EU interiors governance increasingly relies on flexible and functional forms of cooperation, including networked governance and governance through agencies. These instruments help address gaps in the EU’s constitutional framework and difficulties in adopting legislation in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). By empowering EU agencies, regulating operational cooperation, and promoting the harmonisation of administrative practices in asylum and migration, the EU seeks to strengthen mutual trust and facilitate practical cooperation among Member States (Halilovic, 2024). The European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) plays a pivotal role in this process. In particular, the Agency produces informational and analytical outputs – such as Country of Origin information (COI) analyses, guidance notes, common methodologies, and analytical reports – which support Member States in applying common standards. This blog examines how the EUAA fosters harmonisation of asylum practices by means of informational and analytical outputs.
Integrated knowledge, distributed authority: co-producing asylum information in the EU
A central challenge in the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is ensuring consistent assessment of asylum applications across Member States despite differences in administrative traditions, resources, and national contexts. What is distinctive in the EUAA framework is the integrated production of asylum-related knowledge through structured cooperation between the Agency and national administrations.
To foster convergence in the assessment of asylum applications across the Union, the EUAA prepares common COI analyses and issues guidance notes to assist Member States in the assessment of applications for international protection (Art. 11, 2021 EUAA Regulation). Guidance notes must take into account the Eligibility Guidelines of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from specific countries of origin and are issued by the EUAA, with endorsement by its Management Board, following consultation with the European Commission. The same applies to reviews or updates of the common analysis and guidance notes (Art. 11, 2021 EUAA Regulation).
The common analyses and guidance notes of the Agency provide a joint assessment of the situation in main countries of origin and country-specific common guidance in relation to the assessment criteria (established in the recast Qualification Directive) for qualification for international protection. They are developed through cooperation between the EUAA and a network of policy officials from Member States – the EUAA Country Guidance Network – while formal adoption takes place through the EUAA’s governance structures, i.e. the Management Board. Such network structure allows for an integrated development of analytical reports that engrains Member States’ inputs organically. While the EUAA holds the pen, the structuring of COI information and the development of guidelines are integrated administrative tasks, a collaborative process whereby the substance of the analyses and the guidelines, the methodology, and the terms of reference are agreed with the Member States (and the Commission) (EUAA interviews in Halilovic, 2026).
While most analyses are prepared by the agency on its own based on data provided by Member States, there are also mixed analyses that include Member States’ inputs at different levels (EUAA interviews in Halilovic, 2026). Some analyses and reports prepared by the EUAA are developed based on statistical and methodological aspects (e.g., indicators) pre-agreed with the Member States, such as in the case of the early warning and preparedness system. Other analyses involve the Member States to a greater extent and are prepared jointly, in partnership, with national experts and analysts. In these networks, Member States agree on the results, give inputs and feedback, and may voice possible disagreements. The validation by the Member States might be needed at a higher political level depending on the degree of politicisation of the matter (Ibidem.). While agreement usually forms organically at this stage, Member States may voice their further disagreement at the endorsement stage in the Management Board of the EUAA.
Thinking in terms of policy network theory, these networks with the national administrations can set standards and procedures for the national practitioners to follow. This interconnectedness can lead to a form of administrative interdependence, where national autonomy is influenced by the norms and practices propagated within the network (see also here and here). For example, the EUAA’s common methodology for COI production structures how national administrations collect, verify, and present country information, thereby shaping the evidentiary basis used by case officers across multiple jurisdictions.
Soft coordination, hard consequences: the regulatory effects of EUAA guidance
The growing regulatory effects of the Agency is reflected in the fact that Common COI analyses, together with the guidance notes, should be taken into account by the Member States in assessing asylum applications (Art. 11(3), 2021 EUAA Regulation). It is emphasised, however, that Member States are the sole competent for taking decisions on individual applications for international protection, so they do not necessarily need to abide by the guidance of the EUAA. Further, such analyses and benchmarks inform the operational activities of the agency and the Member States.
Of interest is also the EUAA’s regulatory potential through the development of common models for producing asylum analyses that apply to Member States too. The EUAA is legally mandated to produce a common model for developing analyses: the ‘common format and methodology for producing reports on third countries’ (Art. 9(2(c)), 2021 EUAA Regulation). That means that not only the Agency structures and conceptualises information at EU level, but also that such structuring of knowledge informs the conceptualisation and application of knowledge in the Member States. By defining concepts and establishing methodologies for data collection and data analysis, the EUAA demonstrates a great regulatory potential to shape knowledge production in Member States, rendering national generation and application of information far from independent.
Like the analyses themselves, the common methodology for analyses is produced in an integrated fashion. The EUAA, in fact, set up specialised groups of national experts to devise the methodology and incorporate the inputs from Member States, international organisations, and civil society. That reflects a high level of administrative integration in the generation of asylum-related information. The EUAA is also responsible for designing the common methodology used to monitor the operational and technical application of the CEAS – the model used to assess vulnerabilities in how Member States operate.
The co-opting of national experts to produce integrated analyses has two main advantages. First, it allows higher-quality analyses (compared to single-jurisdiction analyses) for it can draw on wider bases of expertise and suffers less from potential national political influences. Second, it has a higher impact in Member States: it was found that this joint approach brought about an ‘increased likelihood of these forecasts reaching and being considered by key decision makers in each Member State. Reports co-authored and thereby endorsed by the Member States themselves are more likely to be prioritised and acted upon’. Ownership generates uptake.
Balancing harmonisation and national autonomy in the Common European Asylum System
Overall, the EUAA’s informational and analytical outputs contribute to a form of administrative harmonisation that operates through shared knowledge, methodologies, and practices rather than through binding legal rules. This standardisation is essential for ensuring cohesive and efficient responses to transnational challenges, as well as to enhance cooperation and trust among Member States. Harmonised practices facilitate better coordination and information sharing, and can empower national agencies by providing them with access to greater resources. But they might also constrain the ability of individual Member States to flexibly tailor their policy responses to specific domestic contexts.
This general reflection is even more crucial in the AFSJ, where the practical coordination efforts spearheaded by the Agency can achieve de facto harmonisation in a (constitutional) area typecast by sovereign-sensitivities and political complexity. Looking ahead, this raises important legal questions as to the accountability and reviewability of such soft instruments, particularly where they produce tangible effects on national decision-making. It also suggests that future developments in EU asylum law may need to more explicitly address the role and limits of agency-produced knowledge in shaping administrative discretion across Member States.
Aida Halilovic completed a bachelor’s in political science and public administration at the University of Padua in 2017 and obtained her master’s from the University of Trento in 2019. From September 2020, she carried out research on administrative integration in the EU AFSJ and obtained a double PhD from Roskilde University and from Maastricht University, defending her thesis titled ‘Administrative integration through agency governance: The role of Frontex, the EUAA and Europol’ on 19 January 2026.