Impact case study database

For several years, the 30 member countries of the EASO Strategic Network had been dissatisfied with the cooperation between themselves and with EASO as the coordinating European Commission agency. Cooperation on asylum and migration was inconsistent and unequal and they wanted help to improve their information-sharing and joint decision-making. Aware of her reputation in this field, the EASO Strategic Network (StratNet) appointed Professor Moser as European Commission Senior Expert Advisor (October 2017 to December 2020) based on her research expertise in knowledge management, cooperation and decision-making in the workplace, and her proven track record of successful applications of her research in both the private and public sectors.

Between October 2017 and December 2020 Professor Moser worked closely with the EASO StratNet, which includes representatives from all 30 EU+ countries and from EASO. Her research expertise has helped the members of the EASO StratNet to identify and acknowledge the main causes of conflict, the areas of common ground on which they agree, to establish new ways of communicating both inside and outside of meetings, to agree on definitions of expertise, (which had been in dispute for many years) and to put in place a mentoring scheme to develop that expertise. These changes have improved collaboration between member countries continuously since the start of Professor Moser’s mandate in October 2017 and provided the EASO StratNet with the basis to move forward in further harmonising joint guidance and decision-making on asylum and migration in Europe.

As part of her mandate, Professor Moser was given confidential access to all EASO network communications and documents, and to the EASO digital repository. She spoke to all national country Heads (highest civil servants responsible for Country of Origin (COI) security information and guidance in each of the 30 countries), to the EASO representatives, and numerous national COI experts. She was also an observer at two ‘hotspot’ country expert network meetings in 2019 and presented her findings at four EASO StratNet meetings in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Identifying common ground and creating a framework for collaboration

The representatives of the 30 EASO Strategic Network member countries felt at an impasse, with ongoing disagreements about core issues, such as the purpose of the EASO networks, the contributions of each country in terms of personnel resources, joint guidance, COI gathering, security updates, rewards for national contributions, and the definition of COI expertise and securing long-term COI knowledge: ‘ *Even though we implemented the networks with a lot of enthusiasm, competition among Member States and EASO as well as unequal resources and different ideas shaped the discussion in the networks from the beginning. For this reason, we asked EASO for an external evaluation, as we realised that we were getting stuck in the same discussions about more and less the same topics.*’ [S1].

Based on her research, Professor Moser identified 3 types of common good among the 30 StratNet countries: Type 1 (EASO as service provider); Type 2 (EASO as joint policy and guidance agency); and Type 3 (StratNet as community of experts). There were, however, differing levels of commitment from each member country to these three areas as a direct result of differences in national resources, policies and legal constraints and even reporting structures across the 30 countries. Everyone valued the community of experts, the majority valued EASO as a service provider, but joint policy and guidance was most disputed with only a third of countries supporting this. From April 2018 onwards, these findings provided a new framework to identify the main conflicts among the 30 EU+ countries that had held up and blocked collaboration before ‘… by providing a pragmatic analysis of common ground that the member states can use as basis for future development’ [S2]. It allowed members to name the differences in a factual way, to de-escalate the conflicts and move forward. Type 1, 2 and 3 common good has now become part of StratNet’s vocabulary, enabling members to identify the common ground that provides the basis for cooperation and preventing them from getting fixated on the areas of dissent that prevented constructive solutions in the past [S1-6]. One member explains the effect this has had: ‘ *Your presentation [in April 2018] had a long-lasting and almost immediate beneficial impact on the functioning of the Strategic Network. The relationship between EASO and national COI units switched from confrontational to bargaining.*’ [S5].

Reducing conflicts and improving cooperation between all 30 EU+ countries:

Due to Moser’s research, barriers that previously prevented the 30 EU+ countries from moving forward have become unstuck. The countries report a much improved collaborative climate in the meetings, with an increased willingness to compromise among all stakeholders [S1, S3, S4, S5]. As one stakeholder observed: ‘ *We understand now much better what purpose each measure in our cooperation serves (common good) and are better able to accommodate the different needs by making compromise.*’ [S5].

The analysis established that the main causes for conflict and different levels of cooperation were due to differences in national resources among the member countries as well as national differences in policies, dividing European states into resource-rich and resource-poor countries and countries separating security information completely from policy guidance and decision making and those who combined them. Making this clear, and establishing that it was a rational consequence of national differences, enabled the member countries to move away from the blame game and unproductive discussions and to instead focus on the substantial common ground and agreement that did exist [S1, S5, S6]: ‘ *Among other things, I have learned from your analysis that we should make our conflicts of interest more transparent by naming and acknowledging them.*’ [S1].

Moser also found that for resource-rich countries, recognition of their contribution towards harmonisation of asylum procedures and joint security information and assessment was an important motivator for their continued support, but was not routine practice by EASO. Visibility of member state contributions was increased based on Professor Moser’s recommendations, with countries named and explicit recognition of the exact type of contributions acknowledged, including naming the individual national experts that contributed: ‘ EASO [now] acknowledges contributions of national units better’ [S5]. For members, this change also helps to justify the effort put into European collaboration, as it provides important evidence when reporting to their ministers and within their national political contexts.

