Behind the scenes: the road to the Migration Pact

A European marathon

To understand the Migration Pact, we need to go back to 2015 and 2016. ‘The migration crisis triggered by the Syrian civil war exposed the weaknesses in the existing European asylum system,’ Johan explains. ‘Procedures were slow, pressure was unevenly shared between Member States, and the European Union proved ill-prepared for the large influx of refugees. In response, the European Commission put forward proposals to reform the European asylum system.’ 

‘That broad package of proposals was presented in 2016. Agreement was reached on some parts of it, but the discussion ultimately became stuck on the distribution of asylum seekers across the EU. Because some Member States held on to an all-or-nothing approach, in the end there was no agreement at all,’ Johan continues. ‘In 2019, the European Commission withdrew the proposal.’

In 2020, the Pact on Asylum and Migration was then presented, consisting largely of the same elements, but in a new form. Even then, it took almost another four years before a final agreement was reached in 2024. Johan: ‘All together, this European marathon lasted almost ten years, which says a lot about how complex this dossier is.’

Advising and flagging issues

The IND does not, as a rule, negotiate on behalf of the Netherlands in Brussels. That role lies mainly with the Permanent Representation of the Netherlands to the EU and, ultimately, with the political authorities. ‘Together with other partners, however, the IND does advise on Dutch input to the negotiations, so we did play an important role in the process,’ Johan stresses. 

‘Much of European legislation ultimately ends up on the desks of implementing organisations such as the IND,’ he explains. ‘That means we have a responsibility to look ahead: what is coming towards us, what will it mean in practice, and where do the opportunities and risks lie? We provide the advice and subject-matter expertise needed to inform the Dutch position in Brussels. That said, the IND is sometimes at the table itself too. IND lawyers and experts regularly made the trip to Brussels to discuss specific parts of the pact.’ 
 

Working with implementing organisations across Europe

Alongside the formal Brussels negotiating process, there is also an informal circuit in which the IND has become increasingly active in recent years. ‘Policy is often made on paper, while implementation takes place in a much more complicated reality,’ says Johan. In the Netherlands, fortunately, there is growing awareness of the importance of implementation, but it is essential for that awareness to develop in Brussels too. ‘That is why the informal side is at least as important: it helps ensure that the implementing perspective really takes hold among policymakers in Brussels.’

As an example, Johan points to a conference in Brussels organised by the IND together with the Permanent Representation, where implementing organisations from across Europe came together to discuss the day-to-day reality of asylum procedures in different countries. The aim was to show policymakers what European rules mean in practice and to bring implementation into the discussion at the start, rather than only after decisions have been made.

‘What struck me,’ says Johan, ‘is that Member States can be very far apart politically, but at implementation level we recognise each other’s challenges immediately. Whether you work in the Netherlands, Greece or Germany, you run into many of the same questions, and there is good cooperation on that level.’ 

Momentum

Although the Migration Pact was many years in the making, the final phase suddenly gained momentum. The European elections were approaching, and an agreement had to be reached under intense time pressure. That may sound positive, but Johan is also quick to point out the risks. When a political compromise has to be reached quickly, practical considerations often fall by the wayside. 
He still remembers the vote in the European Parliament clearly. ‘I watched it on a livestream. There were protests in the chamber; activists chanted “this pact kills”, and concerns were raised about border procedures and detention. That moment really drove home to me how strongly people feel about the pact. Ultimately, of course, this is about human lives, and European implementing organisations have a responsibility to make the pact workable in practice.’

From agreement to implementation

Johan takes a realistic view of the Migration Pact. ‘It is a political compromise, and it has complex elements that are not all logical or easy to implement. We are seeing that now in the implementation phase, as the IND identifies obstacles and potential bottlenecks and discusses them with European partners.’

At the same time, he is hopeful. ‘The pact also creates opportunities. It has forced us to critically examine our own procedures and to make them simpler and more efficient. In the end, we want the pact to do what it is intended to do. Not just on paper, but above all in practice.’