UUI, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 362: Spm. om ministeren vil oversende de projektafrapporteringer, evalueringer eller lignende, der måtte foreligge for de to midlertidige støtteordninger for frivillig hjemrejse for afviste asylansøgere, til udlændinge- og integrationsministeren

Udlændinge- og Integrationsudvalget 2017-18
UUI Alm.del
Offentligt

Final Report to The Danish Immigration Service

Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Support to Asylum

Seekers in Denmark Pilot Project (AVRR-DK)

Project Data Table

Executing Organization:

Project Identification and

Contract Numbers:

Project Management Site

and Relevant Regional

Office:

Project Period:

Geographical Coverage:

Project Beneficiaries:

Project Partner(s):

Reporting Period:

Date of Submission:

Total Confirmed Funding:

Total Funds Received to

Date:

Total Expenditures:

International Organization for Migration (IOM)

IOM project code: RT.0782

IOM LEG approval code: DNK/FDNK/AL0087/2013 AVRR

Management Site: Copenhagen, CO, DENMARK

Regional Office: Brussels, RO, BELGIUM

1 January 2013 to 30 June 2015 (extension 1 November 2013 to 31 March 2014, 1

April 2014 to 30 June 2014, 1 July to 30 September 2014, 1 October to 31

December 2014, 1 January to 31 March 2015, 1 April to 30 June 2015 )

Denmark and countries of return

Asylum seekers in Denmark who want to return voluntarily

The Danish Immigration Service (DIS), the Danish Police (UCN), the Danish

Refugee Council (DRC)

Final narrative report: 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2015

Final financial report: 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2015

04 August 2017

USD 2,914,976 (originally USD 1,785,300 amended to USD 2,914,976 on 2

amendment signed 4 November 2013)

USD 2,914,946

1 January 2013 to 30 June 2015: USD 2,198,324

For operational reasons, the project was kept active into 2016 and could therefore not be reported earlier, cf. the narrative below.

This figure includes expenses related to returns under the programme up until March 2016.

Office in Denmark:

Visiting address: Marmorvej 51 • Mailing address: P.O. Box 2530 • DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø • Denmark

Tel: +45-45 33 53 90 • +45-45 33 53 92 • E-mail: [email protected]

Internet: http://denmark.iom.int

1. SUMMARY OF KEY ACHIEVEMENTS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD

The

Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Support to Asylum Seekers in Denmark Pilot Project

(AVRR-DK)

intended to contribute to the development and offer of general Assisted Voluntary

Return and Reintegration Services (AVRR) for asylum seekers in Denmark. It was designed to

facilitate primarily the return and reintegration operations under the so-called support programme

(Støtteordningen).

The support programme was established through Bill No. 56 accepted in the

Danish Parliament on 18 December 2012 and originally expected to cater for the return of 250

persons applying for voluntary return between 18 December 2012 and 1 July 2013. Only persons

who had arrived to Denmark and applied for asylum before the acceptance date of Bill No. 56 were

eligible for the support. Bill No. 56 was kept confidential until its acceptance, wherefore IOM did not

know of the Bill previously and also could not influence eligibility and other criteria defined therein.

The support programme for the first time offered assisted voluntary return and reintegration

support to broader groups of asylum seekers in Denmark, although its scope was limited only to

those who had arrived in Denmark before 18 December 2012. When IOM was requested by the

Danish Immigration Service (DIS) to implement the pilot project facilitating AVRR in accordance with

the already accepted Bill, IOM immediately began developing and negotiating the project with the

DIS. The launch of the project was however constrained by the fact that IOM had only limited staff

presence in Denmark and therefore had to hire needed staff to become fully operational for the

implementation. In light of this situation, a 1

amendment was signed with DIS to slightly increase

the number of persons to whom IOM would agree to pay support even if they returned voluntarily

with other actors at the beginning of programme.

Despite these initial launch constraints, IOM was immediately able to draw on the organization’s

considerable experience with AVRR in Denmark and globally, wherefore the first returns with IOM

took place already in February 2013. When realizing that original intention to facilitate the return of

250 persons within nine months (before 30 September 2013) was unrealistic for a short-term

programme with limited application time, the DIS agreed to increase the funding to the project

while hoping also that the number of returns would increase to 500 (2

Amendment to the

agreement).

IOM supported the achievement of the project objective by developing, setting up and

implementing procedures and facilitating AVRR to a broader group of eligible persons in Denmark,

who had hitherto not been eligible for AVRR. Specifically:



In coordination with the DIS and other partners, IOM developed procedures for registration,

follow-up and implementation of returns and payments of reintegration assistance in

countries of origin. While the dialogue with the donor continued throughout the project on

identified needs and improvements, IOM quickly had the procedures in place for the

implementation of this pilot project.

