The European Union’s spending on migration policy prior to 2014 and before the current crisis was ineffective and lacked clear goals, according to a report released Thursday by the EU’s Court of Auditors.

Although the Commission revamped migration policy in 2015, the report is warning sign for EU leaders ahead of a summit Thursday to seal a controversial deal with Turkey to halt a wave of migrants and asylum seekers into Europe. The report provides evidence that, in the past, smaller-scale migration programs have been ineffectively implemented.

The audit, written by the French member of the court, Danièle Lamarque, looked at €89 million spent across 23 projects, in six of 11 neighboring countries in the years leading up to 2014.

The overall conclusion: The EU is “struggling to demonstrate effectiveness.”

Lamarque told POLITICO there was “no clear strategy” in how the EU spent this budget. It is “impossible to know how much was spent … only possible to know what was contracted,” she said

More broadly, the watchdog found that EU migration policy lacked clear operational objectives or concrete targets, and the bloc frequently failed to meet those objectives.

Click Here: United Kingdom Rugby Jerseys

One example cited by the court is an interactive map, which cost of €1.7 million, “to better understand migration flows” found that “only 6 percent of relevant stakeholders used the map, and almost all of them were from within the EU institutions.”

The report pointed to “fragmentation of funding” that “fell far short of rapidly expanding needs,” in the period leading up to the current refugee crisis.

While there was no evidence of “fraud, irregularities or scandals,” the auditors said there is a chronic set of unanswerable questions in how migration policy is managed, and only a minimal effort to increase the capabilities of staff to deal with this.

Lamarque slammed the Commission’s management culture and provided backing to Commission Vice President Kristalina Georgieva’s push to implement “performance-based management” into EU systems.

“There is definitely a problem of organization and governance in the Commission,” Lamarque said Thursday. “The management within the Commission lacks this performance-based type of management, it’s a common observation that we’ve made.”

The Commission responds

Staff dealing with migration in the Commission hit back at the court in response to the findings. One source accused the Court of overreach and ignorance.

“They are trying to influence the political decisions of the Commission,” the source said. “The report deals with a very small sample and makes sweeping generalizations and conclusions. They make it look like a report on the current refugee situation and it is not.”

The source also said that the Commission is united in frustration at the court’s handling of the report and made concerted efforts to push back against earlier drafts and findings.

At the heart of Thursday’s summit is how the EU handles resettlement, readmission of migrants and refugees to non-EU countries.

Another Commission official said the Court’s timing is calculated for publicity effect and that the press release exaggerates the report’s findings. “It’s about 23 old projects from before the refugee crisis started,” said the official.

The report has a lot to say on these issues.

Case study on readmission policy

Readmissions of failed asylum seekers to third countries is a critical component of current and emerging EU migration policy. The Court of Auditors said past efforts have been poorly managed, with the bloc failing to properly understand the needs of its partner countries and providing uneven support to the people being returned.

“Return and readmission support is having little impact” the court said in a written statement accompanying the report’s publication. To apply its policy Lamarque said the Commission “needed to prepare the return [of migrants] and should explain to migrants when they come back where they can find support and training. It’s a good idea but it doesn’t work. The country of origin doesn’t help, EU member states do nothing as well, they are not interested in that.”

In the case of €3 million project in Georgia, the scheme was expected to place 180 people in temporary accommodation upon their return to Georgia, but “13 people only benefited from this support.” Of the 700 people who should have benefited from a job placement service, only 423 were helped and only 119 found work.

The report also found that readmission policies are often received badly by the EU’s partner countries. “The policy on readmissions is wrongly perceived by some partner countries to be a component of the EU’s security policy. It is often seen as a trade-off for the facilitation of visa arrangements,” when it is not.

Lamarque conceded that migration policy is “very difficult” and has become increasingly complex as it becomes linked to wider development and security goals. “The mobility partnership with Georgia involved 15 member states and several parts of the EU, and all these organization have different expectations,” she said.

Recommendations

The report issued four recommendations that the Commission must now consider.

1. Clarify the objectives of migration policy, establish a framework for assessing performance and direct financial resources towards clearly-defined and quantified priorities.
2. Improve the preparation and selection of projects.
3. Emphasize the connection between migration and development.
4. Enhance coordination within EU institutions, with partner countries and with member countries.