kom (2018) 0464 (forslag) - COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Interim Evaluation of the Internal Security Fund - Borders and Visa 2014-2017 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the Internal Security Fund

Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0464
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 12.6.2018

SWD(2018) 340 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Interim Evaluation of the Internal Security Fund - Borders and Visa 2014-2017

Accompanying the document

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

on interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the Internal

Security Fund

{COM(2018) 464 final} - {SWD(2018) 339 final} - {SWD(2018) 341 final}

kom (2018) 0464 (forslag) - COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Interim Evaluation of the Internal Security Fund - Borders and Visa 2014-2017 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the Internal Security Fund

Table of contents

BBREVIATIONS

.................................................................................................................................................................

XECUTIVE SUMMARY

......................................................................................................................................................... 1

NTRODUCTION

.......................................................................................................................................................... 3

ACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION

....................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Baseline ................................................................................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Description of ISF-BV and its objectives ........................................................................................................... 10

MPLEMENTATION

/ S

TATE OF

LAY

........................................................................................................................ 15

3.1 Description of the implementation process ........................................................................................................ 15

3.2 Description of the implementation status ........................................................................................................... 16

ETHOD

.................................................................................................................................................................. 27

4.1 Short description of methodology ...................................................................................................................... 27

4.2 Evaluation questions........................................................................................................................................... 28

4.3 Limitations and robustness of findings ............................................................................................................... 28

NALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS

..................................................................................... 30

5.1 How effective has ISF-BV been so far? ............................................................................................................. 30

5.2 How efficient has ISF-BV been so far? .............................................................................................................. 37

5.3 How much simplification and reductions of administrative burden has ISF-BV brought so far? ...................... 40

5.4 How relevant has ISF-BV been so far? .............................................................................................................. 44

5.5 How coherent and complementary has ISF-BV been so far? ............................................................................. 49

5.6 What is the EU added value of ISF-BV so far? .................................................................................................. 54

5.7 How sustainable are the actions implemented under ISF-BV so far? ................................................................ 57

ONCLUSIONS AND ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

...................................................................................... 59

6.1 Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................................... 59

6.2 Efficiency ........................................................................................................................................................... 61

6.3 Simplification of management procedures and reduction of administrative burden .......................................... 61

6.4 Relevance ........................................................................................................................................................... 62

6.5 Coherence and complementarity ........................................................................................................................ 62

6.6 EU Added Value ................................................................................................................................................ 63

6.7 Sustainability ...................................................................................................................................................... 64

NNEX

1: P

ROCEDURAL INFORMATION

............................................................................................................................. 65

NNEX

2: S

TAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

......................................................................................................................... 66

NNEX

3: C

OST

BENEFIT ANALYSIS

.................................................................................................................................. 71

NNEX

4: E

VALUATION QUESTIONS

.................................................................................................................................. 74

iii

BBREVIATIONS

AMIF

BCPs

CIPS

Asylum Migration and

Integration Fund

Border crossing points

Specific programme

Prevention, Preparedness

and Consequence

Management of Terrorism

and Other Security-related

Risks

EMAS

ERF

eu-LISA

Emergency assistance

European Refugee Fund

European Union

European Agency for the

operational management of

Large-Scale IT Systems in

the area of freedom,

security and justice

Statistical office of the

European Union

Facilitated Transit

Document

Full-time Equivalent

Facilitated Rail Transit

Document

Integrated border

management

Specific programme

prevention of and fight

against organised crime

Internal Security Fund

ISF Borders and Visa

ISF Police

Internal security strategy

Multiannual financial

SFC2014

Member

States

PNR

RTP

SAC

SOLID

IOM

framework

International Organisation

for Migration

Member State(s)

participating in ISF-BV

incl. SAC

Passenger name record

European Return Fund

Registered traveller

programme

Schengen associated

countries

General programme

solidarity and management

of migration flows

Shared Fund Management

Common System of the

Commission

Security and safeguarding

liberties programme

DG Communications

CONNECT Networks, Content &

Technology

DG HOME Directorate-General for

Migration and Home

Affairs

DG MOVE DG Mobility and Transport

DG NEAR DG Neighbourhood and

Enlargement Negotiations

TAXUD

EBCGA

EBF

EES

EIF

DG Taxation and Customs

Union

European Border and Coast

Guard Agency (Frontex)

External Borders Fund

Entry/Exit System

European Fund for the

Integration of Third-

Country Nationals

Eurostat

FTD

FTE

FRTD

IBM

ISEC

SSL

ISF

ISF-BV

ISF-P

ISS

MFF

List of countries

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Switzerland

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Germany

Denmark

Estonia

Greece

Spain

Finland

France

Croatia

Hungary

Iceland

Italy

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Latvia

Malta

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Sweden

Slovenia

Slovakia

United Kingdom

XECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Commission staff working document (SWD) examines the impact of the Internal Security

Fund

—

Borders and Visa (ISF-BV) covering the period between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2017

against eight evaluation criteria: (i) effectiveness, (ii) efficiency, (iii) simplification and reduction of

administrative burden, (iv) relevance, (v) coherence, (vi) complementarity, (vii) EU added value

and (viii) sustainability. For the programming period 2014-2020, EUR 2.609 billion was allocated

for the management of the EU’s external borders and visa policy. The Fund aimed to establish

financial solidarity between Member States by supporting those countries that would experience a

heavy burden in implementing

the common standards for control of the EU’s external borders.

The assessment focuses on the performance of the ISF-BV’s

financial support for the management

of the EU’s external borders, including at the level of the various individual policy

themes which

are major constituents of the concerned EU policy such as organising controls and managing the

flows of people at the EU’s external borders.

During the implementation period under review, migration conditions changed to another paradigm

as Europe experienced a sudden and unexpected increase in migratory pressure on its southern and

south-eastern external borders. Therefore, as the migration and security conditions underpinning the

design of the funding instrument in 2011 changed drastically, new needs and funding priorities

arose in order to further protect the EU’s external borders, an area where the absence of internal

border controls was significant.

The evaluation concludes that ISF-BV support is essential for carrying out the investments required

to improve the EU’s external border management systems. The ISF-BV

is contributing crucially to

the application of the Schengen

acquis

considering the increase of migration flows since 2011,

especially in 2014 and 2015. The Fund is tackling fragmentation by supporting the development

and improvement at the national level of large IT systems, such as the Visa Information System and

the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), as well as contributing to their

coherent and effective use throughout all Member States. The ISF-BV is also encouraging a better

use of resources by increasing the capacity of Member States to undertake border surveillance and

by developing consular cooperation between Member States.

The evaluation gave evidence that, in the challenging migration and security context described

above, the funding instrument is, overall, flexible enough to respond to the changing needs resulting

from the migration crisis by shifting resources to the affected Member States, also through

emergency assistance (EMAS).

Lastly, the evaluation has found that the ISF-BV is prompting or contributing to the set-up of

comprehensive management and control systems, through (i) good coordination with the European

Commission, (ii) applying stringent procurement procedures, and (iii)

ex post

audits of projects and

monitoring arrangements. Therefore, the ISF-BV is promoting the reasonable use of EU financing

in the field of border management.

Commission delegated Reg. (EU) 2017/207 of Oct. 3

2016 on the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF)

provided for in Reg. (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general provisions on the

AMIF and on the ISF.

The Schengen acquis is derived from the 1990 Schengen Convention to implement the 1985 Schengen agreement, which

abolished checks at the internal borders of a number of EU Member States by 1995, creating the ‘Schengen Area’.

Based on the interim evaluation, the following conclusions have been drawn.



ISF-BV’s

effectiveness has been impacted by the migration and security crisis, which put

enormous pressure on the EU’s external borders and caused some Member States to

reintroduce temporary internal border control measures. Regarding the common visa policy,

the Fund has helped to implement it through better consular coverage, harmonisation of

procedures, facilitating legitimate travel, organising information exchanges and training

courses and supporting the development of common IT systems. The Fund has also

contributed to the development of integrated border management policy, which increased

solidarity among Member States by co-financing equipment used in Frontex joint

operations. It has also contributed to the development of the EU’s

acquis

on border

management, the European Border Surveillance system (EUROSUR), and border

management IT systems. However, consular cooperation and cooperation with third

countries attracted less attention from Member States than expected.

The results of ISF-BV so far have been achieved at a reasonable cost in terms of both human

and financial resources, but the administrative burden appears to be the main factor

undermining efficiency. Even if national programmes have been very slow to begin, the

Fund’s

overall implementation appears to be on track, as EMAS bridged the funding gap

and catered to immediate needs. This was facilitated by the flexible approach applied to

EMAS management.

The management and control measures have been considered to be appropriate and efficient,

with stringent mechanisms to ensure fraud and irregularities are prevented.

There is little evidence, at this stage, that the administrative burden has been significantly

reduced, though ISF-BV has led to simplification relative to the past. Several new

administrative and managerial procedures were introduced, taking into account the lessons

learnt from the previous funds, including the adoption of the Better Regulation guidelines

and toolbox and the collection of indicators in order to ensure a more appropraiate measure

of performance.

ISF-BV is relevant and its original rationale and objectives remain largely valid even though

the migration crisis has brought much more focus on how the EU’s external borders are

managed. Member States are calling for more flexibility measures.

The Fund has been found to be coherent with and complementary to other national and EU

interventions.

The Fund’s EU added value has been illustrated both from a policy and financial

perspective.

Many ISF-BV actions are long-term actions by their nature, since they are generally

designed to remain operational beyond the Fund’s support, while the sustainability of other

actions relies on other sources of national or EU funding. Training activities and other

cooperation mechanisms have also contributed to the increased sustainability of actions.



1. I

NTRODUCTION

This Commission SWD presents the interim evaluation of the Internal Security Fund — Borders

and Visa (ISF-BV) in line with Article 57 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European

Parliament and of the Council, the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/207 and the Better

Regulation Guidelines

Member States submitted to the Commission interim evaluation reports on the implementation of

actions and progress towards achieving the objectives of their national programmes by

31 December 2017. On the basis of these reports, the Commission must submit an interim

evaluation report on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 513/2014, Regulation (EU) No

514/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the

European Economic and Social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions by 30 June 2018.

The purpose of the interim evaluation of the ISF-BV is to:

1) ensure transparency and accountability in the ISF’s implementation, the general objective of

which is to ensure a high level of security within ‘an area of freedom, security and justice’; and

2) help make the future implementation of EU instruments in the fields covered by ISF more

relevant, effective, efficient, and sustainable and enable them to provide EU added value and

simplification measures as well as reduce administrative burden.

This evaluation looks at the progress made in implementing the programme, and assessed whether

corrective actions are needed to make sure that the programme delivers as planned. It also

contributed to the preparation of the next generation of funding instruments (the successors of ISF-

BV), under the post-2020 multiannual financial framework (MFF).

This evaluation covers all EU Member States, except Ireland and the United Kingdom that do not

participate in ISF-BV. In addition, the evaluation covers Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and

Norway, who are associated with the programme due to the fact that they fully implement the

Schengen

acquis

. The evaluation covers the period from 1 January 2014 until 30 June 2017 and

covers the national programmes of the participating countries, including specific actions and

technical assistance as well as Union actions and emergency assistance.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines_en

Throughout this document the term Member States (Member States) refers to the following group of countries: EU Members

States without the UK and Ireland and also including Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

2. B

ACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION

2.1

Baseline

Policy context

One of the EU’s overarching objectives is to offer its citizens ‘an area of freedom, security and

justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the

Member States’ (Art. 67 TFEU). It has been on top of

the EU policy agenda since the Tampere

Council Conclusions in 1999

. To achieve this goal, the Member States have to make a common

effort to invest in the protection and security of their common external borders.

The Schengen area

is one of the EU’s greatest

achievements. It is an area without internal borders

where the people are ensured of the right to free movement without being subjected to border

checks. Schengen states have improved and tightened controls at their common external borders on

the basis of common rules to ensure the security of those living or travelling in the Schengen area

and to prevent illegal entry, while facilitating legitimate travel. The Schengen

acquis

provides for

common rules and procedures to be applied by signatory states with regard to short-term visas and

border controls. Therefore, all signatory states needed to contribute to ensuring a high and uniform

level of control on individuals and surveillance of the EU external borders.

The consolidation and functioning of the Schengen area requires an overall border policy

architecture at the EU level supporting the components of the common integrated border

management (IBM) strategy. The IBM concept encompasses three dimensions



a common corpus of legislation, in particular the Schengen Borders Code as well as the

Regulation on local border traffic;

operational cooperation between Member States, including cooperation as coordinated by

Frontex;

solidarity between Member States and the EU through the establishment of an External Borders

Fund.