Hereinafter, “project” refers mainly to the project document agreed between the DIS and IOM defining IOM’s responsibilities in the

overall support programme. However, the terms may also from time to time be used interchangeably.

Page 2 of 18



IOM arranged the return of total 216 persons in this project (67 females, 149 males),

including four persons who returned only in March 2016. In addition, IOM arranged the

voluntary return of seven vulnerable persons under a special return programme for

vulnerable persons but eligible for reintegration support under both projects. Based on the

first amendment signed between IOM and DIS, an additional 76 eligible persons returned

voluntarily to their countries of origin with other partners. A total of

299 eligible persons

therefore returned to their Countries of Origin during the programme.

The largest group of

beneficiaries were

Afghan nationals.

IOM coordinated the payment of cash reintegration grants and cash support for start-up of

business activities in support of sustainable reintegration for the majority of eligible

persons.

IOM paid special attention to

vulnerable returnees

requiring special assistance during or

after travel. This included

inter alia

support paid to vulnerable cases returning under other

project structures (mainly Victims of Trafficking) as well as attention to any medical issues

that could affect travel and arrangement of escorts when needed. IOM arranged escort

travel on two separate instances to

Afghanistan

and one to

Georgia.

A fourth escort had

been arranged for a return to

Iraq

but was cancelled prior to departure due to the security

situation in the final destination (Mosul).

IOM expanded and fortified its cooperation on AVRR with not only Danish partners such as

the asylum centres, the Red Cross, Danish Refugee Council and Danish authorities, but also

with foreign embassies accredited to Denmark.

Further details related to applicant profiles and returns are provided here below. It should be noted

that IOM in most cases only has detailed information on persons who returned with IOM, wherefore

the statistics in some places refer to the return of all eligible persons (299), in other places to those

who returned with IOM under the project (216).

AVRR statistics

Return countries:

IOM registered the return of total 299 persons under the programme. The majority of these returns

took place to Afghanistan with 90 persons or 30 per cent of all returns. The following large return

destinations were the Russian Federation with 54 persons (18 per cent), Belarus with 33 persons (11

per cent) and Iraq 27 persons (9 per cent). See Figure 1 for a breakdown of the return countries.

It is remarkable that Afghanistan was the largest return destination, considering that returns to

Afghanistan have been a priority to Danish authorities for a number of years. One explanation for

the relatively large number of returns to Afghanistan could be the offer of return and cash assistance

IOM was however not always informed of returns implemented by other partners, wherefore IOM figures may differ from those of the

Danish Immigration Service. The figure of 299 persons also does not include returns of eligible persons under other project structures as

late as 2017.

IOM was unable to coordinate payments for two eligible persons to Somalia due to IOM policy on returns to Somalia at the time. Two

persons to Afghanistan were paid by the Danish Embassy because IOM did not have a valid project code. For two other eligible persons to

Afghanistan – two brothers, of which one a child – IOM refused return and reintegration assistance altogether because of IOM policy on

returns of vulnerable persons such as unaccompanied migrant children.

Page 3 of 18

under this programme combined with a complementary offer of in-kind reintegration assistance in

Afghanistan. The latter programme was implemented by IOM Kabul and thus contributed to an

overall increased level of support and return sustainability for returnees to Afghanistan.

Under the programme, returns with support took place to 34 countries (Figure 1). This can be

compared to IOM facilitated voluntary returns from Denmark from 2005 to 2012 that were generally

in smaller numbers and from five to ten different destinations (or less) on a yearly basis. This would

indicate that the introduction of AVRR support to broader groups of asylum seekers in Denmark had

a direct effect on the number of nationalities accessing voluntary return.

Even so, the decision of various nationalities and individual persons to opt for assisted voluntary

return at any given time cannot be explained by an offer of reintegration assistance alone. As for

example Iraqi nationals from Denmark were offered considerable voluntary return and reintegration

assistance during the so-called contractual arrangements from 2007 to 2009, when the return

numbers of Iraqi nationals nevertheless remained smaller than during this pilot project with less

specific focus on Iraq (27 returns to Iraq, see Figure 1). On the other hand, 60-80 per cent of the

large IOM return figures in 2003 and 2004 were Iraqi nationals, but in receipt of approximately the

same cash support as under this programme. Whether a given person chooses to return voluntarily

is therefore not only a question of the available support, but also of the support being available at

the right time.

