Why Europe’s migration reform will be won or lost in towns, cities and regions
The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum entered its application phase this year. The Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) puts a question at the centre of that transition: are the local and regional governments who will actually deliver the Pact being treated as partners in shaping it?
Drawing on a questionnaire circulated among CEMR member associations, direct exchanges with local and regional leaders, and complementary desk research, the report maps how prepared towns, cities and regions are for the Pact’s application, how involved they have been in designing it, and what they say they need to make it work.
Already central, not always recognised
The findings confirm what many mayors and regional leaders already know from experience: local and regional governments are not new to migration governance; they are already at its centre. Long before the Pact, towns, cities and regions were carrying the bulk of integration, housing, education, health and social support for migrants and asylum seekers. Regional authorities reported responsibilities in this field in 87.5% of cases, and municipal authorities in 62.5%.
A governance gap
Half of respondents said local and regional governments were not consulted at all during the Pact’s negotiation and drafting. Where consultation did happen, it was often informal, ad hoc, or limited to written contributions requested by national authorities. No country reported involving local and regional governments (LRGs) as genuine co-designers of national implementation plans, CEMR calls this a “missing link” in multi-level governance: the level expected to deliver the Pact on the ground is rarely in the room when the rules are set.
A capacity gap
Responsibility without resources is a recurring theme. Only Austria considered its LRGs “mostly prepared” for the Pact; several other countries reported no additional resources at all since 2024. Where support existed, it was sporadic: extra IT tools here, an operational manual there, rarely the stable, dedicated funding implementation requires.
A coordination gap
Information about the Pact often reached local authorities through fragmented channels — circulars, ministry emails, informal networks, even the press; and clarity about who is responsible for what varied sharply from one country to the next. This uncertainty was not a side effect; it actively hampered planning, budgeting, and staffing decisions on the ground.
Was the deadline ever realistic?
For most respondents, the June 2026 application deadline of the Pact looked difficult or uncertain, well before it arrived, held back by staff shortages, unclear national guidance, and delayed preparations. Yet the report also points to a genuine reserve of capability: local authorities’ rapid, resourceful response to the displacement of people fleeing Ukraine shows what towns, cities and regions can do under pressure — provided that effort does not have to rely on improvisation every time.
What comes next
The analysis closes with three recommendations:
- Formally recognise LRGs within the Pact’s governance architecture;
- Strengthen synergies between AMIF, ESF+ and other EU funds around a more place-based approach;
- Ensure the Pact’s monitoring mechanisms track local and regional implementation, not only national transposition.
CEMR will continue to bring this evidence into the EU debate as the Pact moves further into its implementation phase.
For more information, contact:
Director – Policy & Impact