However, the burden borne to implement the common standards for control of the EU’s external

borders varied significantly from Member States to Member States. These variations were

explained through the differences between Member States in terms of (i) the geography of their

external borders, (ii) the number of border crossing points (BCPs), (iii) the level of migratory

pressure, (iv) the risks and threats encountered and (v) the number of Schengen visa applications

received.

The Council identified the External Borders Fund (EBF), the first funding instrument that deals

with borders, as one of the three dimensions of IBM. The EBF’s

general objectives were to increase

the efficiency of control and management of flows of people at the external borders, as well as unify

the implementation of the EU legislation on the crossing of external borders and improve the

management of activities organised by consular services. The EBF was implemented under shared

management arrangements, by means of annual national programmes. It also funded Community

and specific actions, which were managed at the initiative of the European Commission (direct

management) and implemented by the Member States.

Tampere European Council 15 and 16 October 1999 Presidency Conclusions.

Council Conclusions, Justice and Home Affairs, 2768th Council Meeting, Brussels, 4-5 December 2006.

The EBF was one of the four

EU funding instruments established in 2007 as part of the framework

programme on Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows

(SOLID). It was also part of a

wider policy package which also included the Frontex Agency

, the Schengen Borders Code

and

the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism

. The EBF, backed by funding of EUR 1.82 billion, intended

to fully support the following five priorities

a) creating a common integrated border management system to carry out checks on people and

for the surveillance of the external borders;

b) further developing and implementing the national components of a European Surveillance

System for the EU’s external borders and a permanent European Patrol Network for the

southern maritime borders;

c) issuing visas and tackling illegal immigration;

d) establishing the IT systems required to implement EU border and visa legislation; and

e) promoting the effective and efficient application of EU border and visa legislation

The work towards achieving the IBM is a long-term and complex process, which benefitted from

the support of the EBF. However, not all components were covered by the Fund. For instance, the

consolidation and the functioning of the Schengen Area requires the Member States to acquire and

develop the skills and obtain the equipment and technology necessary to be operational within IBM

at EU level. Also, while being implemented, the EBF had to face the following challenges indicated

in the table below.

Table 1: Overview of expected challenges for the Member States and the EU in the period 2014-2020



Policy

challenges in

the area of

border

management

and visa

The length of the external border and the number and nature of border crossing

points vary widely between Member States. The responsibilities for border control

differ considerably from Member States to Member States, resulting in some of

them bearing a disproportionate share of the associated costs. Therefore, Member

States at the EU’s periphery with long borders and with many border crossing points

have bigger responsibilities than other Member States to prevent irregular

migration, facilitate bona fide cross-border movements and provide security.

Member States do not only issue visas in their own interest, but they have a

common interest in applying common standards as people holding a visa or

residence permit from an Member States can move freely to other countries.

To promote solidarity, the EBF aimed towards achieving a fair share of the

responsibilities between Member States taking into account the financial burden

arising from the introduction of integrated

management of the EU’s external

borders.



The other three funds are the European Refugee Fund (ERF), the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals

(EIF), and the European Return Fund (RF).

COM (2005) 123 final, Communication establishing a framework programme on Solidarity and the Management of Migration

Flows for the period 2007-2013, European Commission, 6 April 2005.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of

Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, OJ L 349, 25.11.2004, p. 1.

Frontex has now been replaced by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency as per Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of 14

September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard (OJ L 251, 16.9.2016, p. 1).

Regulation (EU) No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders

(Schengen Borders Code), 15 March 2006.

Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 establishing an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the

Schengen

acquis

and repealing the Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998 setting up a Standing

Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen, 7 October 2013.

Commission Decision 2007/599 /EC of 27 of August 2007 Implementing Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament

and of the Council as regards the adoption of strategic guidelines for 2007 to 2013.

The EU External Borders Fund (EBF): European Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 15/2014. December 2014.

Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for the home affairs funds in 2014-2020 (SEC(2011)1358 of 15.11.2011).

In addition, the future ISF-BV fund was also to address and tackle certain needs and priorities that

the EBF was not able to deal with, such as:

a) further developing an integrated border management system;

b) strengthening the operational capabilities of the Member States within EUROSUR;

c) maintaining the large-scale IT systems (i.e. Schengen Information System II

, Visa

Information System

or the functioning of an IT agency);

d) developing new IT systems, such as the Entry-Exit System (EES) or the registered traveller

programme (RTP);

e) control measures within the area of free movement; and

f) support inter-agency cooperation

In a parallel development, the

internal security strategy (2010-2014)

(ISS) enabled the EU to

improve the preparedness and respond to existing and emerging threats to the overall European

society. Significant progress was made under the fourth strategic objective of the ISS; strengthening

security through border management. In relation to this objective, four key actions were identified:

1) exploit the full potential of EUROSUR; 2) boost Frontex’s contribution at the external borders;

3) undertake common risk management for moving goods across external borders, and 4) improve

inter-agency cooperation at national level

The results under the actions above were:

a) the entry into force at the end of 2013 of EUROSUR;

b) a new Schengen governance legislation

;

c) introduction of the Schengen Information System II;

d) Visa Information System; and

e) legislative proposals for an EES and an RTP (which would later become the Passenger

name record (PNR)).

Also, the ISS identified future challenges for the EU, both at an internal and external level, related

to social crises,

people’s mobility, demographic changes and/or political instability. Therefore, the

ISS outlined the following challenges that future strategies and funds should tackle in the coming

years:

a) address the further increase in the amount of people coming to the EU;

b) ensure all Member States sufficiently control their corresponding section of the external

borders;

c) ensure solidarity mechanisms are put in place to support Member States under pressure;

d) support the adoption of the EES and RTP;

e) ensure the Schengen Information System II operates effectively;

f) explore the feasibility of establishing a European System of Border Guards and;

g) devise a strategy and action plan for the security of the supply chain and risk

management, and contribute to its implementation.

The Schengen Information System (SIS) is a highly efficient large-scale information system that supports external border

control and law enforcement cooperation in the Schengen States.

The Visa Information System allows Schengen States to exchange visa data. It consists of a central IT system and a

communication infrastructure that links this central system to national systems.

Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for the home affairs funds in 2014-2020 (SEC(2011)1358 of 15.11.2011).

Final implementation report on the ISS (COM(2014) 365).

Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013; Regulation (EU) No 1051/2013.

In addition, Member States identified the following key risks and problems

at the EU external

borders in 2014: (i) large numbers of illegal border crossings at the external land and sea border; (ii)

document frauds to circumvent border control measures; and (iii) cross-border crimes and travellers

who intend to commit crime or terrorism within the EU.

The 2015 European Agenda on Security

was launched almost in parallel with the beginning of

ISF-BV’s

implementation. Since then, the Agenda has been providing strategic direction for the

Fund in areas where financial support would bring more added value, such as:

a) further development, improvement and optimisation of the Schengen Information System;

the interlinking of the Schengen Information System with Interpol’s database on stolen and

lost travel documents (SLTD);

c) common risk indicators to support the work of national border authorities when conducting

checks on people;

d) unifying standards of border management; and

e) complementary measures to improve security in relation to the movement of goods.

Funding context

The share of funding for home affairs in the EU budget was relatively small but it has steadily

grown (over the period 2007-2013 it amounted to EUR 6.45 billion or 0.77 % of the total EU

budget. It covered the financing programmes, and it provided funding for large-scale IT systems

(Visa Information System, Schengen Information System, Eurodac) and the agencies). The

spending

during this period was characterised by heavy ‘back-loading’, increasing from EUR

500

million in 2007 to EUR 1.5 billion in 2013. Such funding and the corresponding increase enabled

the EU to tackle several policy challenges during 2007-2013, as described above.

The table below represents a comparative overview between the EBF and ISF-BV in relation to the

budget, participation and objectives.

Table 2: Overview of the Funds related to borders and visa in the periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020

General

programme

General

programme

Solidarity and

Management

of Migration

Flows

(93 % to 96 %

shared

Policy

area

Fund / Specific programme

Budget, participation & objectives

Previous funds

European Refugee Fund (ERF III)

EUR 614 million

, all Member States

except DK

Current funds

Asylum

Asylum Migration and

Integration Fund

(AMIF, 2014-2020)

EUR 3.137 million (initial),



Support and encourage Member States in all Member States except DK

receiving refugees and displaced persons



Emergency measures to address sudden



Strengthen and develop all

mass influx if migrants and asylum

aspects of the CEAS



Support legal migration to

seekers

Those risks were defined in 2014 by the Frontex Risk Analysis Unit after an Annual Analytical Review with Member State

analysts participating in the Frontex Risk Analysis Network.

Communication from the Commission COM(2015) 185 final. Strasbourg, 28.4.2015.

A full comparative table including all previous and current home affairs funds can be found in Annex 5.

After adoption of EASO; takes account of Decision No 458/2010/EU amending the ERF basic act.

management;

remainder

under

centralised

direct

management)

General

programme

Security and

Safeguarding

Liberties

(centralised

direct

management)

the Member States and

promote effective

integration of third-country

nationals



Strengthen fair and effective

return strategies and

contribute to combating

illegal immigration



Strengthen solidarity and

responsibility sharing

Return

between Member States,



Improve return management

particularly those most



Encourage

development

cooperation

affected by the migratory

between Member States and countries of

flows

return

External Borders Fund, (EBF)

Internal security Fund

EUR 1.820 million, all Member States

(ISF, 2014-2020)

(including RO & BG and the Schengen

EUR 3.764 million (initial)

associated states from 2010) except the UK

Integrated

and IE

ISF-Borders and Visa

border

All Member States except IE

management



Financial solidarity among Schengen and UK plus the Schengen

and visa

countries

associated states CH, IS, LI,



Manage efficient controls and the flows at NO

the external borders



Improve management of the consular



Ensuring a high level of

authorities

security in the EU and

Specific programme Prevention of and Fight

facilitate legitimate travel

Prevention



Visa and support integrated

against Organised Crime (ISEC)

of and fight

border management

EUR 600 million, all Member States

against



Crime prevention, law enforcement,

organised

witness protection and support, victims

crime

protection

ISF-Police

Specific programme Prevention,

Preparedness and Consequence Management All Member States except DK

Combating

and UK

of Terrorism and Other Security-related

terrorism

Risks (CIPS)

and other



Ensure a high level of

EUR 140 million, all Member States

security-

security in the EU, fight



Protection of citizens and critical

related risks

against crime, manage risks

infrastructure from terrorist attacks and

and crisis

other security incidents

Integration

of legally

residing

TCNs, legal

migration

European Fund for the Integration of Third-

Country Nationals (EIF)

EUR 825 million, all Member States except



Support the integration of non-EU

immigrants into European societies

European Return Fund (RF)

EUR 676 million, all Member States except

The four different SOLID funds complemented each other and provided a holistic approach to home

affairs funding. However, there were weaknesses, identified by the

ex post

evaluations, and the

European Court of Auditors special reports

, as well as during the

Commission’s impact

assessment that accompanied its proposals for the 2014-2020 generation of home affairs funds

Those weaknesses included: (i) a lack of effective monitoring and evaluation systems; (ii) a lack of

common indicators with measurable targets; (iii) high administrative burdens; and (iv) delays in

providing evaluation reports at both at Member States and Commission level.

To counter these weaknesses, recommendations were proposed which included, among others:

ECA (2012) Special report No. 22, Do the European Integration Fund and the European Refugee Fund contribute effectively to

the integration of third-country nationals? & ECA (2014) Special report No.15, The External Borders Fund has fostered

financial solidarity but requires better measurement of results and needs to provide further EU added value.

SEC(2011) 1358 final of 15.11.2011.



the adoption of a broader framework to:

allow the funds to adapt to the Member States objectives and changing needs;

to focus on pressing issues and where needs are the largest;

a harmonised approach across all EU funding streams;

the improvement of monitoring and evaluation tools and capacities at EU, Member States

and project levels;

the improvement of sustainability by awarding funding based on innovation and

sustainability of proposals.



The EBF

ex post

evaluation’s final report and the EBF SWD also identified several issues, lessons

and recommendations to be considered, which are detailed in the table below.

Table 3: Lessons learnt from the EBF and how ISF-BV approached them

The EBF had a

complex architecture,

as it consisted



of four broad objectives, numerous specific

objectives and five priorities. The aim was to keep

the Fund concrete and operational but this was not

achieved.

There were

difficulties linked to evaluation



limitations

when assessing the EBF’s overall

effectiveness at EU level. The lack of an initial

baseline and the fact that the EBF’s monitoring and

evaluation system did not allow for detailed

monitoring and assessment of the Fund’s

performance. Set indicators were rather weak and

monitoring data were not fully reliable.

Lessons learnt from the EBF

ex post

evaluation

…

Under ISF-BV

…

The

architecture was simplified as ISF-

Borders and Visa

includes only two specific

objectives (one for Borders and one for Visa)

supported by seven operational objectives.