Page 4 of 18

Returned with support by country (299)

Afghanistan

Russian Federation

Belarus

Iraq

Iran

Uganda

Bangladesh

Nigeria

Sri Lanka

Lebanon

Libya

Georgia

Armenia

Gambia

Congo DR

Nepal

Kenya

Ivory Coast

Jordan

Uzbekistan

Tunesia

Sierra Leone

Pakistan

Rwanda

Tanzania

Guinea-Bissau

Guinea

South Africa

Turkey

India

Cameroon

China

Egypt

Indonesia

100

Figure 1

Page 5 of 18

Travelled with IOM under the programme (216) / per month

24 24

Jan-13

Feb-13

Mar-13

Apr-13

May-13

Jun-13

Jul-13

Aug-13

Sep-13

Oct-13

Nov-13

Dec-13

Jan-14

Feb-14

Mar-14

Apr-14

May-14

Jun-14

Jul-14

Aug-14

Sep-14

Oct-14

Nov-14

Dec-14

Jan-15

Feb-15

Mar-15

Apr-15

May-15

Jun-15

Jul-15

Aug-15

Sep-15

Oct-15

Nov-15

Dec-15

Jan-16

Feb-16

Mar-16

Figure 2

As shown by figure 2, depicting the 216 returns arranged by IOM directly under the project up until

March 2016, there were relatively large numbers of monthly returns from June to October 2013,

reaching a maximum of 33 returns in July 2013. Hereafter the number of returns per month

decreased with only sporadic returns towards the end of the project. The last four persons to return

with IOM under the project travelled in March 2016 after issuance of travel documents from the

relevant embassy.

While every decision to return voluntarily is individual and the number of monthly applications and

returns cannot be predicted or explained with certainty, there are different possible explanations for

the frontloading of the returns in the programme. According to IOM figures, of the 216 returns

arranged by IOM under the project, more than 75 per cent applied for the support in the period

January-June 2013.

That is, within the first six months of the programme. Even if the application

period was later extended from 1 July to 31 December 2013 by decision of the Danish authorities,

the majority of applications and returns were still found at the beginning of the programme.

Persons eligible for support travelled as late as April 2017 with the assistance of IOM but received cash support directly by the DIS

coordinated with IOM. At the time of writing (July 2017), a few open cases remain eligible for support although IOM cannot pay further

grants following the closure of the project. See also section three of this report.

1 July 2013 was also the original deadline to apply for support, before the deadline was extended until 31 December 2013.

Page 6 of 18

It is likely that the sheer novelty of the support caused a number of applicants to apply shortly after

the establishment of the programme, including persons who had already decided to return and now

saw a possibility to receive support not available to them earlier.

Following the large number of applications to the programme from January till June 2013, IOM

arranged as many of the returns as operationally possible in those months and thereafter, although

some cases would take a longer time to prepare due to collection of information, applications for

travel documents and other operational arrangements.

2. PROGRESS MADE TOWARDS REALIZING OUTCOMES AND OUTPUTS

The project realized the project outcomes and outputs as detailed below:



Outcome 1: Eligible asylum seekers are aware to make a decision on AVRR and increasingly

cooperate with IOM on their voluntary return from Denmark

In IOM’s experience, it is crucial for the effectiveness and trust amongst applicants to an AVRR

programme that applicants and counsellors receive clear and structured guidance on

procedures, responsibilities and procedures. This facilitates smooth cooperation with

beneficiaries and project partners, but also supports the ability to make an informed decision on

voluntary return. When the programme was established in December 2012 and IOM and the DIS

had signed the project funding agreement, IOM quickly worked to set up necessary procedures

and application documents (AVRR forms). The documentation was made available on an IOM

specific webpage under www.iom.fi in February 2013. Not only was it important for stakeholders

and eligible applicants to know of the existence of the programme, but also to give them

unhindered access to necessary guidance, including from IOM.



Output 1.1: AVRR assistance has been offered and explained in a consistent manner to

returnees for the duration of the project

While IOM initially had no formal role in the outreach to and return counselling of applicants

under the programme – this was on donor decision primarily done by non-IOM counsellors –

IOM still offered extensive telephone guidance to persons who had already applied or

considered to do so. In support of general counselling by other actors, IOM produced or

collected various materials that were shared with partners electronically to facilitate counselling.

This included

inter alia

guidance note on IOM procedures, instructions on travel documents and

travel practicalities, information on hand luggage regulations and contact lists of IOM staff etc.



