Government Asylum Authority through training on RSD, increasing capacities of the refugee communities to protect their own rights in Tajikistan, where transit and smuggling are the main constraints. The project «Fostering health care for refugees and local communities in Somali region, Ethiopia» (DCI/MIGR/2010/256-065) seems not to be very effective as the ROM evaluation considers that the 35 planned activities and outcomes are not appropriate and not addressing properly the needs . Two other projects in South Africa referring to Zimbabwean migrants and refugees (DCI/MIGR/2010/253414 and DCI/MIGR2010/253573) raise the issue of the rights-based asylum and migration policy and its importance to combat trafficking and xenophobia. The project «Contributing to developing an effective response to mixed migration in the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden» (DCI-MIGR/2010/229-841) is a continuation of all efforts addressing 7.3 million 36 of displaced and refugees in the area . The first two objectives reveal the continuous efforts needed in capacity building and training of Yemeni and Somali officials, coastal guards, NGOs and other actors. The third and fourth objectives are different: facilitating the return and reintegration of returnees to Puntland and promoting the positive effects of migration on development. For the above stated region of the Horn of Africa and Yemen it can highly be recommended that results and lessons learned from the project «Contributing to developing an effective response to mixed migration in the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden» (DCI-MIGR/2010/229-841) and from the others in the area (financed under the Thematic and AENEAS Programmes), focusing on the specific refugee question in Yemen, Somalia and the Horn of Africa receive a special attention, or be evaluated in order to underline best practices and lessons learned as basis to re-consider and redefine the main approaches followed so far, their relevance regarding the results obtained and identify further implementing tools. A re-consideration of the main approach can be beneficial and perhaps bring new insight to the theme. EQ9 SUMMARY A very important input to the whole TPMA and especially to this third pillar of the GAMM is represented by the link between the asylum/refugee question and the migration and development nexus changing the approach into more long-lasting and sustainable initiatives as alternatives to the «durable solutions» that cannot always be achieved. In general it is important to underline that the targeted projects, both initiatives related to the Prague Process and the Mobility Partnership declarations on one hand, and on the other the Regional Protection Programmes should be more complementary to each other and coordinated at the proposal level, which does not seem to be sufficiently the case. This is to ensure more relevance and sustainability to the projects. In addition, UNHCR remains the main implementing agent for these theme and both the GAMM and the TPMA strategies give support to its actions. UNHCR always works with local NGOs and has developed good training programmes for building their capacities. These NGOs are the best suited for project follow up in this field and are able to push forth protection issues for empowering the refugees on their rights and for having access to income generating activities. These two points are common to all the themes of the Programme and define its role; for this reason coordination is also needed not only on geographical ground, nor on the thematic ground but also on the results of the single projects. 35 - 2013 UNHCR regional operations profile - East and Horn of Africa, I.UNHCR.org. In addition, several projects which are correctly considered within the Irregular Migration and/or Migrants rights categories have important and typical “legal” migration components (for instance, the entire area of the provision of information to would be migrants on the possibilities of safe and legal migration, on labour needs in Europe etc. which is sometimes part of information packages aiming at discouraging irregular migration). 36 Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 50 of 63 Results of projects need to be better known and more visible to be complementary and constructive. Results of previous actions in a country or a region need to be better considered in drafting new proposals, in order to enforce the impact of the whole programme. EQ 10: To what extent is EU cooperation through the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum contributing to promoting well managed labour migration? Legal/Labour Migration projects accounted for only 14 % of funding provided under the TPMA for the period 2007-2011. This figure is quite low; although we must bear in mind that, as mentioned, overlapping of themes and sub-sectors between Legal/Labour migration and Migration and Development is frequent (for example, circular migration projects and initiatives in the area of human capital development and brain drain have alternatively been considered as part of one or the other theme depending on the predominant features of the project or for mere convenience). In view of the above, projects dealing with labour migration are not necessarily listed as such in official 37 documentation . Analysis of new projects selected from the Call for Proposals for 2011-12 (which are expected to start in due course) conforms to the above, with 7 out of the total 49 projects (14,30%) addressing predominantly this thematic priority. Lot 3 (Other regions: South, Southeast and East Asia, Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean) has the highest concentration of new legal/labour migration initiatives (3 out of 10 projects selected). As regards level of priority, according to EU Delegation questionnaires, Legal and Labour Migration did emerge on average as a medium priority in the targeted countries (high for India). In fact the themes ranked as higher priorities during the exercise are Irregular Migration and Protection of Migrants Rights (including THB). It should also be noted that Legal/Labour migration projects can vary considerably as they are often addressing quite specific sub-themes or strands. For this reason, in the “Evaluation of concrete results obtained through projects financed under AENEAS and the TPMA (Labour Migration and Circular Migration)” they were studied on the basis of their predominant focus and classified accordingly in five 38 sub-categories . For each of these sub-categories, separate findings, conclusions and recommendations were produced. The current evaluation, which covers the whole programme, could not follow that methodology as it was meant to concentrate on the relatively few labour migration projects implemented in the target 39 countries, irrespective of the specific strands/sub-categories prevailing in those countries . An important question that has emerged from the beginning of the TPMA is how far the projects implemented have contributed to the integration of migration issues, and labour migration in particular, into national policy making. Both the Mid-Term Review and the referred Evaluation of concrete results for the labour migration/circulation migration sub-sector have noted that integration was stronger in countries with Mobility Partnerships such as Moldova and Cape Verde. In Moldova, the Mobility Partnership has been supported through DCI-MIGR/2008/165058 “Strengthening the Moldova capacity to manage labour and return migration within the framework of the Mobility Partnership with the EU”, implemented by the Swedish Public Employment Service. 