Bg комисия на европейските общности брюксел, 16 2007 г. Com (2007) 247 окончателен съобщение на комисията до европейския парламент, съвета, европейския икономически и социален комитет и комитета на регионите

As regards Asiatic countries, a big distinction is to be made between 1) actions providing material help to internally displaced people (IDPs) of countries in crisis situations or to its nationals having massively fled in a neighbouring country, which were carried out mainly through the "Aid to Uprooted People" budget line, and 2) actions more specifically addressing other aspects of migrations and in particular migrations towards the EU.

As concerns the "Aid to Uprooted People" budget line, there have been several large scale interventions concentrated in a few countries. Among them Afghanistan was a priority. €145.4 million was allocated between 2001 and 2006. Interventions aimed at facilitating return and reintegration of internally displaced Afghans or Afghans willing to repatriate in particular from Iran and Pakistan by facilitating land and houses recovery, access to information and employment, removal of various legal and material obstacles. The programme also supported the functioning of the Afghanistan Comprehensive Solutions Unit (ACSU), whose task is to steer the overall collection of information on Afghans abroad and promotion and coordination of their return and reintegration back home, while coordinating among all the State agencies and the actors involved into this process.

Furthermore, the "Aid to Uprooted people" budget line mobilised between 2001 and 2004 up to €3.8 million to support Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. In the same period, €26 million were allocated to help Burmese refugees in Burma, Bangladesh and Thailand. Additional €18 million were allocated under the budgets 2005 and 2006 of that budget line.

In Indonesia €15.7 million were mobilised by the "Aid to Uprooted people" budget line, with focus on Sulawesi and Timor populations.

The "Aid to Uprooted people" budget line mobilised €8.5 million between 2001 and 2004 for projects implemented by UNHCR in the Philippines aimed at assisting internally displaced people, with special focus on Mindanao. At the same time, in Sri Lanka the "Aid to Uprooted people" budget line provided up to €15.5 million between 2001 and 2004 for projects implemented by UNHCR aimed at assisting internally displaced people.

The latest available data indicates that around 5.5 million migrants from countries in the Eastern and South-Eastern regions are residing legally in the EU, which represents nearly 30% of all resident third-country nationals. The most important countries of origin are Turkey, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Ukraine.

In terms of illegal immigration, and in comparison to migration from Africa, migration from the Eastern and South-Eastern regions is different in nature: the flows are more constant (there is no specific seasonal cycle), more diffuse (given the multiplicity of possible entry points and the fact that an important share of illegal immigration is due to persons who enter the EU legally but overstay their visa) and more under the control of networks connected with organised crime and involved in multiform criminal businesses.

As regards numbers, a rough analysis suggests that migration flows to the EU originating in neighbouring countries reached its peak at the end of the 1990s and that this is now stabilising if not slightly declining; this is a trend that is likely to continue due to economic growth and increased political stability. At the same time there is evidence that migrants from Asia are seeking new routes into the EU via Africa, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. It is predicted that flows from Asia will increase.

While illegal immigration negatively impacts on the EU, countries of origin are also significantly affected by migration. Whilst in some cases, attracting migrant labour is an important concern for the EU given the sharp decline in population, for countries of origin difficult economic situations can generate high levels of emigration among people of working age, people who may then however remit important earnings to their country of origin.

Assessing the scale and nature of migratory flows from, through or to the countries in the Eastern and South-Eastern regions neighbouring the EU is a difficult task which must take into account the changes in the EU's external borders: following enlargement of the Union to include Bulgaria and Romania, the EU now has more extended external borders with Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine and Turkey; a new external border with Moldova; and an additional external sea border at the Black Sea which brings the countries of the Southern Caucasus closer. Land borders are also due to change as soon as the newer Member States join the Schengen area. As the borders of the EU shift, migratory routes also shift, displacing existing routes or adding new ones. New routes also appear when certain routes are closed off following increased action by enforcement agencies charged with tackling illegal immigration and organised crime. In addition, in recent years migratory flows have increasingly diversified and new migratory flows are emerging alongside traditional and relatively long-standing ones. In this context, migration is more difficult to manage and Member States increasingly turn to the EU to seek solutions via cross-border dialogue and cooperation with and within the partner regions.