Output 1.2: AVRR pre-departure, travel and post-arrival assistance has been provided

consistently to eligible returnees in accordance with project criteria

For the duration of the programme, IOM had the main operational responsibility for returns and

payments of cash reintegration grants. The return assistance was based on IOM’s

unprecedented expertise and practical experience in the area of Assisted Voluntary Return and

Reintegration as well as the organization’s national and international networks. IOM consistently

Page 7 of 18

registered new cases approved for support by the DIS and followed up with beneficiaries,

counsellors and Danish authorities to receive necessary information for the processing and

implementation of returns. When needed, IOM supported applicants in the acquisition of travel

documentation and other IDs, including coordination with and visits to embassies in

Copenhagen, or visits of foreign embassies to Denmark when personal interviews were

mandatory for travel document issuance. IOM arranged international flight bookings,

coordinated transportation to Copenhagen Airport in Denmark as well as airport departure

assistance in Copenhagen and assistance at transit points. IOM arranged arrival assistance in

countries of origin and transportation to the final destination. In some instances, IOM organized

temporary accommodation for returnees who could not continue their travel in the country of

origin on the day of arrival, and arranged payment and shipment of excess luggage.

When informing IOM missions in countries of return of planned return movements, IOM

Copenhagen forwarded instructions on eligible cash reintegration grants and cash support for

business start-up to be paid to beneficiaries, including copies of travel documents for

identification. Payments were carried out in countries of return in accordance with the

organization’s financial standards and related approval procedures. Depending on the return

country, reintegration grants were paid as either cash or by cheque, or by bank transfer when

this was doable.

When a return had been implemented, IOM confirmed to the Danish authorities that the person

had left Denmark and arrived to her/his home country.



Outcome 2: Return stakeholders in Denmark are able to advise applicants on project criteria

and refer persons to IOM for voluntary return assistance

Compared to IOM’s voluntary return assistance in Denmark in the years prior to 2013, IOM

under the support programme received applications from and coordinated applications and

returns with more diverse stakeholders. The underlying reason for the involvement of a broader

spectrum of partners was probably the overall coordination by the DIS, who involved and shared

information with a larger number of partners such as asylum centres, NGOs, the police, and

IOM. Prior to the programme, returns were by default coordinated mainly by the police.

The offer of cash reintegration support in relation to an application for voluntary return may also

have increased the buy-in of asylum centre staff and other stakeholders in discussing the option

of voluntary return with potential applicants. Although IOM does not have hard evidence to

support this, IOM was told by various stakeholders without a traditional return mandate that

they found it easier to discuss the subject of return when it was considered a supportive action

rather than just adherence to an obligation following an asylum claim rejection.

In support of the outcome, IOM proactively and throughout the project strived to share

information with the same parties on IOM’s roles, procedures and principles to allow for

transparent communication and efficient processing.

Page 8 of 18



Output 2.1: Return stakeholders in Denmark have received information on the programme

and IOM AVRR assistance

Up until 31 December 2013, after which it was no longer possible to apply for the support and

IOM therefore primarily processed already received applications, IOM met regularly with other

stakeholders such as the DIS, the police and the Danish Refugee Council. IOM did not participate

in the initial round of information meetings in asylum centres at the beginning of the

programme, but the donor agreed to let IOM participate in the second round of meetings

towards late summer 2013. IOM also on several instances met with applicants at centres or at

the UN City in Copenhagen to inform them of IOM services, travel document procedures and the

progress of their application. Moreover, as part of its abovementioned counselling support, IOM

continuously reached out to DIS and other partners to explain and clarify what documents and

information were needed in order to proceed with processing and travel arrangements, such as

contact details of applicants, information on national IDs and possible travel documents in the

asylum file etc.

Although meetings with Danish return stakeholders were important for the overall coordination

and communication, IOM paid special attention to meetings with and information to foreign

embassies that were crucial in assisting with travel document issuance for applicants. IOM

consequently informed approached embassies of the services provided by IOM to their nationals

under the support programme, stressing that all returns arranged by IOM are voluntary. IOM

believes that the information provided to embassies particularly on voluntary return by IOM was

instrumental in receiving travel documents and hence in facilitating returns.



Output 2.2: Electronic and printed information materials have been produced and shared with

partners on a regular basis

In February 2013, IOM published a

project specific webpage under the

address

www.iom.fi,

where the launch of

the support programme was announced.

IOM eventually made a number of

electronic materials available for

download on the same page, including

DIS information materials and application

forms. Easier access to DIS materials was often requested by stakeholders contacting IOM. A

screenshot from the front page of

www.iom.fi

and the project webpage can be seen here beside

and below.