37 In addition, several projects which are correctly considered within the Irregular Migration and/or Migrants rights categories have important and typical “legal” migration components (for instance, the entire area of the provision of information to would be migrants on the possibilities of safe and legal migration, on labour needs in Europe etc. which is sometimes part of information packages aiming at discouraging irregular migration). 38 These five sub-categories are: a.Support to policy design, policy dialogue and policy development; b.Reinforcement of labour migration management and labour-matching capacities (data collection, profiles’ assessment, pre-selection, recruitment, cooperation with countries of destination, reintegration in the labour market of returnees); c.Protection of migrants' rights; d. Human capital development and brain drain; e.Temporary and Circular Labour Migration. 39 However, a few other projects in non-target countries were included in the desk study sample in light of their significance and in order to complete the assessment. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 51 of 63 Important project components, included supporting relevant authorities in negotiating bilateral agreements pertaining to labour migration and social protection with EU Member States and reinforcing the information capacities of the National Employment Agency (NEA) and its ability to support prospective migrants and reach out to returnees, have progressed considerably. As regards the latter component, the information system for the management of labour migration in Moldova (SOFT), established through the project, has become a fully integrated system connected with all relevant State institutions; this provided NEA with online access to 13-14 other databases of government institutions dealing with different aspects of labour migration and greatly improving its capacity to provide comprehensive and qualitative services to different categories of migrants and job seekers. One crucial aspect for this country, given the high number of projects funded under the TPMA in interrelated topics, would be to assess more thoroughly the level of coordination and coherence among the various initiatives. These appeared low at the time of previous evaluations/reviews (when fewer actions were implemented) and a degree of duplication, as well as ineffective experimentation, were detected. The situation does not seem to have improved much, considering what mentioned under EQ 7 for DCI-MIGR-2011-228991 where coordination with primary stakeholders in this field is quite absent. The on-going project DCI-MIGR-2010-229489 “Promotion of Gender-sensitive Labour Migration Policies in Costa Rica, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama and Haiti-Dominican Republic”, implemented by the International Labour Organization (ILO), is a classical labour migration initiative targeting migrant workers (especially women in the domestic sector and men in the construction and agricultural sectors) and their families along the relevant migration corridors between the target countries. The project forms part of ILO’s global agenda implementing the ILO Action Plan on Labour Migration and of the Decent Work for All Agenda. It aims a. at promoting the adoption of gender-sensitive labour migration policies, legislation and administration to improve the regulation of labour migration flows, b. at enhancing social security coverage of migrant workers and their families (for instance through the adoption of new bilateral agreements Nicaragua-Panama and Dominican Republic-Haiti and improving the existing agreement between Costa Rica and Nicaragua on the portability of social security) and at supporting the improvement of skills-matching between sending and receiving countries (including de-skilling reduction by promoting the recognition of migrant workers’ diplomas and certificates). Among the visited countries, a total of six projects have been funded under the TPMA for activities in 40 India, either as country actions or part of regional or multi-country thematic initiatives . With the exception of one project in the area of trafficking of human beings, the predominant (although not exclusive) focus of these projects is Legal/Labour Migration (this theme was accordingly ranked as a high priority for India). DCI-MIGR-2009-153434 “Regional Programme and dialogue on facilitating safe and legal migration from South Asia to EU”, implemented by IOM, is an example of TPMA project that has promoted high level policy dialogue at regional and international level on legal migration. The project has supported the Colombo Process and, by linking it up with EC MS through the Asia-EU Dialogue on Labour Migration Platform, has enabled broadening the relevant interlocutors and set in motion processes that could lead to improved coordination among actors, exchange of best practices, opportunities for policy dialogue and the translation of these reflections in public policies having a dual benefit basis. This regional project has produced a tangible impact in the targeted countries (Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka) in several areas. As far as India is concerned, important synergies were developed with different stakeholders and with long-term perspectives. The Government in particular was positively influenced by the project on how to move forward on labour migration management. The adoption of the MRC (Migrant Resource Centre) concept across the board (with new MRCs planned in additional States), the facilitation of labour agreements, progress in the regulation of recruitment agencies, the 40 Activities in India for DCI-MIGR-2010-229493 “Promoting Decent Work Across Borders: A Pilot Project for Migrant Health Professionals and Skilled Workers”, implemented by ILO, have not started yet (and the project main focus is in the Philippines). Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 52 of 63 provision of correct information to migrants and the setting up of an online grievance redressal system are all very visible impacts (directly or indirectly) associated to the project. However, one area where impact was hampered by external factors and remained below expectations was that, in spite of noteworthy facilitating efforts, no actual placement of skilled migrant workers to targeted countries in Europe could take place. Unexpected flows from North Africa to Italy, as a result of political turmoil there, changes of priorities/focus or difficulties to identify companies interested in recruiting foreign workers in EU Member States, in addition to the overall economic crisis and more stringent immigration policies in countries of destination, all contributed to preventing more substantial accomplishments in this area. It is important to note that the newly approved IOM project DCI-MIGR-2012-283280 “Strengthening labour migration management capacities in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nepal and the Philippines for replication in other Colombo Process Member States” will enable not only expansion and consolidation of activities carried out in Bangladesh through the regional project for South