Section 4. Data on the Common European Asylum System
| || ||EASO uses both data published by Eurostat and through the EASO Early Warning and Preparedness System (EPS) data exchange to produce both public and restricted analyses of asylum trends. Key indicators to identify and monitor trends in countries receiving asylum applicants and countries of origin are presented in this section. Data related specifically to Dublin requests and unaccompanied minors are featured in Section 5 and Section 6, respectively. |
EASO manages extensive information exchanges with Member States, the European Commission, other JHA agencies and partner organisations. In addition, EASO cites official Eurostat statistics and uses machine learning to analyse big data on conflict and disruptive events in countries of origin and transit in order to clarify the root causes of individual displacement events.This information is used by EASO to deliver strategic analysis and design effective operational support. It is shared with core stakeholders on a regular basis so that the EU can understand and predict arrivals of third country nationals that might exert particular pressure on national asylum and reception authorities.
EASO works actively to improve the quality of information. Nonetheless, some discrepancies have been found which affect the interpretation of data on asylum, namely:
| ||In 2020, data integration has become the most pressing issue in the area of analysis and research. In other words, the utility of data is now measured by the extent to which it can be ‘linked’ to other data in order to multiply its potential. For example, data on Schengen visa applications and the number of asylum applications are available, but these data originate from different sources and are not linked. As a result, it cannot be deduced how many people first applied for a visa and then applied for asylum. The more data become linked with the necessary level of precision, the more the EU can design a future-proof and efficient asylum system based on a detailed understanding of the underlying trends.|
| ||Administrative data tend to count administrative procedures rather than individuals, so information exists on how many applications were lodged but it is not clear how many people were involved in these procedures. This can have considerable consequences on the interpretation of the data and how they are used to support decision-making. For example, counting applications may produce over-estimations at the EU+ level when some individuals submit multiple applications at different times or in different countries. At the same time, applications might under-estimate the actual pressure on national asylum authorities because their number is dependent on administrative capacity to register applications.|