Page 9 of 18

IOM designed a project poster in size A3 providing basic information on the contact details of

IOM. The poster was distributed to asylum centres and other stakeholders in personal meetings

and by mail. A copy of the poster is included to this report as Annex 2.

IOM regularly shared statistical updates through a mailing list containing more than 100 e-mail

addresses of return counsellors, police officers and others in contact with IOM under the

auspices of the programme. A number of these e-mail addresses were shared addresses and

mailboxes, wherefore the information is estimated to have reached well over 100 persons. The

format and information level of the forwarded statistics were regularly modified to suit the

information purposes of the project partners. This included as for example status updates,

processing time, focus on special nationalities etc.

Page 10 of 18

Table 2.1: Progress Achieved Compared to Indicators in the Results Matrix

Progress made during the

reporting period

Bill No. 56 estimated that max.

3,000 persons would make use

of the programme. With 299

registered returns, the 10%

target was almost met,

although not within the

originally envisaged 9 months

of the project. IOM considers

the target partially met.

IOM registered a total of 299

returns with support under the

project. The original target of

250 persons was therefore met.

However, the reviewed target

of 500 persons in the 2

amendment to the Agreement

was not met.

Guidance note on application

and travel procedures produced

and distributed to partners

electronically. The target was

met.

Indicators

Objective:

To contribute to the

development and offer of

general Assisted Voluntary

Return and Reintegration

(AVRR) services for asylum

seekers in Denmark

Percentage of the number of

eligible migrants who choose to

voluntarily return

Baseline

Baseline: 0

Target

Target: up to 10% of eligible

migrants participate in the

program in the 9 months of the

pilot project

Outcome 1:

Eligible asylum seekers are

aware to make a decision on

AVRR and increasingly

cooperate with IOM on their

voluntary return from Denmark

Number of migrants living in

Denmark under the asylum

system who voluntarily return

Baseline: about 40 returnees

per year have returned since

2005

Target: up to 250 returnees

have returned under the

project

Target of 2 Amendment to the

Agreement: 500 returnees

Output 1.1:

Guidance note on application

Indicator: Yes/No

Target: Yes

AVRR assistance has been

and travel procedures for

offered and explained in a

project partners produced

consistent manner to returnees

for the duration of the project

Activities 1.1:

- Design and distribute project specific AVRR application forms

- Receive, process and confirm eligibility of AVRR applications in coordination with project partners

- Clarify procedures for receiving, filling and forwarding AVRR applications with project partners and produce guidance note for project partners

- Offer telephone and direct counselling to applicants and returnees approaching IOM

Output 1.2:

Percentage of eligible

Baseline: 0

Target: 80%

While the figures of IOM and

AVRR pre-departure, travel and applicants to the programme

the DIS might differ according

post-arrival assistance has

that return and receive

to registration practices, IOM

been provided consistently to

reintegration assistance

has counted 462 approved

Page 11 of 18

eligible returnees in accordance

with project criteria

persons referred to IOM, of

which some eventually

travelled while others

cancelled. With a total return

number of 299 and a

percentage of approximately

65%, the target was not met.

Activities 1.2:

- Coordinate voluntary returns from Denmark and reintegration cash payments in countries of return

- Support returnees in acquisition of needed travel and other documentation

- Arrange domestic and international transportation for returnees

- Provide departure assistance at Copenhagen Airport, and transit and reception assistance where available

- Organize temporary accommodation in cases where returnees are unable to continue their domestic travel in the country of return on the day of arrival

- Pay for possible excess luggage upon departure from Copenhagen Airport, and coordinate excess luggage payments at transit airports through IOM offices

- Provide escorts to returnees with special needs, such as persons with medical conditions

- Assess eligibility and coordinate reintegration cash payments in countries of origin on a case by case basis also for a limited number of returnees that may have returned

voluntarily from Denmark outside of this project

Outcome 2:

Number of different entities

Baseline: 1 (police referrals

Target: 5 (DIS, DRC, different

IOM registered referrals of

Return stakeholders in

that refer applicants to IOM for only)

embassies, reception centres)

cases from the DIS, the DRC,

Denmark are able to advise

AVRR assistance

the police, private persons,

applicants on project criteria

returnees and various reception

and refer persons to IOM for

centres, but not from

voluntary return assistance:

embassies. It can be noted

however that the majority of

cases were submitted to IOM

from the DIS and would

therefore figure with DIS as the

source although the original

referral source was another

entity. IOM believes that the

target was partially met.