Asia, plus replication of initiatives in new targeted countries, but will also make possible further support to this RCP (Colombo Process) and allow to conduct the Third Asia-EU Dialogue on Labour Migration Management. Another important multi-theme project in India is DCI-MIGR-2010- 229848 “Developing a knowledge base for policymaking on India-EU migration”, implemented by the European University Institute in partnership with the India Centre for Migration (ICM) – also the main partner for India of the abovementioned IOM regional project – a think tank of the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (MOIA). This research project is expected to produce a very important stock of statistical and documentary data which will help EU and Indian policy makers in developing their approaches on migration dynamics. Its publications will, in a sense, serve as vehicle for negotiations on migration issues of mutual concern. It has been remarked during the mission that high-level dialogue on migration between India and the EU was in fact made possible by this project. It should be recalled that virtually no dialogue in this area existed during the period 2006-2010 and very few substantive meetings took place until 2012. The situation has radically changed with this project which is contributing, through the production of specific outputs, to the elaboration of a more authoritative EU's view and to its inclusion in the discourse with Indian authorities. Member States are fully participating in this process, including through participation in Ad Hoc Meetings on Migration, facilitated by the EU Delegation. Because of the coherent approach followed (both from the political and the development cooperation perspectives), which shows that there is a common EU voice in engaging through dialogue in this thematic areas with the Indian authorities, the EU Delegation is now a well thought interlocutor on this issues. There is also a more consistent approach from the national side - driven by what happens in this field - in terms of input provision, acceptance of modifications, better monitoring and overall participation. This project should be seen as a first step in a long-term process of engagement and dialogue in the migration field between India and the EU. Continuity is assured with the recent approval of DCI-MIGR2012-283488 “Developing Evidence-based Management and Operations in India-EU Migration and Partnership (DEMO: India-EU MaP)”, to be directly implemented by the Government (ICM and MOIA), through which the results of the on-going project will be consolidated and expanded. This would not only result in further evidence-based research and systematization of data collection methods (harmonization of systems in States of origin in India and selected EU MS remains a challenge) but also in addressing overall gaps in capacity building, in enhancing networking, connectivity and sharing of information between key stakeholders and in attempting to better inform - by setting up an India-EU Migration Council - migration policy-making processes in India and Europe. The current level of engagement in policy dialogue between the EU Delegation and its national counterparts, as shown by the referred project, is a very positive indication in an overall context where third countries had not been “always eager to engage in a dialogue that they perceive to be too oriented towards EU policies and regulations” as noted by the Mid-Term Review of the TPMA. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 53 of 63 If we go beyond the merits and/or shortcomings of individual projects, one of the limitations of the TPMA in the sub-sector has been the difficulty, with a few exceptions, in ensuring an effective exchange of best practices and lessons learnt among relevant stakeholders and in making possible a better harmonization of efforts in a specific project area with other TPMA projects (in the same country, region or predominant theme) or with other programmes which have operated (without reaching a meeting point) on a parallel level. It is interesting to note that the final evaluation of the project “ Best practices on collecting and sharing Labour Migration Data for the improvement of Labour Market Information Systems in Tunisia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Ghana and Senegal", implemented between 2010 and 2013 by IOM under the programme “Investing in People”, has reached similar conclusions. While the project has been very effective in building the capacities of the targeted national institutions in collecting and sharing data and statistics on labour migration (and in implementing pilot initiatives which responded to the actual needs/requests of the beneficiary countries), the exchange of best practices seem to have remained just at the proposal stage for the achievement of the capacity building envisaged by the project. Interchange of ideas within the project, hampered for sure by language difficulties and by the different level of elaboration of the labour market information systems in participating countries, therefore appeared mostly instrumental and lacked a systematization which would allow to produce effects beyond the duration and immediate scope of that initiative. Likewise, it didn’t appear that synergy and significant interchange of experiences had occurred, outside the project, with TPMA or other initiatives in the target countries. EQ 10 SUMMARY Legal/Labour migration projects can considerably vary as they are often addressing quite specific subthemes or strands. In addition, overlapping of themes between Legal/Labour migration and Migration and Development is frequent (for example, in the areas of circular migration and human capital development and brain drain) and for these reasons exact categorization of projects is sometimes elusive. Through a large number of successful projects addressing the various sub-themes around the world, the Thematic Programme marks a considerable advance in labour migration management in general. Integration of migration issues, and labour migration in particular, into national policy making was stronger in countries with Mobility Partnerships. However, in some cases where a high number of projects were funded in inter-related topics, the level of coordination and coherence among the various initiatives was found quite low and duplication, as well as ineffective experimentation, were detected. Among targeted visited countries, legal/labour migration has emerged as the predominant theme in India where the TPMA has contributed to promote high level policy dialogue at regional and international level on legal migration, positively influenced the Government on how to move forward on labour migration management and where, in general, a more consistent and coherent approach has been followed by the main stakeholders. Broadly speaking, one of the limitations of the TPMA in the sub-sector has been the difficulty, with a few exceptions, in ensuring an effective exchange of best practices and lessons learnt among relevant stakeholders and in making possible a better harmonization of efforts in a specific project area with other TPMA projects or with other programmes which have operated on a parallel level. EQ 11. To what extent is EU cooperation through the thematic programme on migration and asylum contributing to protecting migrants against exploitation and exclusion and supporting the fight