A list of

common indicators has been

included in the Fund’s legal base.

Moreover,

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/207 was

adopted in October 2016 on the common

monitoring and evaluation framework for ISF-

Borders and Visa. The following was adopted

to improve the monitoring of the Fund:

a set of evaluation questions

and indicators

were included in the framework mentioned

above;

guidance document

on the monitoring and

evaluation framework for Member States was

created;

a common template

for Member States to

submit the evaluation reports and;

Evaluation Network

was created for

Member States staff and the Commission to

discuss and resolve evaluation-related matters.

single multiannual national programme

which covers the period 2014-2020 was

introduced. This speeds up the funding

process and decreases administrative burden

by allowing Member States to apply national

eligibility rules with some added flexibility.

There is

operating support

by which Member

States can cover staff costs at border crossing

points.

It was decided to

abolish the specific action

under direct management

in the ISF-BV and

include such actions in shared

management

to allow Member States to have

more ownership and flexibility.



The EBF was implemented through a strategic

multiannual programme covering the whole

programming period. However,

annual

programmes

were

adopted yearly,

which was

considered by some Member States a

heavy

administrative burden.

Eligibility limitations

were detected that prevented

some actions from being implemented.

The specific actions

did not have a clear targeted

focus.

This was also administratively complicated to

implement and resulted in an overlap with EMAS

and projects implemented under the annual

programme.



Member States showed

little interest in developing

projects related to consular cooperation.

Countries receiving small volumes of funds had

higher management costs.



There is a

90 % co-financing rate

NATIONAL PROGRAMMEs.

A threshold has been set to ensure that each

Member States is allocated a

appropriate amount of funding, relative to

its needs,

as a starting block and the allocation

percentage for

technical assistance

has been

slightly increased.

Thus, ISF-BV is building on the lessons learnt from its predecessor, the EBF, in providing support

to Member States for managing the EU’s external borders and the EU’s visa policy. For instance,

ISF-BV has a larger scope than the EBF, which was more limited to border control and visa policy.

Through ISF-BV the EU can, for example, support verification measures within the area of free

movement which were not carried nearby the external borders. It can also support inter-agency

cooperation and the building of connections across the different law enforcement authorities,

including those working within the territory of a Member State (police, border guards, customs,

etc.) under an internal security agenda. ISF-BV can also support operational activities in the

Member States related to borders and visa such as staff costs, etc.

This SWD, notwithstanding its main purpose of ensuring transparency and accountability, and

contributing to the Fund’s relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, is also looking to analyse the

extent to which the recommendations that came out of the

ex post

evaluations of SOLID have been

taken into account in ISF-BV.

2.2

Description of ISF-BV and its objectives

In a nutshell

ISF-BV aims at ensuring a high level of security in the Union while facilitating legitimate travel,

through a uniform and high level of control of the external borders and the effective processing of

Schengen visas, in compliance with the Union’s commitment to fundamental freedoms and human

rights, and is expression of and implemented by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of

responsibility within the EU.

The legal base of ISF-BV is Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 adopted by the European Parliament and

the Council on 16 April 2014, and it is based on Article 77(2) of the TFEU.

General and specific objectives of the ISF-BV

The objectives for the ISF-BV are set out in Article 3 of the Regulation - the general objective of

the Fund ‘ …shall

be to contribute to ensuring a high level of security in the Union while

facilitating legitimate travel, through a uniform and high level of control of the external borders

and the effective processing of Schengen visas, in compliance with the Union’s commitment to

fundamental freedoms and human rights’.

This

general objective is further broken down in two

specific objectives on visa policy and border management:

Specific objective 1: supporting a common visa policy

Applying common visa standards has become essential as people holding a visa or residence permit

in the Schengen area can move freely from one Member States to another. Therefore, all Member

States share a common interest in ensuring that the EU’s visa policy is efficiently and securely

applied. Therefore, the ISF-BV supports, through this specific objective, capacity building in the

Member States in order to sufficiently implement the common visa policy.

Specific objective 2: supporting integrated border management

An efficient border control is crucial to ensuring the free movement of legally residing third-country

nationals and EU citizens as well as ensuring internal security. As peripheral Member States control

a significant length of the EU’s external borders, their responsibilities for border control have

become overwhelming. In this regard, ISF-BV supports, through this specifc objective, (i) the

further harmonisation of the border management, (ii) the sharing of information between the

Member States, and (iii) the sharing of information between the Member States and the Frontex

Agency.

To fulfil the specific objectives a number of operational objectives were defined

Table 4: ISF-BV operational objectives

Operational

objectives

(a)

To promote the development, implementation and enforcement of policies

ensure that people, regardless of their nationality, are not subject to checks when

crossing the EU’s internal borders, and to ensure efficient monitoring and checks are

carried out on people crossing the EU’s external borders.

(b) To gradually establish an integrated management system for external borders,

based on solidarity and responsibility, particularly through:

strengthening external border

checks and surveillance systems, and inter-

agency cooperation between border guards, customs, migration, asylum and

law enforcement authorities of Member States at the external borders,

including in the maritime border areas;

ii.

measures within the Member States territories on the management of

external borders

and the necessary supporting measures on document

security, identity management and the interoperability of acquired technical

equipment;

iii.

any measures that also help

prevent and combat cross-border crime at

external borders

concerning the movement of people, including trafficking

in human beings and human smuggling.

(c)

To promote the development and implementation of the common policy on

visas

and other short-stay residence permits, and different forms of consular

cooperation to ensure better consular coverage and harmonised practices on visa

issuing.

(d)

To set up and run IT systems,

their communication infrastructure, and equip-

ment

that support the common visa policy,

border checks and border surveillance

at the external borders. These IT systems should fully comply with personal data

protection law.

(e)

To boost situational awareness at the external borders

and the reaction

capabilities of Member States;

(f)

To ensure the EU’s

acquis

on borders and visas

is efficiently and uniformly

applied,

including the effective functioning of the Schengen evaluation and

monitoring mechanism;

(g)

To boost actions by the Member States that are helping to strengthen

cooperation between Member States

operating in third countries concerning the

Also, as set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 515/2014.

flows of third-country

nationals into the Member States’ territory. These actions

include preventing and tackling of illegal immigration, as well as cooperating with

third countries in full compliance with the objectives and

principles of the EU’s

external action and humanitarian policy

2.2.1. Global resources

According to the legal base, the initial global resources for implementing ISF-BV in the period

2014-2020 were set at EUR 2.76 billion, whereas the reprogrammed amount stands at EUR 2.61

billion, as shown in the below figure. Further details in relation to the Fund’s implementation and

its management modes are explained in Section 3 of this SWD.

The funds allocated to NATIONAL PROGRAMMEs (65 % of the total reprogrammed resources,

including the Special Transit Scheme (STS)

for Lithuania, and to technical assistance at the

initiative of the Commission (0.46 % of the total) have remained unchanged. In response to

unforeseen needs caused by the migration crisis, significant differences were made to funds

allocated to EMAS (the amount increased from an initial allocation of 1.3 % to 14.8 % of the total

fund). Furthermore, UAs have decreased by a quarter so more EMAS can be provided. The Member

States received an additional amount of EUR 192 million to purchase equipment to be used in

Frontex joint operations. As for the funds available for IT systems, the overall allocation of

EUR 791 million has not changed - only the part to be implemented via ISF-BV has been reduced

to EUR

145.7 million with the remaining amount to be implemented via the ‘Smart Borders’ and

‘Schengen Information System II’ budget lines managed by the Commission as well as directly by

two EU agencies (eu-LISA and Frontex).

Figure 1: Initial and reprogrammed global resources for 2014-2020 (EUR million)

NPs

IT Systems

Frontex tops-ups

UAs

EMAS

TA of EC

Total

500

1000

1500

146

791

192

167

217

387

1705

2609

2760

2000

2500

3000

Reprogrammed global resources

Initial global resources

2.2.2. Eligible actions and beneficiaries

Regulation (EU) No 515/2014, Chapter II, Article 11.

All Member States (except IE and the UK) and as well as IS, LI, NO and CH participate in the

Fund’s implementation. The Fund’s beneficiaries include federal and national

authorities, local

public bodies, non-governmental and humanitarian organisations, private and public law

companies, education and research organisations.

The ISF-BV supports actions in or by Member States, with a special focus on the ones shown in the

table below, but maintains a wide scope to ensure full coverage of needs.

Table 5: ISF-BV eligible actions

ISF-BV

ELIGIBLE

ACTIONS

a) infrastructure, buildings and systems required at border crossing points and

for surveillance;

b) operating equipment, means of transport and communication systems;

c) IT and communication systems to manage migration flows efficiently;

d) infrastructure, buildings, communication and IT systems and operating

equipment;

e) training in the use of the equipment and systems referred to in points (b), (c)

and (d) and the promotion of quality management standards and training of

border guards;

f) secondment of immigration liaisons officers and document advisers to third

countries;

g) studies, training, pilot projects and other actions that gradually establish an

integrated management system for external borders;

h) studies, pilot projects and actions that aim to implement the

recommendations, operational standards and best practices resulting from the

operational cooperation between Member States and EU agencies.

The Fund can also support actions in relation to or in third countries, such as: IT systems, training,

promoting the development and implementation of the common policy on visas or boosting

situational awareness. It also contributes to the financing of technical assistance at the initiative of

the Member States and the Commission.

2.2.3. The Intervention Logic

The intervention logic (see Figure 2) of the ISF-BV Fund is defined in order to understand what the

Fund is aiming to achieve and how it will be achieved, by presenting the causal and logical links

between problems, needs, objectives and eligible actions, as well as the connections between results

and impacts. The implementation process is further explained in section 3.1.

Figure 2: Intervention logic for the interim evaluation of ISF-BV

3. I

MPLEMENTATION

/ S

TATE OF

LAY

3.1

Description of the implementation process

ISF-BV is being implemented either by the Member States (shared management), directly by the

Commission (direct management), or indirectly by entrusting the budget implementation task to a

third party

(indirect management).

Under

shared management,

resources are allocated through national programmes to be

implemented in close cooperation with competent authorities and institutions. Member States

implement national programmes which contribute to the EU’s policy objectives but which are also

tailor-made according to their national context. This ensures a level-playing field among Member

States, reduces the adverse effects of competition for funding, and brings predictability to funding

allowing Member States to better plan their actions. Some actions, due to their nature, such as

transnational actions, innovative projects, support to civil society, and actions requiring funds to be

mobilised quickly are implemented under

direct management

by the Commission. Aside from

actions to pursue the Fund’s specific objectives, within national programmes, each Member States

‘may use up to 40

% of the amount allocated to finance

Operating Support

to the public

authorities responsible for accomplishing the tasks and services that constitute a public service for

the Union’

In addition to the basic amount allocated to national programmes, Member States may also receive

additional resources for the implementation of

specific actions

(SAs). SAs respond to EU priorities,

in particular: ‘the setting up of consular cooperation mechanisms between at least two Member

States’ (SA1), and ‘the purchasing of means of transport and operating equipment that are

considered necessary for the deployment during the joint operation by the European Border and

Coast Guard Agency (EBCGA, hereinafter referred to as Frontex) and that shall be put at the

disposal of the Agency’ (SA2)

. Shared management also includes the ‘Special

Transit Scheme’

This is a financial instrument that the EU granted to Lithuania to support the management of people

transiting between the Kaliningrad region and the rest of the Russian Federation, through EU

territory, by means of the Facilitated Transit Document (FTD) and the Facilitated Rail Transit

Document (FRTD).

At the beginning of the programming period, all Member States had a policy dialogue with the

Commission to enable them to prepare their national programmes. Based on the outcome of these

dialogues, the Member States submitted their multiannual national programmes. The Commission

examined these programmes, consulted Frontex and eventually approved each national programme.

To implement their national programmes, Member States had to set up a management and control

system

. The Commission follows the implementation under shared management by examining the

annual implementation reports (AIRs) and accounts submitted by the Member States.

A mid-term review of national programmes was planned for the middle of the programming period,

i.e. in 2018. In addition, in order to evaluate the programmes, Member States are expected to submit

These parties can be countries or the bodies they have designated, international organisations and their agencies.

As outlined in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 515/201424 ‘Operating support shall be concentrated on specific tasks and/or

services and shall be focused on the objectives as laid down in Annex III. It shall entail full reimbursement of the expenditure

incurred to accomplish the tasks and/or services defined in the national programme, within the financial limits set by the

programme and the ceiling laid down in paragraph

1.’

Regulation (EU) No. 515/2014, Annex II.

Original earmarked resources: EUR 154 million.