Introducing new ways of communicating and achieving more equal share of voice

Moser’s recommendations have improved communication, created more equal member country participation in the EASO Strategic Network and in country specific meetings and helped to better support members, as evidenced here : ‘ Communication in and between meetings between the Strategic Network members and 30 EU+ countries has clearly improved, in particular by advising on how to structure meetings and to ensure that more discussions take place and decisions are made in meetings’ [S3], and: ‘ Some of the measures you suggested … have already been implemented: since then, meetings reserve more time for strategic and tactical discussions which led to a higher degree of satisfaction of representatives’ [S1]. Another source states: ‘ Meetings have also become more equal in terms of member contributions, and with more active participation overall’ [S4]. In particular, smaller countries with less resources in the areas of migration and asylum feel heard and much better able to state their interests : ‘ I think your work gave us [small countries] a louder voice...I believe the most important impact for me personally was the little push you gave EASO to modernize its way of communication and interaction. Having large meetings like StratNet made it difficult for everybody to be heard. Discussions often veered into the same directions and always involved the same participants’ [S6].

Moser’s analysis and feedback has motivated EASO to move away from emails and to introduce interactive digital platforms, e.g. Microsoft Teams, that have empowered the network members to be more active and involved. This has increased country participation in preparing meetings and during them, for example by introducing anonymous digital feedback tools such as Slido, break out groups, and a better, more communicative setup in the meeting rooms [S1-S6]. The benefit for members of introducing digital formats to complement physical meetings is that it ‘… gave everybody an equal voice and an easy way of communicating by PC or Smartphone. Being able to communicate anonymously also helps colleagues with less confidence or people not wanting to get into an argument with more “important” member states to give their opinions’ [S6]. This change in operation, which predated the COVID-19 pandemic, has been particularly beneficial during 2020: ‘ The stakeholder analysis of costs and benefits has provided clear indications of common ground and needs among the member states for virtual collaboration and has already led to changes in the network collaborations and the introduction of new digital tools and formats, also at physical meetings before the Covid19 pandemic’ [S3].

On Professor Moser’s recommendations, EASO also increased its support of their own EASO network leads who coordinate and moderate all meetings and network communications between the 30 StratNet member countries: ‘ EASO, in turn, committed to support their network facilitators with communication, leadership and persuasion training to improve management of the networks and communication at COI meetings’ [S1].

Increasing knowledge sharing and policy harmonisation

One of the most crucial changes brought about by Moser’s work with the EASO StratNet was support for a joint understanding of the definition of ‘COI expertise’. This was highly disputed by members for years but now has been agreed on between all 30 countries. The analysis has ‘… *given the EU+ member states a handle on how to understand what is the common ground of expertise and knowledge that is needed to further develop the EASO networks and the Country of Origin Information (COI)*’ [S2]. This was an important obstacle to overcome as unless there was agreement on who was recognised across member states as having the COI expertise on which security and policy decisions are based, there was little hope of further harmonising joint guidance and decision-making regarding asylum in Europe. Developing and securing COI expert knowledge is also central to equalising resources among member states. For most hotspot countries of origin (e.g. Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Somalia) there is only a small number of COI experts across Europe who have the in-depth knowledge to inform security decisions on asylum and migration. ‘ Since your first input in 2018, EASO has been continuously improving the format and the content of country specific network meetings and harvested better the inputs from national experts. We understand our responsibility for supporting EASO in organizing meaningful sessions and for achieving our common goals’ [S5].

Many small or resource-poor countries don’t have the expertise at all, and have to rely on European cooperation, which was not always forthcoming. However, during the yearly appraisals in December 2020, more country experts than ever volunteered to engage in future EASO network activities: ‘ They obviously are willing to follow [Moser’s] call for more active participation and focus on questions related only to their specialization. They seem to trust the process’ [S5]. Moreover, Moser’s recommendation of a new mentoring scheme between member states to support the development of new COI experts has been agreed by Heads of National Units: ‘ This includes concrete developments of a mentoring system between member states to support the continued development of knowledge and new COI experts in these highly relevant areas’ [S2] and ‘… there was agreement among the Heads of Units to try out the proposed Bilateral Mentoring Scheme…’ [S1].

The 30 EU+ countries are now joining forces to further harmonise their country information and guidance with joint reports, fact-finding missions and mutual support regarding hotspot countries and sensitive topics (e.g. LGBT+ and women’s rights, ethnic persecution, access to education and healthcare) to determine the right to asylum and the basis for visa decisions in Europe. New ways of communicating have been established and mutual support systems agreed, making EASO more effective as a coordinating agency and enabling the EASO StratNet to move forward with new initiatives: ‘ Professor Moser’s expert support has already had a visible impact in supporting the development of a joint understanding of asylum and migration relevant information, policy and security analysis and increased the collaboration between EU+ member states. I expect this to further benefit the integration of asylum processes across Europe’ [S3].