Output 2.1:

Number of different partners

Baseline: 0

Target: 10 meetings with

IOM met bilaterally with

Return stakeholders in

and stakeholders informed of

reception centres and partners, embassies on seven different

Denmark have received

the programme

10 embassies informed

occasions and corresponded

information on the programme

with approximately 20 different

and IOM AVRR assistance

embassies on the services

Page 12 of 18

offered by IOM under the

programme. IOM also meet

with project partners (Danish

Refugee Council (DRC), Ministry

of Justice, DIS, police etc) on

various occasions, and visited

several reception centres alone

or together with the DRC for

outreach purposes. IOM

considers that the target was

met.

Activities 2.1:

- Organize information meetings on project criteria and voluntary procedures for staff in reception centres to facilitate their counselling of potential applicants

- Organize regular coordination meetings with project partners, mainly in the Copenhagen area

- Offer advice and return updates to reception centre staff and other return stakeholders through telephone and personal meetings

- Inform embassies accredited to Denmark of project criteria and IOM Assisted Voluntary Return services in Denmark

- Stakeholders in Denmark are available for meetings and show interest in receiving information about the programme

Output 2.2:

Availability of 1) electronic and

1. Indicator: Yes/No (webpage,

1. Target: Yes

1. IOM informed of the launch

Electronic and printed

2) printed materials

statistical updates)

of the support programme on

information materials have

iom.fi and produced a

been produced and shared with

2. Indicator: Yes/No (project

dedicated webpage with

partners on a regular basis

posters)

2. Target: Yes

relevant project information,

including links to DIS

information materials. The

target was met.

2. IOM produced a project

poster and distributed the

printed version to Danish

partners. The target was met.

Activities 2.2:

- Establish project specific webpage on www.iom.fi from where application forms and other materials can be downloaded, including DIS produced information materials

- Design, print, and distribute multi-lingual project poster in 100 copies (A3) containing contact information of IOM and project partners to facilitate contact to IOM and its

partners

- Distribute monthly return statistics to project partners

Page 13 of 18

3. CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED AND ACTIONS TAKEN

Some of the major challenges encountered during project implementation were the following:

1. Project setup and procedures not agreed in advance led to confusion on procedures

Because Bill No. 56 was kept confidential until the day after its acceptance, the

implementing partners, including IOM, had no influence on central elements of the

programme design. All procedures and documentation were therefore not agreed upon in

advance and could only be developed in detail while the pilot project was already supposed

to be operational. This lead to confusion amongst stakeholders and beneficiaries as to what

they should do, including applicants not knowing whom to approach or how to apply for

return and reintegration. For a considerable length of time, IOM only received support

decisions containing basic information on the approved persons, but no direct contact

information, filled-in AVRR form or information on national documents, information which

IOM therefore had to request separately.



Action taken:

Based on the organization’s standard operating procedures on return,

IOM did its uttermost to coordinate and develop procedures with the donor and

other authorities, and to provide as clear and structured guidance as possible to

both applicants and stakeholders.

2. Project launch not known in advance caused delays in implementation

As a projectized organization, IOM did not have full staff capacity in Copenhagen to

implement the project when the support programme was announced in December 2012.

This would have required the funding agreement to have been signed well before the

acceptance of the Bill and hence for IOM to commence the hiring process for needed staff in

advance.



Action taken:

IOM launched the project with existing staff capacity in Copenhagen

and Helsinki, drawing on the organization’s existing know-how and return networks.

As such, IOM was able to arrange the first returns under the project in February

2013. It is nevertheless a distinct possibility that implementation would have been

smoother and returns overall higher if the project and staff setup had been clear and

operational from the very beginning of the programme, when there was a high

interest in the support amongst asylum seekers in Denmark.

3. Lengthy and bureaucratic procedures for closing or rejecting cases

Various issues related to the procedures for closing or rejecting cases under the programme:

1) Firstly, due to the programme setup as defined by the Danish authorities, IOM would be

informed by the DIS only of applicants approved for support. This in extension meant that

DIS was not in a formal position to inform IOM when applicants for some reason had been

rejected. Applicants who had applied for AVRR through IOM, and for whom IOM had

coordinated the support application with the DIS, were therefore in a number of instances

registered with IOM as pending an eligibility decision, whereas the DIS had already decided

that they were ineligible but without informing IOM.

Page 14 of 18



Action taken:

IOM actively and regularly followed up on pending cases with the DIS

to determine if a decision had been made in the case or not. DIS could still not

inform IOM if a case had been rejected, but if IOM was told that a decision had

already been made – and a positive eligibility decision had not been forwarded –

IOM could infer that the case was not eligible under the programme. For such cases,

IOM followed up with the applicant to hear if s/he still wanted to return voluntarily

from Denmark with IOM however without support under the programme.