Horizontal Regulation (EU) 514/2014, Section 2.

two national evaluation reports: an interim evaluation report by the end of 2017 and an

ex post

evaluation report by the end of 2023. The Commission will take these reports into account in its

interim and

ex post

evaluations of the Fund, which are to be sent to the European Parliament, the

Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions by 30 June 2018

and 20 June 2024 respectively.

A small amount of money equal to 5 % of the total national allocation plus EUR 0.5 million is

reserved in the national programmes for technical assistance.

Moreover, each Member States needs to establish a partnership with relevant stakeholders

including, other public authorities, international organisations, NGOs and social partners in order to

prepare, implement, monitor and evaluate the national programmes. Stakeholders meet regularly in

a monitoring committee set up to follow the national programme’s implementation.

For

direct management,

it is the Commission that centrally and directly supervises budget

implementation through EMAS and UAs. Funds are earmarked by the EU through calls for

proposals, procurement, and direct awards, as planned in the annual work programme

. Under

indirect management,

the Commission entrusts, through delegation agreements, budget

implementation tasks to Member States (or to bodies designated by them), international

organisations, Member States development agencies, EU agencies, and other bodies, because they

are best placed to carry out those activities and also because of the limited human and

administrative resources available in the Commission

3.2

Description of the implementation status

3.2.1. Shared management

According to the legal base, the total programmed EU contribution for shared management was

EUR 2.496 billion consisting of EUR 1.705 billion for national programmes and EUR 791 million

for the development of (existing and/or new) IT systems that support the management of migration

flows across the external borders. The allocation to national programmes was further broken down

to:



EUR 1.276 billion to national programmes, of which up to 40 % is available for operating

support, with EUR 128 million to be distributed under the mid-term review; and



EUR 147 million for specific actions; and



EUR 154 million for the Special Transit Scheme.

Regarding funds allocated to IT systems, only EUR 145.7 million will be provided via ISF-BV,

with the

remaining amount expected to be provided through the ‘Smart Borders’ and ‘Schengen

Information System II’ budget lines managed by the Commission as well as directly by two

agencies (eu-LISA and Frontex).

At the end of the interim evaluation period 26 national programmes were approved

and the

resources allocated for adopted national programmes stood at EUR 1.533 billion.

The annual work programme is a planning document explaining how the budget allocated for certain policies or funding

programmes will be spent.

Commission staff working paper

–impact

assessment for the 2014-2020 funds (SEC(2011)1358).

NO, CH, LI and IS are not approved in the period covered by the interim evaluation.

By 31 December 2016

, Member States had drawn down EUR 584 million of the total EU

resources available for the period 2014-2020 for national programmes that were adopted, with an

implementation rate

of 38 %. Total payments cleared under the accounts for 2014-2016 amounted

to EUR 178 million, resulting in a very low

payment rate

of 12 %.

Figure 3: ISF-BV shared management: Allocation of global resources to shared management 2014-2020 (EUR million)

€

3.000

€

2.500

€

2.000

€

1.500

€

1.000

€

500

€

Programmed resources as per

legal base

National Programmes

Reprogrammed resources as of

30.06.2017

IT systems (ETIAS, EES, SIS II)

Resources corresponding to

adopted NPs

Frontex equipment top-ups

€

2 496

791

€

2 043

192

146

1 705

1 533

Disaggregating

data by ISF-BV’s

objectives

as reflected in the Shared Fund Management

Common System of DG HOME (SFC2014

), resources have been earmarked for specific objective

Borders (with 55.9 % of the planned EU commitment/available EU resources for adopted national

programmes), followed by operating support (with 20.7 %), STS (with 9.7 %) and specific objective

Visa (with 9.6 %). 4.1 % was dedicated to technical assistance.

Figure 4: ISF-BV

—

EU planned resources 2014-2020 under the specifc objectives for adopted national programmes

(EUR million)

The reference period for shared management ran from January 2014 until 31 December 2016, which corresponds to the period

covered by the last set of accounts submitted by Member States and cleared by the Commission.

SFC2014 is an IT system used for electronic exchange of information concerning shared fund management between Member

States and the European Commission.

STS

148

10%

Visa

148

318

21%

Borders

857

56%

For

specific objective Visa,

the Member States that spent the highest amounts on financed projects

related to this objective are France, Spain, Cyprus, and Italy, with EUR 24.1, 11.2, 9.6, and 8

million respectively. Member States that spent the lowest amounts are Estonia, Liechtenstein, and

Iceland, with projects funded for less than EUR 1 million.



Three Member States (Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain) have developed activities to

strengthen consular cooperation through new or improved infrastructure and buildings (co-

locations, common application centres, representations and other infrastructural means). In

particular, a total number of 4 actions

—

out of the 35 expected by national programmes

—

were put in place: 2 from the Netherlands and 1 each from Belgium and Spain.

Eight Member States

have engaged in activities aimed at developing and improving

consulates’ physical structures and equipment, to help them perform visa-issuing

services in

a more effective and efficient way. Specifically, 156 consulates

—

out of the 911 expected

to be covered by national programmes

—

have been developed or upgraded, of which: 85

belong to Belgium, 39 to Estonia, 13 to France, and the remaining 19 to Cyprus (9), Finland

(6), Spain (2), Sweden (1), and Austria (1). In terms of the implementation rate, according to

the annual implementation reports for 2016, 7 Member States

display a rate between 1 %

and 100 %.

Seven Member States

have already assigned

Immigration Liaison Officers

and other

professionals with specialised functions, to maintain direct contacts with host Member

States, enabling the effective implementation of EU measures to tackle illegal migration and

improve information-sharing mechanisms with the host Member States. Member States have

deployed 105 officers

—

out of the 392 expected to be covered by national programmes, of

which: 30 belong to Germany, 23 to France, 20 to the Netherlands, and the remaining 32 to

Austria (14), Belgium (8), Spain (7), and Hungary (3).



For

specific objective Borders,

the Member States that spent the highest amounts on projects

related to this objective were Italy, Greece, and Spain, with EUR 142.3, 124.2, 102.1 million

AT, BE, CY, EE, ES, FI, FR and SE.

AT, BE and BG (100 %), CH (39 %), CY (9 %), CZ (8 %) and DK (1 %).

AT, BE, DE, ES, FR, HU and NL.

respectively. In the remaining 16 Member States projects were financed for less than EUR 45 000

in each country. 11 Member States

have not provided data under the referred indicator. As regards

border control, 8 Member States

have developed or upgraded 1 414 (out of the 12 454 expected to

be covered by the national programmes) infrastructure and equipment items aimed at strengthening

border checks and surveillance. According to the AIRs for 2016, the remaining 22 Member States

have not implemented any actions yet.

In terms of the

implementation rate,

as shown by Figure 4, the operating support displays the

highest values (48 %), followed by STS (38 %), borders (37 %), visa (28 %), and technical

assistance (27 %). Regarding the

payment rate,

STS displays the highest values (31 %), followed

by operating support (22 %), borders (6 %), technical assistance (6 %), and visa (6 %).

Figure 5: ISF-BV

—

EU planned resources 2014-2020 for adopted national programmes, Member States commitment

2014-2016, account amounts (EUR million), implementation and payment rate, by objective

€

900

€

800

€

700

€

600

€

500

€

400

€

300

€

200

€

100

€

Visa Total

Borders Total

Operating support

Total

TA Total

STS LT Total

10%

30%

20%

50%

40%

60%

EU planned resources 2014-2020 under SO

Account amount (2014-2016)

Payment rate

MS commitment (2014-2016)

Implementation rate

The implementation rate, on the other hand, shows that Member States are actually much more

advanced in their implementation on the ground and that the difference between the two rates is

expected to be claimed in the financial records over the following years.

In addition, breaking up data by Member States (Figure 6), ES (EUR 208 million), EL (EUR 194

million), IT (EUR 188 million) and LT (EUR 180 million) are the four Member States which have

the highest value of available resources for their adopted national programme. Overall, these

Member States have been allocated 50 % of the total available EU resources 2014-2020.

In terms of the implementation rate, EE has attained a percentage of 87 %, followed by MT (83 %),

AT (69 %), BG (66 %), LV (61 %) and BE (61 %). 18 Member States

have currently achieved an

implementation rate of between 12 % and 60 %. Finally, 2 Member States

have not committed

LI, LV, LU, MT, ML, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI and SK.

It is important to highlight that LI’s national programme is in the process of

being approved.

EE (823), BG (243), DE (190), ES (129), CY (14), HU (11), BE (2) and IT (2).

In descending rate order: SK (59.24 %), FR (57.52 %), EL (54.30 %), NL (53.64 %), FI (53.39 %), DE (44.47 %), LT

(43.17 %), RO (40.82 %), PT (38.84 %), CZ (34.38 %), CY (27.50 %), DK (24.24 %), SI (22.25 %), SE (20.15 %), ES (18.36

%), IT (15.69 %), HR (14.16 %) and HU (13.86 %).

LU and PL.

resources, displaying a rate of 0 %. The payment rates vary significantly across Member States:

only 1 Member States, EE, has attained a percentage of 50 %, 16 Member States

have currently

achieved a payment rate between 1 % and 26 %, whereas 5 Member States

display a payment rate

under 1 %. Finally, 4 Member States

display a payment rate of 0 %.

Figure 6: Available EU resources 2014-2020 for adopted national programmes, Member States commitment (2014-

2016) and accounts amounts (2014-2016), by Member States (EUR million), including top-ups.

€

250

€

200

€

150

€

100

€

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES

Available EU resources 2014-2020

FI FR HR HU IT

LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE

Account Amount

SI SK

MS commitment (2014-2016)

Taking into consideration the annual accounts for 2017 submitted by the Member States in mid-

February, we can conclude that the overall payment rate improved from 12 % to 24 %, with Italy,

Lithuania, Spain and many other Member States making significant improvements as illustrated in

the figure below.

In descending rate order: LT (25.74 %), AT (23.15 %), BG (23.13 %), NL (22.70 %), EL (21.70 %), DE (20.21 %), FI (15.48

%), BE (14.59 %), SE (12.39 %), MT (7.64 %), ES (7.34 %), FR (6.79 %), CY (4.22 %), IT (3.77 %), SK (1.86 %) and SI (1.12

%).

In descending rate order: LU (0.98 %), CZ (0.56 %), HU (0.53 %), LV (0.52 %), and DK (0.22 %).

HR, PL, PT and RO.

Figure 7: ISF-BV payments 2015-2017 (EUR million)

€

CZ HR SK PL LU SE BE DK EE AT LV PT NL NO CY FI

Payments 2015

Payments 2016

SI FR BG HU RO DE MT EL ES LT IT

Payments 2017

3.2.2. Direct management

The AWPs for 2014-2017 allocated a total amount of EUR 414 million for EMAS (EUR 372

million) and UAs (EUR 42 million). Over the period 2014-2017, 90 % of resources have been

allocated for EMAS, whereas only 10 % was allocated for UAs. UAs have been planned by the EU

to allow for transnational actions or actions of particular interest to the EU to be funded. These

actions concern the general, specific, and operational objectives set by Art. 3 of Regulation (EU)

515/2014

. EMAS actions have been planned to allow Member States to address urgent and

specific needs in emergency and unpredictable situations requiring a timely and effective

response

. The original planned amount envisaged for EMAS was multiplied by 11. Therefore, the

reason behind the disproportionate planning between UAs and EMAS may be found in the need to

properly face the unexpected and unprecedented migratory flows, which put significant pressure on

the most affected Member States, during 2015 and 2016.

By 30 June 2017, a total of 123 actions (46 EMAS and 77 UAs) were financed under the direct

management for a total amount of EUR 383 million out of the EUR 414 million planned for

resources for the 2014-2017 AWPs. In terms of the

implementation rate

, beneficiaries spent 6 %

of total committed resources (EUR 271 million), with a total payments amounting to EUR 17

million.

Regulation (EU) N. 515/2014, Art. 13.1; annual work programmes 2014-2017.

Regulation (EU) N. 515/2014, Art. 14.1; annual work programmes 2014-2017.

The implementation rate for direct/indirect management is calculated by dividing the amount of payments, including pre-

financing and final payments, made to a finalised project by the amount awarded in the grant agreements (commitments).