against trafficking of human beings. For the period 2007-2011, the thematic priority protecting migrants against exploitation and exclusion and supporting the fight against trafficking of human beings has received 11% of the allocated funding. While on paper it is the thematic priority receiving the lowest attention, this needs to be mitigated by Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 54 of 63 the fact that the observance of human rights and democratic principles is also a cross cutting issue underlining most of the projects implemented under the TPMA, (in accordance with the relevant EU policies, the TPMA strategy papers and the Calls for Proposals in which the support to third countries in the compliance with international agreements and standards on human rights should be embedded in all projects). In terms of geographic representation, the Southern Route and most particularly the North African Region has received the larger number of projects, followed by the Eastern Route, Asia and Latin America (see Annex 5). It is interesting to note that, from a provisional analysis of the 49 projects selected from the Call for Proposals for 2011-12, the percentage of projects falling under this thematic category is expected to increase substantially. More precisely, ten out of twenty projects selected under Lot 1 (The South Southern Mediterranean (Northern Africa), Sub-Saharan Africa and Middle East) and four out of ten selected under Lot 3 (Other regions: South, Southeast and East Asia, Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean) appear to address this theme. Considering that there are no projects of this kind among those selected for Lot 2, the overall percentage of new projects focusing specifically on this thematic priority will increase to a considerable 28,50 % (14 projects out of 49). Relevant to the above-mentioned obligation of compliance is a lack of precision in the thematic classification of projects. For example, according to documentation provided to the mission, there is no Migrants Rights project implemented in Sub-Saharan Africa while in South Africa, two Asylum projects implemented by CSOs (one by Lawyers for Human Rights: “Support of Lawyers for Human Rights Refugee and Migrant Rights Programme” and the other implemented by HIVOS: “Eastern Cape Migrants, Refugee and Asylum Seeker Programme”) could have well been classified as Migrants Rights projects since they give assistance to mixed flows of migrants, asylum seekers and other vulnerable groups such as labour migrants, women and children in need of basic rights observance services. An interesting development of the TPMA is also the development of new initiatives by CSOs, outside the usual migrants’ rights and protection frameworks. An example is the project developed by the rd Fondation Suisse du service social international under the 3 CfP: “Réseau régional de collaboration pour la protection et la réintégration d'enfants et de jeunes migrants en situation difficile” in West Africa. The project concept is to focus on the necessity to protect and assist unaccompanied minors without considering their vulnerability category (smuggling, trafficking or exploitation) through a network of NGOs in targeted countries but with the support of the regional economic commission (ECOWAS) for an enhanced cooperation with the national authorities. In terms of implementing partners,, during the period 2007-2011 CSOs are the main category with 14 projects out of the 18 projects going under the Migrants Rights theme, while the 4 other projects were implemented by International Organizations. While most third countries benefiting from TPMA projects have signed or ratified international instruments relevant to human rights and protection, the application of these tools is not always mainstreamed into national legislations and policies, whether at the level of prevention and prosecution of human rights offenders or in the areas of protection and assistance to vulnerable groups of population (including the migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, women and children at risk). The TPMA projects aim to support and complement the governments’ actions at both these levels and in some cases, they even compensate the government lack of response and take on its role in migrants rights and protection matters. Migrants’ rights projects do not always respond to needs and priorities expressed by a government, they also respond to needs identified in a country or in a region at civil society level by established CSOs active in Human Rights prevention and protection. The strategy of these CSOs is to build capacities of NGOs and LCOs to promote the rights of migrants and to assist and protect them,, whether victims of human rights breach or in their efforts to access legal and social services; this is done on the assumption that strengthened civil society can better promote and protect the rights of migrants and refugees and provide support to the work of national authorities in the field (or be an efficient counterpart in their policy implementation). Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 55 of 63 The EMHRN project “Enhancing the capacity of civil society organizations in promoting and protecting the rights of migrants – Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt” was developed on this basis but it has faced serious challenges in its implementation. Some countries authorities showed direct hostility toward the EMHRN and/or its member organizations, which impacted the implementation of some activities. This is evidenced by the interference of the authorities of some countries to prevent events held by member organizations and as evidenced by the difficulty for the EMHRN’s President and Executive Director, as well as mission delegates, to enter some countries (in particular Algeria, for which entry visas have been refused several times, including as recently as November 2012). However, the regional context has changed significantly over the years in which the project was implemented. Regime changes in Tunisia and Libya, both completely or almost inaccessible prior to the 2011 uprisings, have led to a much more conducive environment for the EMHRN and CSOs more generally. The project final report is not yet available but despite these challenges, EMHRN estimates that organizations in the region have increasingly adopted a rights-based approach in the field of migration and asylum. Civil society in the region have also enhanced their capacity to act in the field via the project, developed both legal knowledge and practical on-the-ground experience which has facilitated their work, to the advantage of refugee and migrant populations. On the contrary, the project “Going back-moving on: economic and social empowerment of migrants including victims of trafficking returned from EU countries – Thailand, Philippines” implemented by ILO was developed in partnership with national agencies in Thailand and in the Philippines. Its successful results can be attributed to a close cooperation between authorities at national, provincial and local level and NGOs that received capacity building to deliver direct services to empower returning migrants in their reintegration efforts. Cooperation with EU receiving countries was also built in the project. In the case of Thai returnees returning from Sweden, cooperation with trade unions in the receiving country (Sweden) was instrumental in claiming compensation for wages, health care from their employers in Sweden. Not only the target of 1000 beneficiaries has been exceeded but a sustainable mechanism has been created in the form of self-help groups having the capacity to integrate new returnees. Likewise, DCI-MIGR-2008-153-015 “Capacity building to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings in Colombia”, implemented by IOM during the period 2009-2011, was formulated and executed in close cooperation with the Ministry of Interior and Justice. The intervention clearly fitted within the strategy pursued by the Government in the fight against THB in Colombia, which required decentralization of actual response from the central level to the departments. In supporting this strategy, the project focused specifically on capacity building, transfer of knowledge and on empowering national and local stakeholders (departmental committees developing and implementing action plans against trafficking; local NGOs working with vulnerable communities; border officials; journalists and social communicators) to allow sustainability of the action. As a matter of fact, many project activities in all the dimensions covered (prevention, assistance, protection, investigation, prosecution) have continued after July 2011 and the Ministry of Interior has now more internal financial resources (and tools) at its disposal for the fight against trafficking. The decentralization process has been extended to 21 Departments (from the 9 originally targeted by the project) and information campaigns and management of the Free Hotline for reporting THB cases and human rights violations have also been taken over by the Government. In Nigeria and in South Africa, the projects implemented under the TPMA have not yet led to changes in the adoption of new policies on migrants rights. Both countries have signed and ratified the Palermo protocols. In Nigeria, projects implemented under AENEAS by IOM (migration profile) and other projects implemented by ILO and UNODC have helped the government to develop or upgrade migration and asylum policies (National Migration Policy, National Labour Policy, IDP policy). Current TPMA projects implemented by ILO and UNODC are also supporting policy changes. However, and despite a favourable recognition of a need for human rights application frameworks, these policies remain to be adopted by the highest legislative body, the National Executive Council. In South Africa, Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 56 of 63 the policies exist although in need of revision (Refugee Act, Children Act, the national constitution). It is however their application in favour of migrants and other vulnerable groups which remains a challenge for the TPMA project implementers in South Africa, where security issues have priority over migrants’ rights. A main and common feature in all rights based projects is the importance given to the support to civil society organisations, NGOs and LCOs with technical and institutional capacity building in order to increase their capability to deal with migrant’s rights issues. The support to local authorities in provinces and regions of concern is also an important factor in the success of any given project as they are directly faced with migration problems and are more receptive to policy changes. These activities are often accompanied and supported by awareness raising campaigns such as in the project: “Enhanced multi-stakeholder cooperation to fight human trafficking in countries of origin and destination” implemented by UNODC in Nigeria in which the film industry was contracted to produce a film aiming to inform viewers on the risks of trafficking, the film was also viewed in European countries, partners of the project (workshop in Vienna) and was successful in achieving its objectives. Caritas in Lebanon, through the TPMA project DCI-MIGR 2007-129-864 has worked with the State Agents of the General Security responsible of the prisons and detention centres, where mainly female domestic workers are detained. The project was successful not only in protecting the detainees’ rights but was able to change perceptions, approaches and attitudes of the State agents. This was the first initiative of its kind in Lebanon that is now followed by intense advocacy and protection work by other NGOs and associations. Other forms of protection of migrants have focused on migrant workers and protection of their rights. The ILO project (DCI-MIGR-2008-153-705) focusing on migrant workers from South Caucasus to Russia has made intensive and successful efforts in this regard by introducing into the trade unions’ agendas labour migrants’ protection. By joining responsibilities of trade unions of sending and receiving countries, the project has ensured the protection of migrants’ rights against exploitation. Significant initiatives addressing this thematic priority in a South-South context have been or are currently implemented in India. DCI-MIGR- 2010-224-427 “Enhancing the protection of Indian migrant workers in Oman through evidence-based capacity building with Government and Civil Society” is implemented by a solid block of civil society actors (Dan Church Aid, Migrant Forum Asia and very committed local partners/networks in India). The project fills an important gap in promoting/protecting the rights of migrant workers to Oman (mostly low skilled) through a very articulated approach consisting of advocacy initiatives at various levels, capacity building of CSOs and relevant State actors, documentation of migrants complaints and follow up on human rights violations (by taking up cases with Labour Courts and/or the Ministry of Manpower for instance), mapping of available services at state level and delivering effective human-rights based pre-departure orientation/training for Omanbound migrant workers. Trafficking of human beings (mostly women and children) was the focus of DCI-MIGR-2009-153-330, SANYUKT, “connected “– "Regional project on case management and fight against trafficking within and from South Asia", implemented by a consortium of NGOs from India and Bangladesh supported by Groupe Developpement Association. In spite of a number of shortcomings and unforeseen events, which led to changes in the composition of the consortium, SANYUKT was a rather unique project which succeeded in bringing together for the first time rural and urban organizations, operating at different levels and points of the trafficking corridors, in the fight against this phenomenon. The systematisation of case management has been the strong point and most significant change brought by the project. Since all organizations at source, transit and destination used the same case number for a particular survivor (and common formats for reporting, monitoring etc), it became possible for all network members to follow up a specific case from the beginning to the end, plan further action and avoid duplication. Overall, the project offered recovery, protection and rehabilitation services to 3.475 survivors and, through the practical application of the case management system, the gestation period between rescue of victims and their reunification/reinsertion was considerably reduced. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 57 of 63 Brazil is a special case, because the three projects funded so far under the TPMA (including the recently contracted DCI-MIGR-2012-282-725) are with the same beneficiary, ICMPD, and can be considered as a logical sequence of actions within the same thematic priority. It has been remarked that ICMPD works as an essential connector in this area in Brazil "as an agglutinating actor among the Brazilian institutions which deal with migration and asylum issues”. It can be said that “since Brazil lacks a "supra-national" institution to coordinate actions and efforts in the area, ICMPD has come, in a certain way, to fulfil this gap. For this reason, it is felt that TPMA has been contributing, in an important way, to improve national policies and strategies in Brazil in this area”. As explained more in detail in the project fiches, the first two ICMPD projects (DCI-MIGR-2008-153-137 “Promoting Transnational Partnerships - Preventing and Responding to Trafficking in Human Beings from Brazil to EU Member States” and DCI-MIGR-2011-229-177 “Itineris - Protection of migrants’ rights from exploitation, from Brazil to the European Union”) have effectively contributed to a better management of the migration and anti-trafficking policies in Brazil by comprehensively addressing three inter-linked components: prevention of irregular migration and protection of migrants’ rights; capacity building of national administrations to fight against THB; and international cooperation in the fields of transnational referral of victims of trafficking and exchange of best practices, with emphasis on cooperation between Brazil and EU main countries of destination (Portugal, Italy and Spain). EQ11 SUMMARY While on paper it is the thematic priority receiving the lowest attention, this is to be mitigated by the fact that the observance of human rights and democratic principles is also a cross cutting issue underlined and integrated in most of the projects implemented under the TPMA. If all beneficiary countries are signatories of most of the international human and migrants rights instruments, their application and translation into national policies and legislations remain an issue to be addressed in many third countries and form the basis for the development of the TPMA rights based projects. A main and common feature in all rights based projects is the importance given to the support to civil society organisations, NGOs and LCOs with technical and institutional capacity building, in order to increase their capability to deal with migrant’s rights issues. The support to local authorities in provinces and regions of concern is also an important factor in the success of any given project as they are directly faced with migration problems and are more receptive to policy changes. Migrant workers, victims of trafficking and unaccompanied minors are the vulnerable groups of the population most affected by human rights violations and ultimate beneficiaries of the TPMA projects. A positive factor of success in rights based projects is that governments are sensitive to the issue of protection of their nationals and cooperate actively in projects involving their citizens’ protection. Despite progress being made in some of the visited countries, efforts remain however to be made in countries where irregular migrants, including minors, are still criminalized rather than considered as having basic rights. 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Preamble From the extensive analysis of findings provided in the answers to the eleven evaluation questions, summarized at the end of each question, we have elicited five core conclusions, which we referenced back to the EQs. It should be underlined that, given the broadness of the programme and the range of issues it does address, we have attempted to capture the essential, having regard to elements that tend to acquire a programmatic dimension and therefore having a significance that goes beyond a specific theme or cluster of projects. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 58 of 63 The approach to synthesizing findings to EQs into core or key conclusions was comprehensive and qualitative, although it was ensured that findings from all EQs figured in one or more of the synthetic conclusions reached. Finally, each core conclusion has led to the formulation of one or more inter-related recommendations clusters which are presented, for sake of clarity, next to the main conclusion they relate to. Although we think that all recommendations have their importance, we have ordered them by priority reflecting the team’s opinion. Conclusion 1 It can be positively assessed that the TPMA is implemented in relevance and coherence with the external dimension of the EU policies on migration and asylum and complying with its legal basis (DCI -Art 16) in all five dimensions of the migratory phenomenon. Improvements in some areas would however increase its efficiency. Capacity building and awareness activities are the most successful TPMA activities (EQ 5, 6 and 8) although with mixed results as their sustainability post project often rely on individual and LCO commitments (EQ1 and 8). The TPMA impact on third country policy changes is slowly increasing but remains low (EQ 2, 5 & 8) and doesn’t sufficiently stimulate the high level dialogue on migration and asylum issues. The TPMA complementarity with geographic programmes, other EU instruments and with other donors programmes remains low and leading to duplication of initiatives and resources (EQ1 and 4). This situation is also detrimental to the mainstreaming of migration and asylum issues into national priorities and subsequent socio-economic development plans and strategies. Countries having signed Mobility Partnership Agreements with the EU have comparatively received funds for a large number of projects. It was found however that a lack of stakeholders’ consultation and coordination in the project development phase had resulted in overlapping and duplication of activities. This is a situation that EU Delegations cannot always control due to limited resources incompatible with the number of projects to monitor (EQ2). Multi country projects include successful capacity building and inter-governmental cooperation activities, particularly in the promotion of democratic principles and migrants rights (EQ 5), but do not serve adequately the migration route principle (EQ1). They are often too ambitious with too many activities foreseen for the project duration; they experience difficulties in the areas of coordination, cooperation and information sharing. These issues of coordination and information sharing are also faced by EU Delegations which have difficulties in overseeing projects managed centrally (by the HQ in Brussels) or by Delegations located in different countries (EQ1). Recommendation 1 (Priority 4) We recommend the introduction of a new modality in the future TPMA, initially on a pilot basis and in parallel with a centralized Call for Proposals, by launching few local calls in carefully selected countries, taking into account the feedback of relevant Delegations. This is expected to increase the capacity to plan effective responses at country level for the various sub-themes, to avoid duplication and overlapping as well as to set up a more thorough coordination process with partners, which might be further replicated in future. The coordination and exchange of information between the HQ in Brussels and the EU Delegations on project development should be increased in order to ensure and enhance project efficiency and impact at national and regional level. Equally important is that multi-project beneficiaries inform the EU Delegations on upcoming and on-going activities taking place in their country Human resource constraints in the EU Delegations should be addressed when appropriate in order to ensure effective implementation, monitoring efficiency and enable sustained coordination of activities in the field of migration and asylum. This could be done through the establishment of dedicated focal points on migration in selected EUDs where relevant and needed, whether at national or regional level. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 59 of 63 Conclusion 2 Although the rate of participation of CSOs in the TPMA equals the IOs participation, the project beneficiaries remain largely the International Organisations, International CSOs and to a lesser extent EU MS Governments. The participation of third country CSOs remains low and would benefit from an adjustment of the TPMA implementing modalities. A broad beneficiary repartition shows that IOs are more present in the Irregular Migration and Asylum thematic priorities due to their comparative advantage and technical expertise, while CSOs are focusing more on the other TPMA themes, more centred on migrant interests and protection (Annex 5). However, attention should be brought to improving the project selection process. Projects are selected on the basis of the technical quality of the documents (concept notes and full applications) submitted by the applicants, but it is not always possible to include in such assessment a thorough analysis of their specific context – including, for instance, the inter-relation with other initiatives locally implemented by the EU and other donors; for these reasons overlapping and duplication of activities has occurred in some countries (EQ4). In some cases, the comparative advantage of IOs was not adequately matching the project requirements (EQ3).Both IOs and International NGOs sub-contract or enter in partnership with national CSOs, but the current TPMA implementing modalities do not facilitate still the participation of national CSOs in the CfPs as full beneficiary (EQ2). While there has been a high number of applications from national NGOs (including from Africa, Asia and Latin America) in the last Call for Proposals, none were selected from these regions. Their quality was often not satisfactory or manifestly very low (EQ2). Furthermore, despite the easing of the funding modalities targeting local CSOs in the last CfP, their capacities to fund raise and manage TPMA budgets remain insufficient. Recommendation 2 (Priority 3) We recommend that different options are introduced in future Call for Proposals guidelines as regards minimum/maximum amounts and duration of proposals for different categories of beneficiaries in order, inter alia, to stimulate the participation of non-traditional applicants, allow national/local NGOs and smaller organizations to elaborate proposals which are more in line with their needs and operational capacity, and conversely introduce longer periods of implementation for complex initiatives and multi-country projects. To improve the level of support to NGOs and CSOs developing and implementing projects on migrants rights and protection of vulnerable groups or projects with a strong rights-based component. Governments need to be fully informed and made aware of the project at its early stage of development so as to foster acceptance, ownership and positive impact on policy changes or on their effective application. The role of EU Delegations is also crucial in bringing together national authorities and stakeholders in consultative processes to support project adoption. Conclusion 3 The participation of Third Country Governments as active stakeholders can be assessed as acceptable in the areas of irregular migration (border management and migrants’ readmission) and to a lesser extent labour migration, but often too weak in other areas, resulting in low levels of ownership and sustainability. International Organizations and international NGOs with a continuous presence in beneficiary countries generally involve the governments from the onset in project development and tend to foster government interest and ownership including with the provision of high level technical assistance (EQ2). CSOs tend more to respond to gaps in policy development or application, principally in the areas centred on migrants’ rights and protection (EQ2 & 11), areas in which security minded governments participation is less active but areas in which the TPMA is nevertheless slowly making progress. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 60 of 63 Third countries governments are not sufficiently involved in project development and monitoring (EQ2). As a result they do not feel a sense of ownership or inclination to integrate project results and lessons learnt into national migration policies or strategies. Another reason for this situation is related to third countries governments disagreeing with EU policies that are not matching their own priorities (EQ2). Furthermore, project ownership and sustainability are also affected by a recurrent lack of interservice coordination and cooperation at national level. International Organisations and NGOs should integrate the TPMA results in their activities, thus ensuring their sustainability and eventual impact on policies and strategies. Individual commitments and LCOs integrating TPMA training in their daily activities with migrants also need to be acknowledged as positive factors of sustainability (EQ2). However, the situation could be improved with a better coordination of instruments and an increased role of beneficiary governments in projects management cycle. Recommendation 3 (Priority 1) We recommend that third countries governments be involved from the onset in the development of all projects. For projects developed at national level, efforts have to be made to involve all government stakeholders and not only the sectoral Ministries and Agencies so as to develop a national sense of ownership and limit as much as possible inter-agency competition. The role of EU Delegations in this regard is important, not only in the project design but also in ensuring complementarity with other EUfunded instruments. This recommendation is also valid for global or multi-country projects so that third country governments are fully informed and willing to participate. EU Delegations need to maintain a high level of coordination and information sharing with their Government counterparts, to support the integration of the TPMA outcomes in national and regional policies and strategies as well as to support the dialogue on EU policies. The coordination of strategies and interventions with other donors as well as with EU MS also needs to be strengthened in order to avoid duplication of efforts and resources. External and/or independent project evaluations are not the norm in all TPMA projects; in order to have objective results and impact assessment, their use need to be better regulated. Furthermore, we recommend including in the future TPMA some project guidelines and a specific reporting process in order for the beneficiary governments to report on project(s) implemented in their country. This would also have the advantage of having better informed policy makers participating