2) Secondly, if IOM considered that applicants were not cooperating and in reality did not

intend to return voluntarily, it was not possible for IOM to close the case even when the

non-cooperation was obvious. As per programme procedures, the DIS had to go through a

consultative procedure with the applicant before the support could be withdrawn and the

applicant declared ineligible. While this provided extra safeguards for the applicants, it also

meant that some cases formally remained open for a considerable length of time even when

it was clear to IOM that the person was not going to return. Some applicants could also

through the consultative procedure inform the DIS that they considered themselves

cooperative, whereas they in IOM’s experience were not, and thus extend their stay in

Denmark by claiming cooperation but not e.g. providing necessary information for the travel

document application.



Action taken:

Upon receiving information that a case should remain eligible, IOM

followed up with the person to again request the needed documentation, as for

example AVR form or documentation needed for travel document issuance. When

applicants continued to demonstrate non-cooperation, IOM requested a new

consultative procedure for the applicant from the DIS.

3) The formal difficulties of closing cases had the adverse consequence that cases could also

remain open and eligible for an extended period of time. Once an applicant was considered

eligible, the person could not formally lose the support until DIS had formally withdrawn it.

This was for example when the delay in implementing the return was not caused by the

applicants but by lengthy embassy procedures. While IOM considers it appropriate and fair

that applicants should not lose their eligibility for reasons outside of their own control, it

was an administrative challenge to keep the option of return and payment of support open

in the framework of a non-permanent return project. As long as expenses could still be

expected, IOM could not formally close the project and consequently not submit the final

report to the donor. As mentioned earlier, the last four returns under the project took place

only in March 2016. Some support decisions were withdrawn by the DIS in November 2016,

whereas two persons still eligible to receive support returned with IOM under other project

structures as late as April 2017.



Action taken:

IOM proactively followed up with embassies and other partners on

pending cases in order to finalize all returns as soon as possible. It should however

be recognized that it will not always be possible to speed up procedures for travel

document issuance, dependent as they are on the cooperation of multiple parties

and formal documentation requirements. Based on regular reviews of open cases

Page 15 of 18

and hence assessments of return prospects, IOM requested no-cost extensions

(NCE) from the donor necessary to keep the project structure valid. The number of

NCEs of the project mentioned in the project data table bear witness to the

necessity of keeping the IOM project structure valid for as long as returns under the

project were foreseen. If the programme had been permanent or at least had a

longer duration, or it had been possible to transfer the open cases to a new

programme, IOM would not have needed to request NCEs. In 2016, although the

donor and IOM had not signed an NCE beyond 30 June 2015, it was agreed with the

donor to exceptionally reopen the project structure allowing IOM to facilitate the

return of the last four persons under the project in March 2016. Within the limits of

IOM standard projectization of expenses, IOM flexibly tried to find and coordinate

solutions for returns taking place also after the formal end date of the project to

avoid beneficiaries not receiving their entitlements.

Number of applications and returns remained lower than expected

Even after the extension of the application period until 31 December 2013 in order to give

more persons the opportunity to apply, application numbers remained lower than expected

at the time of acceptance of Bill No. 56.



Action taken:

IOM did its best to support counsellors in the provision of information

on the programme in support of higher application numbers. IOM counselled asylum

seekers contacting IOM on programme criteria and submitted applications to the DIS

on behalf of interested asylum seekers. However, the challenge remained that

asylum applicants from 2013 onwards could not receive the support. The application

pattern to the programme would seem to indicate that eligible persons were prone

to decide on return and apply relatively quickly, whereas a later application deadline

and therefore longer reflection time did not translate into a correspondingly higher

number of applications from the group of eligible persons.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The Danish pilot AVRR programme was launched on short notice after the acceptance of Bill No. 56

in Parliament in December 2012, with the initial returns by IOM taking place in February 2013. The

project was the first of its kind in Denmark. Despite the short notice, IOM was able to register and

process applications and implement return all through the reporting period thanks to the

organizations establishes structures and existing know-how on AVRR. Returns were arranged to a

wide array of countries and regions during the project, including to countries that are known to be a

return priority for Danish authorities. The project also catered for returns of families with children as

well as the requirements of vulnerable returnees in need of escorts or other special attention.

The implementation of a pilot project will by nature present obstacles that have not been

encountered earlier, as well as issues that need to be discussed and agreed upon while operations

are ongoing. Even so, IOM finds that the project overall succeeded in facilitating voluntary returns of

relatively large group of asylum seekers to countries not previously in receipt of AVRR assistance

Page 16 of 18

from Denmark. This had a visible effect on return numbers compared to previous years, increased

coordination between different stakeholders as well as overall increased focus on returns in

Denmark in 2013. The largest return destination under the programme was Afghanistan (90

persons), followed by the Russian Federation (primarily to the Caucasus Region), Belarus, Iraq and

Iran.