Table 6: AWPs planned resources, by different implementation mechanisms

AWP 2014

€9

163 194

€1

600 000

€4

500 000

€450

000

€15

713 194

AWP 2015

€45

800 000

€1

667 000

€3

580 000

€51

047 000

AWP 2016

€249

983 495

€2

200 000

€5

000 000

€2

750 000

€259

933 495

AWP 2017

€77

976 516

€2

690 000

€2

300 000

€4

260 000

€87

226 516

Action grants

Procurement

Delegation

agreement

Other

Total

€382

923 205

€8

157 000

€11

800 000

€11

040 000

€413

920 205

Total

Emergency assistance measures

Over the period 2014-2017, the EU allocated a total amount of EUR 371.6 million to cover the

priorities and objectives set by AWPs for EMAS. By 30 June 2017, 7 Member States

, 1 EU

Agency

and 1 international organisation

were beneficiaries of a total of 46 EMAS actions. The

total committed resources amount to EUR 257.5 million, while payments, including both pre-

financing and final payments, for completed actions stand at EUR 12.8 million. The pre-financing

paid on ongoing EMAS actions amounted to EUR 143.7 million. It is important to highlight that,

for EMAS measures, the maximum possible co-financing rate of eligible costs is up to 100 %

In terms of the overall

implementation rate,

it stood at 5 % as of 30 June 2017, which is due to the

fact that only 7 EMAS projects out of 46 had been completed by that time. However, when we look

at the implementation of those 7 completed projects, it stands at an impressive rate of 95 %.

Most EMAS actions were financed in 2015 (17) and 2016 (22)

—

the years when the migratory

crisis peaked. IT and EL were the main beneficiaries of EMAS actions, with 18 and 17 measures

financed respectively. Considering the financial support provided to each Member States, BG, IT

and EL are the main beneficiaries under EMAS, with an initial grant amount

of EUR 124.8, 59.5

and 55.9 million respectively, followed by SI (EUR 4.9 million), HR (EUR 4.0 million), FR

(EUR 1.7 million), and HU (EUR 1.5 million). As regards other organisations, UNHCR has

received EUR 4.1 million and EASO has received EUR 1.1 million.

BG, EL, FR, HR, HU, IT and SI.

EASO

UNHCR

AWPs 2014-2017.

The amount refers to the initial EU allocation (grant amount). This could eventually be subject to a decommitment.

Figure 8: Distribution of EMAS by Member States, by committed and paid amounts by June 30.2017 (EUR million)

UNHCR

EASO

€0

€20

€40

€60

€80

€100

€120

€140

Payments on completed projects by 30.06.2017

Commitments up to 30.06.2017

Based on the type of measures put in place, EMAS can be grouped as follows:

1. improvement of operational capacities (28 out of 46 measures);

2. acquisition and purchase of transport, operating equipment (such as search and rescue and

border surveillance equipment, photo-finger printers), and IT systems for a better and

appropriate reaction to the emergency situation (8 out of 46 measures);

3. support to staff and costs to keep equipment fit to address emergencies (7 out of 46 measures);

4. linguistic and intercultural mediation services (3 out of 46 measures).

EMAS has also contributed to the Greek hotspots

by providing funds for food, shelter, medicines

and transport at the hotspots

and funds for strengthening the fingerprinting capacity

Union Actions

Over the period 2014-2017, the EU planned a total amount of EUR 42.3 million to meet the

priorities and objectives set by AWPs for UAs. A total number of 77 UAs have funded beneficiaries

based in nine Member States

. It should be noted that 7 out of the 77 actions are being implemented

via action grants with none completed by 30 June 2017, with the remaining ones being implemented

via procurement of services directly by the Commission.



Action grants

The total committed resources for the seven action grants amounted to EUR 3.8 million, while the

implementation rate as of 30 June 2017 stood at 0 % with no final payments made by that date. The

The Hotspot approach was developed as part of the European Agenda on Migration. The operational support provided to

Member States is concentrated on registering, identifying, fingerprinting and debriefing asylum seekers. It is also concentrated

on return operations. The Member States cooperate closely with the Commission and a few EU agencies (EASO, Europol,

Frontex and Eurojust) in order to operationalise the concept. So far 10 hotspots have been created in Italy and Greece.

HOME/2016/ISFB/AG/EMAS/0030, HOME/2016/ISFB/AG/EMAS/0022.

HOME/2015/ISFB/AG/EMAS/0018 (EASO).

BE, BG, DE, EL, ES, FR, LU, NO and PT.

pre-financing paid to date amounted to EUR 1.2 million. It is important to highlight that, for such

measures, the maximum possible co-financing rate for eligible costs is up to 95 %

Based on the type of measures put in place, action grants can be grouped as follows:

1. EUROSUR (two projects in ES and PT);

2. Visa processing (one project in DE);

3. Regional cooperation on border management (two projects in BG and EL);

4. Schengen Masterlist Border Control Pilot (two projects in NO and PT)

Figure 9: Distribution of action grants by identified clusters, by committed amounts by June 30 2017 (EUR thousand)

EUROSUR

Visa processing

Regional Cooperation on Border Management

Schengen Masterlist Border - Control Pilot

€

500

€

1 000

€

1 500

€

2 000

€

2 500

€

3 000

Commitments up to 30.06.2017



Procurement

The total committed resources for 70 actions falling under the category of procurement,

administrative arrangements and service level agreements amounted to EUR 9.4 million while

payments on completed actions amounted to EUR 4.2 million, which corresponded to 52 completed

actions out of 70 and an implementation rate of 45 % as of 30 June 2017. Procurement essentially

covers services that the Commission purchased directly and focuses primarily on the financing of

different evaluation mechanisms, most of which are linked to the Schengen evaluation.

Most of the contracts were concluded in 2015 and 2016

. Due to the nature of procurement, most

contractors are based close to the Commission’s headquarters.

Therefore,

Belgium

is the Member

States with the most contracts (57), followed by France (9), Germany (3) and Luxembourg (1).

Based on the type of measures put in place, procurements can be grouped as follows:

1. evaluation mechanisms, mainly Schengen evaluations (41 procurements);

2. IT Systems for border management (9);

3. visa processing (1);

Union actions annual work programme 2014-2017.

Schengen Masterlists are secure container file-structures, cryptographically signed to prevent alteration, which contain Country

Signing Certification Authority certificates validated by at least 3 Member States and by which the Commission would like to

promote the use of electronic authentication of any electronic document.

The lower number of UAs assigned to countries in 2017 may depend on the fact that data only takes into account the first half of

the year.

immigration liaison officers (2);

press brochure on Schengen (3);

webworks (1);

others (13).

Figure 10: Distribution of UAs by identified clusters, by committed and paid amounts by June 30 2017 (EUR thousand)

Evaluation mechanisms

IT Systems for border management

Others

Immigration Liaison Officers

Webworks

Press Brochure on Schengen

Visa processing

€

€1

000

€2

000

€3

000

€4

000

€5

000

€6

000

Payments on completed projects by 30.06.2017

Commitments up to 30.06.2017

3.2.3. Indirect management

The 2014-2017 AWPs allocated, as of 30 June 2017, a total amount of EUR 12 million for indirect

management instruments, out of which 42 % of the overall amount was allocated for 2016, 38 % for

2014, and only 20 % for 2017.

Operationally, 81 % of the overall resources provided for through the AWPs have been allocated,

for a total amount of EUR 9.5 million. By 30 June 2017 a total amount of EUR 7.9 million was paid

as pre-financing with no final payment made by the cut-off date.

In particular, during the period 2014-2017, the EU entrusted budget implementation tasks, through

delegation agreements to the following bodies.



eu-LISA

in order to carry out the ‘Smart Borders Pilot’ testing phase, in the context of a ‘Proof

of Concept’ exercise, as part of the Smart Borders Package adopted by the Commission on

28 February 2013. To implement the given tasks, the EU entrusted a total amount of EUR 3.5

million, with EUR 3.3 million in pre-financing.

The International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) to implement the action

‘Mobility Partnership Facility’, in order to support mobility partnerships and common agendas

for migration and mobility, in the context of the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility

(GAMM)

. The action has been put in place under different financial instruments (AMIF, ISF-

Police and ISF-BV) for a total estimated amount of EUR 5.5 million, of which a maximum of



COM(2011) 743 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic

and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility.

EUR 1 million was entrusted under the ISF-BV, with EUR 800 thousand paid in pre-financing

up to 30 June 2017.



UNHCR

for implementing the action ‘Support to Greece for the development of the

hotspot/relocation scheme as well as for developing asylum reception capacity’, helping to

create 20 000 reception places. The action has been put in place under different financial

instruments (AMIF and ISF-BV) for a total estimated amount of EUR 83.3 million, of which

EUR 5 million has been entrusted under the ISF-BV, with EUR 3.75 million paid in pre-

financing up to 30 June 2017.

4. M

ETHOD

4.1

Short description of methodology

This evaluation assesses how the Fund has worked so far and informs the national authorities, the

EU institutions, the stakeholders and the general public about the key achievements and limitations

of ISF-BV. It does attempt to explain how the Member States and the Commission plan to address

weaknesses and overcome obstacles identified, to ensure that during the second half of the

implementation period corrective actions are taken and the impact of any weaknesses are

minimised. This forward-looking aspect of the interim evaluation will also contribute to the

preparation of the next generation of funding instruments going beyond 2020.

Similarly to the

ex post

evaluation of the EBF, the predecessor programme, this evaluation was

carried out by an external consulting firm Ernst & Young between September 2017 and February

2018. It was coordinated by the HOME Funds Evaluation Team in Unit E3 of the Commission’s

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs with the support of an Inter-Service Steering

Group comprising other Commission services.

The Commission’s evaluation relied on an external study. It required a systemic synthesis of the

evidence regarding the ISF-BV’s

implementation. The methodology for data collection included

both desk and field research. The data collected was subject to quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Desk research

essentially consisted of a review of:



the relevant legislative documents (i.e. EU Treaties, ISF-BV Regulation);

policy documents (i.e. European agendas on migration and on security;

Commission communications;

ex post

evaluations of SOLID funds (in particular the EBF);

Member States national programmes;

AIRs;

national interim evaluation reports

(NIERs);

grant agreements;

final technical implementation reports;

final financial implementation reports;

mission reports from monitoring visits to beneficiaries carried out by the Commission staff;

ex post

audit reports;

results of the mid-term review: and

minutes from policy dialogues preceding the set-up of ISF-BV.

The analysis also relied on statistical data from SFC2014 for shared management actions and on

ABAC

data for direct and indirect management actions.

Field research

covered different tools used to include multiple stakeholders categories according to

the consultation strategy presented in Annex 2. It consisted of 50 phone interviews

—

exploratory

phone interviews conducted during the inception phase and phone interviews with national

31 Member States were received as LI did not submit its Member States due the fact that no actions covered by ISF-BV were

implemented during the period covered by the interim evaluation.

ABAC is the European Commission’s accounting IT system.

responsible authorities (RAs), delegated authorities (DAs) and with relevant Commission services

and agencies. Interviews at national level covered all Member States with external borders and that

issued high number of visas, ensuring geographical and EU funding balance. An online survey was

also carried out to address a wider number of stakeholders, including audit authorities (AAs),

beneficiaries of multiannual programmes and union actions, members of the monitoring committees

and experts. The response rate to the survey was almost 15 %. Moreover, eight case studies were

produced with a close focus on six Member States (BG, EL, ES, FI, IT, and LT), EUROSUR

(covering both direct and shared management) and consular cooperation (specific action). The case

studies illustrate practical examples of projects carried out by Member States with ISF-BV support.

Finally, information gathered through the targeted public consultation, launched by the Commission

in December 2017 was also analysed

. Information was triangulated to ensure validity and

robustness.

4.2

Evaluation questions

In line with the Better Regulation guidelines, this interim evaluation addresses evaluation questions

structured around the five evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and

EU added value, as well as the criteria of complementarity, sustainability, and simplification and

reduction of administrative burden introduced by the Horizontal regulation

The complete list of evaluation questions as set in the legal base can be found in Annex 4. An

overview of the answers to the evaluation questions can be found in Annex 4.

4.3

Limitations and robustness of findings

A first limitation of this interim evaluation concerns its timing: it is taking place only 3 years after

the ISF-BV was launched, with many national programmes only being approved after delays, while

most projects have only just started, making their assessment very challenging. Therefore, the

evidence on the results and impact of the Fund is very limited. Nonetheless, this evaluation is not

able

to produce a full picture of the programme’s results and impacts and cannot draw final

conclusions, as insufficient time has lapsed since the beginning of the programming period and the

Fund is still being implemented.

Concerning the indicators, limitations include issues related to data availability and the

measurability of impacts (for example, most of the ISF-BV’s

indicators focus on outputs). Often,

these indicators are not linked to the Fund’s specific objectives. Therefore it is really difficult to

attribute the observed changes to the Fund. The information gathered though primary sources is

limited, since stakeholders have no clear idea of the results brought about by the Fund. Therefore

the gathering of information focused more on procedural issues, providing a very general

perspective on the Fund’s implementation, with sporadic examples found on the ground. Also, the

reliability of Member States indicators was rather low as in many cases common indicators were

not available or equal to 0. This hindered

the statistical analysis of the Fund’s implementation and

financial progress as well as the data comparison across Member States. In some cases,

misalignment of data was noted between the national programmes, AIRs and in the NIERs.