in the dialogue as well as raising the level of awareness for policy changes. Conclusion 4 Most of migratory movements take place at regional level and mostly for economic reasons. While effective in capacity building, returns and reintegration and labour migrants protection, the TPMA is not efficient in reaching regional organisations and doesn’t effectively complement geographical and other relevant donors’ programmes in a South-South migration context. Support to various levels of dialogue (including with the EU), data management, capacity building in migration management and, most importantly, in protection of migrants and of their rights are sectors of intervention in which the TPMA has been the most active and productive in the area of Labour Migration. However, the TPMA positive outcomes and lessons learnt are not mainstreamed into the dialogue on regional cooperation and into regional strategies aiming to support regional socioeconomic and rights based development EQ 1 & 10). Global programmes on migration management and data collection and management benefit their beneficiary governments but their objectives tend to serve the migration routes towards Europe rather than regional migration processes. Due also to the poor quality of data management in third countries, they cannot generate an integrated information sharing system between beneficiary countries (EQ1). Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 61 of 63 Despite successful achievements in several regions, the TPMA can do better in supporting regional institutions and dialogues by linking its projects to geographical instruments, processes and programmes developed with a South-South focus by the EU and other international stakeholders, particularly in the areas of Labour Migration and Migration and Development which include protection and right based actions in favour of migrants (EQ 1 & 7). The project developed to support the Pacific region affected by climate change is a good example of South-South cooperation. EU Delegations have an important role to play in this area of intervention providing that they increase their level of coordination in concerned regions and that their resources are built up to respond to the challenges (EQ 1, 2 & 4). Recommendation 4 (Priority 2) We recommend to increase the level of information sharing and communication with the Regional Economic Commissions, EU partners and other stakeholders (donors, EU Member States, International Organizations) active in South-South migration at regional level on the TPMA results and lessons learnt in order to foster the development of common knowledge bases, to enhance effective coordination of policies, strategies and interventions as well as to ensure a better synergy in the utilisation of resources and funding. We recommend also increasing the level of coherence and coordination in the areas of migration and asylum between the Thematic Programme and on-going or forthcoming Geographical Programmes. Furthermore, better coherence and coordination should also be sought among the various TPMA projects in a given country or region (when relevant), in particular between those selected through the CfP modality and the targeted initiatives approved through direct negotiation. In relation with this recommendation, EU Delegations in the relevant geographic areas need to maintain the level of information-sharing and coordination necessary to support the process. Conclusion 5 It can be positively assessed that overall the TPMA has been implemented following modalities (relying extensively on actions selected through Call for Proposals in combination with a Direct Negotiation approach) which are appropriate to achieve EC cooperation objectives in the field of migration and asylum. However, improvements in the ways these modalities are structured and used - including for enabling a higher degree of coordination and complementarity among different initiatives selected through such modalities - would increase the effectiveness and impact of the programme. The CfP modality has undoubtedly proved its flexibility, openness and fairness as it allowed a wide range of actors to apply and enabled the selection of a mix of interventions incorporating different perspectives for addressing, sometimes in combination, the various thematic priorities. On a parallel level to the above predominant modality, the TPMA was characterized by a more limited use of a “direct negotiation” approach which was meant to ensure that core EU objectives could be addressed through targeted initiatives (EQ 3). Complementarity among EU programs and actions is something that should be generally improved (EQ 4), and this also applies within the TPMA itself where a lack of coordination and complementarity between projects selected through the two modalities appeared evident in some countries visited by the evaluation team (EQ 3). The main challenge for implementing organizations appeared to be the long process of evaluation and selection of actions, through the Call for Proposals modality, in an area which is by definition dynamic and where specific migration patterns can change rather rapidly. In addition, improvements of procedural and structural aspects (such as project duration and size, standard reporting, use of evaluations and experimenting with local calls in selected countries) have also emerged as useful propositions for a future version of the TPMA. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 62 of 63 While management of projects has improved with the decentralization of functions to EU Delegations, these have still a limited role to play in the entire process since, inter alia, they are not involved in the development of guidelines and setting of sub-priorities, or desired operational modalities, for their countries/regions and have little control on project design and outcomes. Recommendation 5 (Priority 5) As regards the main modality used for selecting TPMA actions, we recommend that in order to increase the flexibility and effectiveness of future TPMA, the period of time between the launch of a Call for Proposals and the actual start of selected projects is substantially reduced and, in case of changes of priorities affecting the original design of a proposal, a flexibility factor is built in the process to allow for such changes to be rapidly incorporated. See recommendations N° 1, 2, 3 and 4 as regards the role of EU Delegations, also valid for this recommendation. Overall Assessment The TPMA has proved to be a unique programme, open to a very wide range of actors, which has enabled the creation of important synergies and interactions, and the elaboration of multiple and diverse responses to the challenges that are constantly emerging in this complex field of migration and asylum. There is perhaps no clearer indicator of success than the interest generated by the programme in such a large number of stakeholders who are eagerly awaiting, as evidenced in the visits to target countries, for new opportunities and openings to put forward new project proposals or to consolidate acquired results through what they perceive as the most suitable (perhaps exclusive) channel through which they can comprehensively address migration and asylum issues. ANNEXES See separate folders. Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation with third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum" Page 63 of 63