It has been noted earlier in this report that the revised target of 500 returns was not met. The main

reason for this is that fewer than 500 persons applied and were considered eligible for support by

the DIS. Theoretically, even if 500 persons had been considered eligible by the DIS, the number of

actual returns would in IOM’s experience have remained somewhat smaller because cancellations

are inevitable in all return arrangements, be it returns facilitated by IOM or by national authorities.

Even if it had been possible for asylum seekers who arrived to Denmark after 18 December 2012 to

apply for the support, it is likely that the programme would in any case have seen an initial spike in

the number of applications in the first months of the programme. However, with an enlarged group

of eligible persons there might also have been a consistently higher number of monthly applications

and returns throughout. As it were, the returns towards the end of the project were primarily those

who had decided to apply shortly before the application deadline and/or for whom it for various

reasons was a lengthy process to acquire travel documentation.

At the time of the highest interest in the programme, from June till October 2013, IOM arranged on

average 27 returns per month under the project. If this return pace had continued from June 2013

till June 2015, when the programme formally ended, there would have been more than 600 returns.

The lower number of returns is therefore not a question of IOM’s return capacity alone, but as much

of a lower than expected number of applications and the applicant profiles. The question is

therefore what could have been done in order to increase the number of persons applying and

returning under the programme?

Concerted initial outreach efforts including IOM, agreement on application and return procedures as

well as operational capacity from the very beginning of the programme might have supported a

more timely response to the needs of return stakeholders and beneficiaries when interest in the

programme was at its highest. This would however have required that the implementing partners

had been made aware of the planned Bill prior to its acceptance. The extension of the application

deadline from 1 July to 31 December 2013 was an attempt to give potential applicants more time to

consider voluntary return, but without enlarging the eligible group. Of which some had already

applied to return under the programme, while others were less likely to do so if they had not applied

within the first six months.

While IOM recognizes Denmark’s policy of trying to stem pull-effects by restricting the group of

eligible persons to those who arrived in Denmark before the acceptance of the Bill, it would have

had an important impact on the overall return number if persons arriving to Denmark after 18

December 2012 had also been eligible. Asylum seekers who are presented with a ready option of

AVRR at the time they receive a rejection of their asylum claim, are less adverse to the option of

return than those who receive an offer of AVRR only months after a rejection. The more time passes

between a rejection of the asylum claim and the launch of an AVRR programme, and the longer time

spent in the host country, the more difficult it becomes for the individual to accept the idea of return

as a feasible option.

Page 17 of 18

The programme target group remained the same throughout, which is reflected in the return

figures. However, the programme also contributed to increase the general attention to voluntary

returns in Denmark amongst asylum seekers and return stakeholders. With the overall attention and

the offer of an IOM voluntary return with support, the programme in no small part contributed to

making 2013 a record year in terms of returns from Denmark.

The practices of the pilot programme contributed to the setup of a second support programme from

Denmark in March 2015. This second programme was likewise defined in a Bill kept confidential until

its acceptance. The 2015 Bill copied most of the structures and procedures from the pilot

programme, but also included important changes such as defining a longer programme duration

from the outset. Additionally, the project partners in the 2015 programme were able to draw on the

cooperation networks and lessons learned from the pilot programme, wherefore implementation

was comparatively smoother from the beginning. As such, the pilot project in line with the objective

continued to have an impact on the overall return framework in Denmark through the provision of

tested and accepted cooperation models for AVRR.

IOM is pleased to have been given the opportunity to cooperate with the Danish Immigration Service

and other partners on the project, to the benefit of particularly asylum seekers in Denmark in need

voluntary return and reintegration support. IOM stands ready to provide input to any future planned

Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration programmes from Denmark, based on the

organization’s long experience with the design and implementation of return activities in Denmark

and globally.

5. EXPENDITURES AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION

In addition to the attached financial report, please note the following:



When the project formally ended on 30 June 2015, IOM was still discussing with the donor if

an NCE would still be needed. Unwilling to sign an NCE for four planned returns, it was

accepted by the donor that IOM could exceptionally reopen the project structure to arrange

the last returns under the programme in March 2016. Because these expenses were

accepted by the donor and no immediate returns were foreseen, no NCE was signed.

6. ANNEXES

Annex 1: IOM Guidance Note

Annex 2: IOM Project Poster

Page 18 of 18