Concerning the period covered by the interim evaluation, for shared management actions the cut-off

date was 31 December 2016, which is linked to the period covered by the latest set of accounts

submitted by the Member States and cleared by the Commission. For actions under direct and

Only 4 responses have been received by representatives of RAs (2 from IT, 1 from BG and 1 from EL).

Regulation (EU) No. 514/2014.

indirect management, the cut-off date was 30 June 2017. The different cut-off dates did not allow

the Fund to carry out a parallel assessment and comparison of results achieved under different

implementation modes.

Another limitation has been the lack of benchmarks to compare performance, mainly because AMIF

and ISF are the first home affairs programmes to have a common monitoring and evaluation

framework and a set of indicators (common, result and impact). In addition, many of these

indicators have been viewed as being not relevant or not easy to populate with data and maintain.

The contextual exogenous factors linked to the migration crisis itself are also a significant

limitation. The Fund adapted itself to the changing needs, which made it difficult to evaluate its

functioning and implementation against its initial design.

Furthermore, while most of the interviews were conducted as planned, the response rate to both the

online survey (15 %) and the Open Public Consultation (OPC, only four respondents) was very low.

This hindered data triangulation, allowing comparison only for those issues for which responses

were provided. Therefore, in some cases, evidence is based only on desk research, in other cases the

documentary analysis is triangulated with interviews, and in fewer cases triangulation also included

the survey and the OPC.

Regarding the STS operated by Lithuania, it should be noted that the Lithuanian national interim

evaluation report does not contain an evaluation of the scheme. Wherever there are references made

to the STS throughout this document, they are solely based on the interviews carried out by the

external consultant with the relevant stakeholders.

In the evaluation, these limitations were mitigated to the extent possible. The analysis of the

evidence has allowed the Commission’s services to identify problems with data availability and

quality that could be overcome over the course of the interim evaluation. Conclusions have been

drawn, where possible, based on the triangulation of evidence from various data sources, indicated

transparently. The use of multiple information sources made it possible to have an overview of the

implementation state-of-play

and of the Fund’s results. When answers were not provided to the

online survey, information was gathered through the analysis of the national documents and, in

some cases, confirmed (or not) by interviewees. The low number of participants to the surveys was

counterbalanced by the analysis of national interim evaluation reports. Even though these reports

were often not exhaustive, they made it possible to gather information on all Member States, and

identify trends and divergences across them. Whenever possible, the

ex post

evaluations of the

predecessor SOLID programmes have been used as a benchmark.

5. A

NALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS

5.1

How effective has ISF-BV been so far?

This evaluation question aims to provide an insight into whether ISF-BV is on track to meet its

objectives. The borders and visa instrument has two specific objectives

—

one linked to a

common

visa policy

and the other to supporting

integrated border management.

Overall there are seven

operational objectives

—

four of which are relevant for the common visa policy and six of which

are relevant for the integrated border management. There are evaluation questions (see Annex 4)

addressing each operational objective (see Table 4).

5.1.1. Effectiveness in supporting a common visa policy

Shared management

In a nutshell

The Fund has contributed to implementing the EU common visa policy in an effective manner.

It facilitated legitimate travel. Information-exchange and training activities contributed to the

EU’s acquis on visa policy being uniformly implemented. The Fund played an instrumental role

in developing IT systems supporting a common visa policy. All these together contributed

towards (i) a high quality service for visa applicants, (ii) equal treatment of third-country

nationals and (iii) tackling illegal migration. The Fund’s contribution in consular cooperation

and in strengthening cooperation with third countries has so far been limited.

The EU has a common visa policy for short-stay visits to the Schengen area, comprising of a set of

harmonised rules setting out (i) the countries whose nationals require a visa to travel to the EU and

those who do not, (ii) the procedures and conditions for issuing short-stay visas, (iii) a uniform

format for visa stickers and (iv) a common Visa Information System that records all visa

applications and decisions.

EU Member States are among the world’s leading tourist destinations —

the number of visa applications processed by Member States has increased considerably over the

last 8 years and continues to expand. Since 2009, applications for EU visas have risen 50 %

—

from

10.2 million to 15.2 million in 2016 coupled with increased costs of processing of visa applications.

The EU’s common visa policy has also been affected by the migration crisis with increased pressure

on consular staff worldwide and an increasing need for cooperation on irregular migration and

return.

Overall, the Fund has significantly contributed towards the achievement of a common visa policy,

as confirmed both by the stakeholders and by the implementation results of the national evaluation

reports

. The following five aspects of the common visa policy were addressed in the evaluation:

1) facilitation of legitimate travel;

2) better consular coverage and harmonised practices on visa issuance;

3) implementation of EU’s

acquis

on visas;

4) cooperation between Member States; and

5) IT systems and communications infrastructure and equipment.

All Member States. Interviews with 4 RAs (BE, BG, FR and NO). 65% (n=42) of replies to the online survey: 3 AAs (HR; CY

and LV), 13 Member States (BE, CZ, EE, FI, HU, LV, PT and RO), 1 EMAS beneficiary (EL), 1 Ministry of Foreign Affairs

(SK), 21 members of Monitoring Committee (AT, BG, CY, EE, LV, MT, RO, SI, ES and ,SE), 2 RAs/DAs (FR and SI), 1

expert.

The Fund contributed to the

facilitation of legitimate travel,

strengthening Members States’

national capacities by, for instance: (i) co-financing projects for strengthening national capacity to

verify the authenticity of documents used for visa applications, (ii) developing information systems

for coordinating visa applications

, and (iii) procuring security equipment for consular

representations in third countries. All this leads to Member States being in a better position to grant

visas to those visa applicants with legitimate applications. In particular, projects under the Fund

supported the purchase of technical equipment (e.g. document checking devices, communication

equipment) to make the processing of Schengen visa applications more efficient and to support

national information-sharing platforms to combat visa abuse and document fraud. Training also

supported legitimate travel

, by providing consular staff with technical and up-to-date information

on visa issues and related systems.

As regards

consular cooperation,

the

ex post

evaluation of the EBF revealed that Member States

showed little interest in developing projects in this area mainly due to (i) the perceived high cost of

common visa application centres or (ii) perceived issues linked to cost-sharing with other Member

States resulting in Member States choosing to keep their representations in third countries. The

Commission decided to incentivise this area through offering co-financing at a rate of 90 % in the

national programmes under ISF-BV, while the scope was extended beyond common application

centres to include other types of consular cooperation in addition to refurbishment, adaptation

and/or

equipping of consulates. Despite these measures, the Fund’s contribution towards

consular

cooperation has been quite limited so far, with many Member States not implementing any projects

in the area yet. However, those Member States that have carried out consular cooperation activities

gave positive feedback on the Fund’s contribution. For instance, it

helped increase

consular

coverage

by supporting the establishment of new consular posts and other forms of cooperation

(e.g. joint training courses, joint consular offices) that incentivised Member States to establish

consular representation agreements to improve visa processing and to promote a common approach

to visa issuance

. The use of the Visa Information System facilitated the exchange of both

information on fraudulent visa documents and best practices on implementing Schengen standards

Training courses also contributed towards

harmonising practices on visa issuance

. Many

Member States

reported that visa harmonisation was supported through a better exchange of

information and best practices being shared between Member States.

There were difficulties in implementing joint projects between Member States

due to the different

national eligibility rules of expenditure, checks, and other rules related to the posting of staff

. In

particular, Member States

involved in specific actions on consular cooperation asked for standard

and clearer eligibility and expenditure rules at EU level to harmonise and ease the management of

such actions. Currently, it is not possible to assess the effectiveness of the specific action as only a

few projects have started and even those are in their initial stages. However, it is interesting to note

BE, EE, and EL.

AT, HU and LV.

7 Member States (EL, FR, HU, LU, MT, NO and PT).

i.e. As a result, up to 44.253 persons using fraudulent travel documents were detected at consulates supported by the Fund.

AT, EE, IT, NL and LT.

7 Member States (EL, FR, HU, LU, MT, NO and PT). 4 interviews: RAs from LT, NO and PT and one delegated authority from

EL; results from the online survey: 7 Member States (AT, BE, CZ, LU, LV, NL and RO), 2 representatives from Monitoring

Committees (AT and BG).

2 interviews with RAs (BE and PT). 9 participants to the Eighth Meeting of the Evaluation Network (BE, CH, EE, ES, HU, LT,

NL, NO and PL).

In some Member States only the posted officer receives financial support, in others staff members can also bring their family

along.

2 interviews with RAs (BE and PT). 9 participants to the Eighth Meeting of the Evaluation Network (BE, CH, EE, ES, HU, LT,

NL, NO and PL).

that most Member States considered the needs addressed by the specific actions

—

harmonisation

of visa issuance and increasing visibility and consular coverage of Member States

—

as particularly

appropriate in light of current migration pressure

Ensuring the correct and uniform application of the

Union’s

acquis

on visa

has been supported

either through mixed projects also pursuing other objectives, or through projects targeted

specifically to this objective. Training courses targeted staff responsible for visa issuing

and

consular officials, police, and border guards engaged in developing and implementing the common

visa policy

. In some cases, training courses aimed to disseminate best practices among consular

officials and to provide them with specific language courses or knowledge on the changing legal

situation at EU level in the field of visa. Some Member States organised training sessions for

consular services on security (e.g. illegal migration) and document verification (i.e. document fraud

detection, counterfeit or forged travel documents, and documents necessary for visa application)

Other training courses supported the implementation of the EU common visa policy and the

Schengen

acquis,

concerning in particular the Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), including

instructions for running Visa Information System and IT systems. Training was also aimed at

improving the quality of services provided to visa applicants, to ensure equal treatment of third-

country nationals in the visa-issuing process

A number of Member States have used the Fund to

strengthen cooperation with third countries

Most projects in this area improved the exchange of information between authorities along the

migration routes and on the return of illegal migrants. Furthermore, the Fund helped to tackle illegal

migration by supporting the Member States in deploying temporary liaison officers and visa experts

in consulates in third countries, who were directly responsible for the fight against fraudulent

documentation or through consulates regularly consulting with each other in order to detect

counterfeit documents

. Responsible authorities involved in cooperation actions with third

countries gave positive feedback on the actions implemented

The development of a common visa policy was also supported by means of

establishing and

operating IT systems,

with particular regard to national Visa Information System, in order to

ensure an efficient and smoother visa processing. The use of new technologies enabled the

authorities to comply with the changing technical/legal requirements of the common visa policy,

including the introduction of the biometric passports and related compliance checks. The

development of IT systems was often accompanied by staff training measures so as to ensure that

consular officials, police and border guards have sufficient technical expertise, as well as to ensure

sustainability.

Operating support

guarantees the capacity and uninterrupted functioning of the systems and

maintenance of equipment

. This is a key factor for ensuring security since well-functioning IT

systems are crucial for promptly detecting potential threats. Operational shortcomings may lead to

the security system being jeopardised. The operating support for Visa measures also proved to be

BE, FR, HU, IT, LT, NL and PT.

13 Member States (AT, BE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, LT, LU, LV, SI and SK).

AT, BE, CZ, HU and PT. 1 interview with an responsible authority (NO). OPC: 4 Public Authorities (BG, EL, IT and IT).

BE, EE, EL, FR, HU and SI.

EE, HU, LV and SI.

13 Member States (AT, BG, BE, CH, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FI, LU, MT and PL).

Results from the online survey: beneficiaries in 7 Member States (AT, BE, CZ, LU, LV, NL and RO), 2 members of Monitoring

Committees (AT and BG).

3 interviews: 2 with RAs (BE and NL) and 1 with a delegated authority (EL). OPC: 3 Public Authorities (1 in BG, and 2 in IT).

8 Member States (AT, BG, DE, ES, FR, IT, LT and RO). Interviews with 3 RAs (BG, BE and PT).

useful in covering staff costs and other running costs related to the EU

common visa policy’s

implementation, notably by strengthening national capabilities in the visa application process.

Direct management

For direct management, only one action grant and one procurement were dedicated to the area of

visa processing. However no conclusions can be drawn so far as they had not been finalised during

the period covered by the interim evaluation.

Examples of different types of visa projects implemented by the Member States

The Fund supported the development of a Visa Information System in many Member States (AT,

BE, BG, CZ, ES, FR, LT, LV, and RO)

. In

Spain,

the visa-issuing procedures were boosted by:

(i) including a Visa Information System in most consulates, (ii) improving and developing new

functionalities in the national scheme for visas and VISMail; and (iii) developing measures

complementary to Schengen Information System II.

