• Home /
• Statewatch Database /
• EU: High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration: crucial body in EU’s externalisation policies

EU: High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration: crucial body in EU’s externalisation policies

01 January 2006

Initially, the mandate of the High level Working Group on Asylum and Migration (HLWG), a council body, expired in 2000. It was set up on 7-8 December 1998, on the initiative of the Netherlands and in conjunction with German and Austrian EU Presidency initiatives. It consists of civil servants from interior, development, trade and foreign ministries. Its task was to engage in cross-pillar activities, linking justice and home affairs (JHA) and External affairs and develop the external dimensions of an EU migration policy. According to its terms of reference six so-called action plans on the influx of immigrants have been prepared, one each on Afghanistan, Albania, Morocco, Somalia, Sri Lana and Iraq and their neighbouring countries. The HLWG was to ‘be disbanded upon submission of its final report’. However, as early as 2000, the European Council in Tampere agreed on the continuation of its mandate which was prioritised by the Swedish presidency in 2001.

Two years later, the HLWG in a pro-active move suggested a further extension and expansion of its role at its meeting on 22 May 2002. But because of its relative failure with respect to the implementation of the action plans separate funding was identified through Article B7-667 (see below). Accordingly, the HLWG has been commissioned to:

develop a strategic approach and a coherent and integrated policy of the European Union for the most important countries and regions of origin and transit of asylum seekers and migrants, [which is CONTRARY to its previous mandate] without geographical limitations’ including some analysing and monitoring tasks, hence to integrate JHA issues in the EU external relations policies. It has been mandated to work out strategies to deepen political and diplomatic consultations with the concerned countries, evaluate possibilities for readmission agreements and explore ‘measures aiming at voluntary repatriation.

The mandate also contains some references to human rights situations and to development policies.

This brief enumeration indicates that the HLWG was assigned a crucial role in preparing the ground for the EU’s present externalisation policy in the field of asylum and migration. For example, the Dutch government expresses its view that the HLWG should be ‘the main forum for negotiations [on international cooperation] within the EU’ whilst the HLWG ‘should handle’:

direct or indirect support or exerting pressure on [countries of origin and transit] … to secure their cooperation

Whilst the action plans have received widespread attention, and criticism, by NGOs as well as by concerned third country governments, such as that of Morocco, the prolonged activities of this body have been much less visible. The group, supported by the General Secretariat of the Council, seems to have considerable discretion in performing its tasks including journeys to the countries and regions under consideration. It is financed by the EC B7-667 budget line, in 2004 replaced by the AENEAS programme. In 2001 and 2002, the budget of B7-667 was set at €10 and €12.5 million respectively. For 2003 the budget was determined at €20 million, but €7 million of this was earmarked specifically to implement the EU’s Plan for Return to Afghanistan. Within the framework of the HLWG external bodies such as UNHCR, IOM (International Organisation on Migration) or ICMPD receive money to run specific projects.

Following the extension of its mandate the new roles of the HLWG became clearer. For example, since 2001, it held meetings to consult the USA, Canada and Australia. Following a HLWG meeting on 10 July 2002, a list of 38 countries was prepared with whom cooperation is sought in migration matters and in each case one to four member states volunteered to start this process. The HLWG, at its meeting on 29 October 2002, and in accordance with the Seville Council conclusions laid down the principles of the EU’s external policies in the field of asyl