France

has implemented a website

https://france-visas.gouv.fr for visa applications that is already in use in 37 countries to facilitate the

process of visa applications and to harmonise procedures. In

Austria,

the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs deployed experts to diplomatic representations to conduct web-based and onsite legal and

technical training for staff dealing with Visa Information System, providing targeted knowledge on

legal and technical innovations relating to the Visa Information System rollout. Moreover, it

provided regional training courses for consular staff focused on legal and technical visa issues and

IT systems. In

Finland,

cooperation was boosted by means of strong support provided by the

Immigration Liaison Officer (ILO) network through the training of embassy personnel involved in

the visa granting process. ILOs help prevent illegal immigration by investigating the background of

visa applicants and by examining the authenticity of documents. Furthermore, ILOs support the

training of embassy personnel.

5.1.2. Effectiveness in supporting integrated border management

In a nutshell

The Fund has contributed to the implementation of integrated border management in an

effective manner despite the migration and security crisis. The Fund contributed to the

development of integrated border management policy. It increased solidarity among Member

States by co-financing equipment used in Frontex joint operations. The Fund helped to develop

the

EU’s acquis on border management. The Fund made a contribution to the development of

EUROSUR and border management IT systems. Limited progress was registered regarding

promoting the development, implementation and enforcement of policies with a view of

ensuring the absence of any controls on persons, whichever their nationality. Currently, the

Fund is not supporting Memebr States in the application of the

non-refoulement

principle.

EMAS played an important role in addressing the emergency needs at the beginning of the

period and bridged the funding gap until the adoption of national programmes.

9 Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, ES, FR, LT, LV and RO). Results from the online survey: 5 beneficiaries (1 in AT, 2 in BE

and CZ).

Under the integrated border management concept the evaluation looked into progress made and the

Fund’s contribution in the following six aspects:

1) absence of any checks on people when crossing the internal borders;

2) efficient checks on people and efficient monitoring of external border crossings;

3) gradual establishment of an integrated management system for external borders based on

solidarity and responsibility sharing;

4) application of EU’s

acquis

on border management;

5) boosting of situational awareness at the external borders; and

6) setting up and running IT systems including communication infrastructure and equipment.

Overall, the Fund contributed towards the overall objective on

integrated border management,

confirmed both by the stakeholders and by the implementation results of the national evaluation

reports

In term of addressing the operational objective of ‘promoting

the development, implementation

and enforcement of policies with a view of ensuring the absence of any controls on persons,

whatever their nationality, when crossing the internal borders and to carry out check on

persons and monitoring efficiently the crossing of external borders’

the effectiveness of ISF-

BV was greatly influenced by the security and migration crisis at the beginning of the programming

period. The

unprecedented flow of migrants into the EU during this initial phase of the Fund’s

implementation, who crossed the EU’s external border unchecked, resulted in secondary

movements

of non-registered irregular migrants across the Schengen Area. This caused a severe

strain on the Schengen

Acquis,

since the absence of internal border control is directly linked to the

effectiveness of the controls at the external borders of the EU. As a consequence of the secondary

movements and the security crisis, some Member States had to temporarily reintroduce internal

border controls therefore affecting the Fund’s effectiveness. Moreover, the crisis put a specific

focus on the management of the EU’s external borders.

However, the Fund contributed towards the

effectiveness of the border controls at the external

borders

by supporting measures focused on the replacement/upgrading of:



border control equipment (e.g. work stations, portable computers, border check stamps,

communication equipment, copiers, specialised biometric identification equipment,

optronic devices, mobile equipment for border offices); and



surveillance (e.g. development of electronic surveillance systems, thermovision cameras,

USB microscopes that make it possible to verify documents at distance, aerial vehicles)

Border management capacity was addressed by means of introducing automated border control

(ABC) gates

that speeded up the checks at the border crossing points. The ABC gates can be

linked to national and international IT systems making the information exchange more efficient.

Member States have also introduced the Public Key Directory

, as a central repository for

All the Member States; interviews with 8 RAs (FI, PT, FR, BE, EL, NL, NO and PL); 1 delegated authority (EL); 73% of

replies to the online survey (AT, BE, BG, HR, CY, CZ, EE, ES,FR, EL, HU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, and SE); 7

participants to the eighth meeting of the Evaluation Network (BE, BG, EL, HR, FR, HU and MT); OPC: 4 Public Authorities (1

from BG, 1 from EL, and 2 from IT); direct management: two technical reports (HOME/2015/ISFB/AG/EMAS/0001 and

HOME/2016/ISFB/AG/EMAS/0018) and an interview with the BG Chief Directorate Border Police; indirect management:

three technical reports (HOME/2014/IM/LISA/0001, HOME/2014/MULT/IM/ICMP/0001 and

HOME/2016/MULT/IM/UNHC/OOO1).

Secondary movements of migrants comprise movements from the Member States they arrived in to other Member States.

BG, EE and FI.

15 Member States (BE, BG, CH, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, HU, IS, LU, LV, PL and SI).

BE, BG, FI, MT and PL.

exchanging information required to authenticate ePassports and to verify the authenticity of

travel/identification documents. Further projects are carried out in the following fields:



modern technical equipment for border surveillance, including engineering appliances and

the TETRA communication system;



document verification devices such as document testing equipment for faster and more

efficient processes;



mobile scanning vehicles;



mobile application for carrying out border checks; and



purchase of document readers for portable border control devices

With the Fund’s support Member States carried out

training activities in the area of border

management, with the aim of improving staff awareness and competencies in relation to border

management and the use of related IT information systems. The Fund supported the implementation

of the

EU’s

acquis

by co-financing training activities and programmes, which helped to improve

the technical, operational and linguistic skills of the staff responsible for border management

Furthermore, this objective was indirectly supported by actions aimed at facilitating the cooperation

and exchange of information with other Member States since such interventions strengthened the

awareness of the Member States obligations at EU level and supported harmonised practices among

Member States

Solidarity and responsibility sharing

between the Member States is expressed mainly through

joint operations; cooperation between Member States under EUROSUR and through cooperation

with Frontex. So far some EUR 200 million has been spent on specific actions to support the

purchase of Frontex equipment by 14 Member States, to be used in Frontex-coordinated joint

operations

The Fund contributed to the development of EUROSUR

by co-financing activities both under

Member States national programmes and under Union actions. These activities aimed to improve

situational awareness and increase the reaction capability at the external borders by detecting,

preventing and combating illegal immigration and cross-border crime and by helping to protect and

save the lives of migrants

. Activities under EUROSUR also contributed towards solidarity and

responsibility between Member States which is an important aspect of the operational objective on

integrated border management. It needs to be pointed out that the actions financed by the Fund

under the national objective of EUROSUR are interpreted in a much broader manner than the

implementation of the action provided for by the EUROSUR Regulation (2013/1052). For example

Member States could include in their national programmes, under the national objective

EUROSUR, projects such as purchasing surveillance equipment or developing border surveillance

systems which are linked to border surveillance in general, but not directly to EUROSUR’s

implementation.

The Fund also provided support for the

development of IT systems,

notably for the upgrading and

operation (under operating support) of the Schengen Information System (Schengen Information

9 Member States (BG, DE, EL, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT and LV).

5 Member States (AT, BE, CZ, HU and PT). 1 interview with responsible authority (NO). OPC: 4 Public Authorities (BG, EL,

IT and IT).

4 Member States (IT, PL, PT and RO).

AT, BG, DE, ES, FI, FR, GR, IT, MT, LT, LV, PL, PT and RO.

Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 establishing the European

Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR).

Results from online survey: 58% (n=46). 2 AAs (CY, LV), 20 beneficiaries (AT, BE, CZ, EE, FI, HU, LV, LU, MT, NL, PT,

RO and SE), 1 EMAS beneficiary (EL), one expert (UK), 20 members of monitoring committee (AT, BG, CY, EE, HU, LV,

MT, RO, SI and SE), 2 RAs/DAs (FR and SI).

System II). This allowed the Member States to upgrade and maintain the IT systems and ensure

their interoperability

and interconnectivity between the different national systems, which in turn

contributed to a more effective management of the EU’s external borders.

Under the specific objective of integrated border management, it is specifically indicated that the

Member States should respect human rights and the principle of

non-refoulement.

Two Member

States

100

reported that the maintenance and modernisation of border control buildings and facilities,

and the introduction of modern technologies for border control contributed to ensuring international

protection for those needing it and respect for the fundamental rights and the human dignity of

third-country nationals. Two Member States

101

reported that human rights issues were tackled

through specific training sessions, with the support of EU agencies and international organisations

working in the field of migration and human rights (e.g. IOM, UNHCR, and Frontex). One

Member States

102

reported implementing an action focused on acquiring linguistic and cultural

mediation, aiming of facilitate communication between the State Police and migrants during

landing and/or rescue operations as well as when applying for international protection. Furthermore,

another Member States

103

reported a project still being implemented that aims to strengthen the

development of training schemes on human rights and fundamental freedoms. Currently, the Fund

is not supporting Member States in applying the

non-refoulement

principle.

Regarding direct management, 6 out of 7 action grants awarded under UAs are linked to border

control, surveillance or management. However none of them had been completed within the

evaluation period. Therefore, it is premature to reach any conclusions on their effectiveness.

As for Emergency assistance (EMAS), only 7 out of 46 EMAS actions had been finalised in the

period covered by the interim evaluation. EMAS has been used in seven Member States, especially

in Greece, Italy and Bulgaria during the migration crisis to deal with the extra pressures at the

external borders. In Bulgaria, for example, the amount of EMAS support in the period 2014-2017

amounts to EUR 124.8 million which is three times higher than the allocation for the national

programme covering the whole period 2014-2020.

Therefore, the Fund’s effectiveness in this

specific case depends to a large extent on the interaction between the EMAS support and the

national programme. EMAS support has been considered essential in addressing emergency needs.

The situation is somewhat different in both Greece and Italy as their EMAS allocations under ISF-

BV are smaller than in the case of Bulgaria but the size of their respective national programmes are

much larger. Nevertheless, EMAS has been an important component in all these countries in

dealing with the crisis especially when the national programmes were not yet running due to delays

in approval.

While EMAS measures proved to be a very efficient instrument in rapidly addressing a number of

emergency situations arising from the migration crisis, action grants under UAs were less popular.

Member States expressed limited interest in them with few proposals received to the calls published

by the Commission. They are also subject to lengthy delays in implementation. Perhaps their design

including eligibility rules could be adapted to better address Member States’ needs.

Overall, the Fund has contributed towards ensuring a high level of security in the EU as far as it is

possible at this stage of the implementation, also taking into account the migration and security

crisis. The results achieved so far show that the Fund is an effective tool in supporting Member

100

101

102

103

11 Member States (AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, DE, EE, EL, FI, LT and LU).

BG and SK.

HU and IT.

IT.

CY.

States in achieving a common visa policy and an integrated border management. Implementation

delays were mainly linked to the late approval of the national programmes, but now that

programmes are running, the Fund’s implementation is on track. All the Fund’s implementation

modes contributed towards the achieving the

Fund’s objectives. As regards shared management, the

Fund contributed to ensuring a high level of security in the EU while facilitating legitimate travel,

through a uniform and high level of control of the EU’s external borders and the effective

processing of Schengen visas. Direct and indirect management modes contributed to more effective

border and visa management through addressing urgent and specific needs in emergency and

unpredictable situations requiring a timely and effective response and through projects promoting

transnational actions or actions of particular interest to the EU. These actions helped to strengthen

the national capacity in the operational management of both borders and visa matters.

Examples of different types of border management projects implemented by the Member

States

Austria

supported the procurement of thermal imaging vehicles for Frontex operations to increase

the value of border police operations in other Member States, simplifying and improving border

management. Also in the

Czech Republic

and

Poland,

the Fund co-financed the acquisition of

thermal processing to strengthen the protection and surveillance of the external borders. In

Slovenia,

a key investment in strengthening the situational awareness at the external borders was

the purchasing of two police patrol boats for the control of its maritime border to obtain data for the

national situational picture using the navigation systems and by reporting important events. Both

vessels are permanently in use, and data are collected and processed within the national

coordination centre.

5.2

How efficient has ISF-BV been so far?

This question aims to consider the relationship between the Fund’s inputs (i.e. resources, budget

etc.) and the outputs and results that it achieved. It tries to answer two questions: (i) to what extent

the effects of the ISF-BV actions were achieved at a reasonable cost in terms of financial and

human resources deployed and (ii) what measures were put in place to prevent, detect, report and

follow-up cases of fraud, and other irregularities.

In a nutshell

Overall, in the limits of available data, it could be considered that the results of the Fund were

achieved at a reasonable cost in terms of both human and financial resources. Some Member

States have put in place national efficiency measures. However, most Member States face

problems with the EU guidance, common indicators, and the reporting/monitoring calendar. The

perceived administrative burden can be considered as a factor that undermines efficiency.

Shared management

A number of findings from the EBF

ex post

evaluation address issues related to efficiency, which

have been taken into account in the ISF-BV’s

design such as more flexible multiannual

programmes, sufficient allocation of resources at Member States level, simplified structure of the

Fund, improvement of the overall evaluation tools, etc. all of which have an impact on the Fund’s

efficiency.

According to the evidence gathered by the external evaluation, overall, the results of the Fund were

achieved at a reasonable cost in terms of both human and financial resources

104

as far as it is

possible to assess at this stage. The perceived administrative burden can be considered as the main

factor that undermines efficiency.

The national programmes’ implementation started very slowly creating

challenges for evaluating

the Fund’s cost-effectiveness because the majority of the projects are still ongoing. The Fund’s

overall implementation is now on track. For shared management, a 38 % implementation rate has

been achieved. The payment rate stood at 12 % by the end of 2016. Possible reasons for such a low

payment rate may include:

1) late approval of most of the national programmes;

2) complexity and length of public procurement procedures that delayed implementation, especially

the purchasing of patrolling equipment such as vessels, boats, helicopters etc.;

3) administrative burden (i.e. reporting requirements in relation to the annual accounts) that delayed

implementation; and

4) low pre-financing rates, hampering Member States commitment and the payments

105

Taking into consideration the annual accounts for 2017 submitted by the Member States in mid-

February, we can conclude that the overall payment rate improved from 12 % to 24 %, with

significant improvements noted for Italy, Lithuania, Spain and many other Member States as

illustrated in Figure 7.

Low levels of costs for human resources were associated with the national programmes’

implementation (at responsible authority or delegated authority level). In terms of number of full-

time equivalents (FTEs) in the responsible authority, delegated authority and audit authority in

comparison to the number of projects implemented, the large variation found may suggest that the

method of award (direct award, call for proposals etc.) and the type of action to be implemented

(i.e. specific action or regular project under the national programme) affect the number of FTEs

needed.

On average, 7.08 FTEs per Member States have been involved in managing the Fund and have been

paid through technical assistance

106

and/or national budgets, with remarkable differences between

the different Member States. For example, at the time, Belgium had 3 FTEs to manage 27 projects

and an allocation for the national programme of EUR 17.5 million, while Italy has involved 14

FTEs in managing 22 projects and an allocation of EUR 156.3 million. Overall, considering the

average number of projects implemented by 2017 (12.84), an average of 0.55 FTEs was engaged

per project.

Overall, Member States show a growing or stable number of FTEs over the years from 2014 to

2017, except Germany (FTEs decreased in number from 25 to 21) and Malta (FTEs decreased from

13 to 10). On average, the number of FTEs increased from 2.44 in 2014 to 6.80 in 2016, increasing

further in 2017. In addition, considering the ratio between technical assistance, plus the

administrative indirect cost, and the amount of the funds claimed for the financial year, on average

the ratio stood around 1.41. In this regard, the ratio increased significantly over the years from 0.16

in 2015 to 0.67 in 2016, and more than doubled in 2017. Considering the ratio FTE

(average)/amount of the funds claimed for the financial year (average), 0.5 FTEs have been

104

105

106

As also confirmed by 18 Member States (AT, BG, CH, CZ, DE, ES, FR, HU, LU, MT, NL, PL, EL, HR, IS, SE, SI and SK); 10

participants to the eighth Evaluation Network Meeting (BE, BG, FI, HR, HU, NL, NO, PL, PT and RO).

Conclusions of the AMIF-ISF Committee questionnaire, 2016; interviews with the Commission staff.

Technical assistance should enable the Member States to support the implementation of their national programmes and assist

beneficiaries in complying with their obligations and EU law.

involved per million for the implementation of the ISF. In this regard, there has been a significant

decrease over the years, dropping from an average of 1.35 FTEs in 2014, to 0.72 FTEs in 2016,

with a further decrease in 2017 to 0.5 FTEs, leading to decreasing labour intensity of fund

management.

According to stakeholders, some of the success factors that brought efficiency have been the

following:



public agencies, as beneficiaries of the Fund could use their own networks to involve

additional resources on an ad hoc basis and at no extra cost for the project;



considerable knowledge and expertise had been gained through experience from previous

projects (especially from SOLID and other programmes with multiannual projects);



staff were already employed in the organisation; and



the flexibility of the national programmes (their multiannuality).

Furthermore national measures concerning the application, implementation, monitoring and

reporting processes have been put in place in some Member States

107

to ensure efficiency which

include some of the following actions:



administrative and technical project approval procedures;



procedures to assess appropriateness of expenditure;



responsible authority project monitoring mechanisms; and



national coordination mechanisms.

There are also a number of issues that Member States believe negatively affect efficiency and these

are:



the requirement to allocate minimum percentages among national objectives

108

;



complex and recurrent reports

109

;



common indicators

110

: and



the alignment of monitoring calendars

111

Measures put in place to prevent, detect, report and follow-up cases of suspected fraud and other

irregularities include:



on the side of prevention:

careful examination of project applications;

ex ante

public procurement control systems;

risk analyses by the responsible authority/delegated authority;

training courses on fraud prevention or fraud risk management;

provision of guidance tools; and

regular communication between projects and responsible authority staff;



on the side of detection :

administrative control checks;

operational on-the-spot checks;

financial on-the-spot checks; and

107

108

109

110

111

7 Member States (AT, BE, FR, HU, MT, PL and SE). Interviews with 7 RAs (BG, CH, EL, FI, LT, PL and PT).

2 Member States (BE and SI). 9 participants to the eighth Evaluation Network Meeting (BE, CH, EE, ES, HU, LT, NL, NO and

PL).

8 Member States (AT, BE, CY, CZ, ES, FR, IT and LV); 5 participants to the eighth Evaluation Network Meeting (BE, BG, DE,

IT and NO); interviews with 2 RAs (BG and NO).

11 participants to the eighth Evaluation Network Meeting

(BE,

DE, CZ, FI, FR, HU, LU, MT, NO, PL and PT); 1 Member

States (DE). Interview with 1 responsible authority (NO).

2 participants to the eighth meeting of the Evaluation Network

(BE

and FR). 3 Member States (BE, CY and FI). Interviews with

2 RAs (FR and BE). Results from the online survey: 3 beneficiaries (BE, CZ and LU) and 2 AAs (CY and HU).



ex post

audits;

on the side of reporting and follow-up:

implementation of communication instruments;

establishment of procedures for reporting suspected fraud; and

establishment of procedures for corrective and deterrent measures.

The majority of Member States claims that the anti-fraud measures are appropriate and effective,

stating that stringent mechanisms ensure the effective prevention of fraud and irregularities.

Experience suggests, however, that there is always a potential trade-off between the procedures in

place to prevent fraud and irregularities and the Fund’s overall efficiency, in the sense

that measures

can be seen as very effective for preventing fraud, but they are not necessarily very efficient from a

management perspective.

Direct management

Regarding the 7 action grants awarded under the UAs, none of them had been completed by 30 June

2017 and only 7 out of 46 EMAS actions had been finalised in the corresponding period.

Consequently, their overall implementation rate is very low and it is too premature to reach any

conclusions on their efficiency. However, it is worthwhile noting that for the seven completed

EMAS actions the implementation rate was close to 100 %. As for procurement, which constitutes

19 % of UAs, its implementation follows the relevant Commission procedures and is considered to

be efficient.

The human resources at the EU level have only slightly increased, despite the large increase in

value of the EMAS and the emergency situation on the ground following the migration crisis, and

the need to closely follow-up and assist those Member States under pressure while implementing

their respective national programme. These factors have put an enormous strain on the

Commission’s services.

No data was available at the time of performing this interim evaluation on actions under indirect

management.

5.3 How much simplification and reductions of administrative burden has

ISF-BV brought so far?

The interim evaluation of the Fund proved that progress has been made in simplifying procedures

for the beneficiaries under shared management with some room for improvement noted in relation

to simplified cost options and the perceived high administrative burden. Beneficiaries under direct

management benefited from increased simplification of procedures. Nonetheless, it is difficult to

quantify how much simplification was brought by the ISF-BV overall. Therefore, a qualitative

assessment has been made.

In a nutshell

A number of measures that aimed to simplify management procedures and reduce

administrative burden have been put in place. Despite these measures, Member States still

perceive administrative burden as being high and the implementation of the simplified cost

options as problematic. Increased simplification has been noted under direct management.

Shared management

The EBF

ex post

evaluation

112

raised some efficiency issues also connected to simplification

matters (i.e. the short terms of the programming cycle, the need to ascribe long-standing

investments related to a multiannual programming framework to specific annual programmes). The

Commission Staff Working Paper

—

Impact Assessment for AMIF and ISF recommended the

introduction of the following components in order to increase simplification of management

procedures and reduce administrative burden:

1) limiting the number of financial instruments to a

two-fund structure;

2) setting up a common, underpinning instrument, laying down uniform rules and procedures under

both Funds (Horizontal

Regulation);

and

3) a

multiannual programming cycle

113

All these recommendations have been taken on board by ISF-BV. First of all, the different

instruments under the SOLID and SSL programmes have been replaced by only two funds: AMIF

and ISF. In addition, Regulation (EU) 514/2014 (Horizontal Regulation), common to both Funds,

and delegated acts have been introduced laying down a shared management framework to improve

operational harmonisation and simplify implementation, monitoring, and evaluation mechanisms

114

Furthermore, the Fund has been built up in line with a more flexible multiannual programming

cycle

115

, providing the right balance between the duration of EU terms of office and the need to

ensure the higher stability of programming cycles, and allow higher investments’ value

and

predictability

116

. All Member States confirmed the advantages entailed by the multiannual

programming

117

including:



the possibility to promptly identify strategic and long-term priorities, as well as to establish

new emerging priorities to address up-and-coming unforeseen needs;



the possibility to plan and implement large investments in the long run, without restrictions

imposed by the annual implementation cycle; and



the reduction of administrative overlaps and burden thanks to the annual programming

cycle.

A number of measures were introduced to increase overall simplification The introduction of

national eligibility rules

provided for some flexibility in the management of the Fund by RAs by

means of clearer rules compliant with the different national legislation and administrative

procedures, which allowed beneficiaries to improve their understanding and operational capacity,

therefore reducing the time needed for processing applications and delays in implementation

118

While the introduction of national eligibility rules was considered as positive by most Member

States, for some it was a hampering factor especially when it comes to multi-state projects. As for

the

simplified cost options

(SCOs), particularly the flat rate applied to indirect costs, they (i)

provided significant administrative simplification, (ii) made project management easier, (iii) led to a

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

Optimity Advisers and CSD (2016).

Ex post

evaluation of the External Borders Fund 2011-2013.

SEC(2011) 1358 final.

European Commission, ‘The basic acts and other regulations of the 2014-2020

Home Affairs Funds: AMIF and

ISF’.

Regulation (EU) 515/2014, (51) in alignment to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying

down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020.

Answers by EU Officials interviewed during interviews and of 4 out of 30 Member States (BG, PL, MT and NL) providing an

overview of ISF-BV’s

positive aspects and implementation issues during the eighth Meeting of the Evaluation Network.

All Member States. Interviews with 7 RAs (BG, PT, PL, FR, national programme, NL and LT). 50% of the replies to the online

survey. Only Switzerland (interview with the Swiss responsible authority) has provided a different opinion, reporting that the

multiannual programming has actually increased overall burden in terms of planning actions, since the seven-year timeframe

does not enable support for actions that can effectively respond to the ever-changing context, nor does it provide support for the

requirements in the fields of borders and visa management.

Member States: AT, DE, EE, EL, HU, LT, LU, MT, PL and PT. On the contrary, Cyprus stressed that the introduction of

national eligibility rules, as they needed to be established anew, created higher administrative burden, especially at the

beginning of the new programming period.

reduction of error rates and (iv) allowed RAs and beneficiaries to focus on outputs and results

119

However, in some cases,

120

the

adoption of SCOs raised implementation issues,

due to the

absence of common principles and standards which hindered or discouraged beneficiaries from

declaring and reporting all costs, as they were afraid that audit authorities may declare costs

ineligible.

The introduction of

operating support

121

has been positively assessed, since it enabled national

budgets to be supported on issues that would otherwise be difficult to cover (e.g. sustainability of

maintenance costs)

122

. Moreover, the increased

cooperation between the responsible authority

and beneficiaries,

also committed to by means of operational guidance and support directly

provided by the responsible authority, is regarded as very positive, improving implementation and

increasing the beneficiaries’ compliance with monitoring, reporting, and verification

requirements

123

. The

digitalisation of reporting and communication procedures

was positively

assessed by several Member States, since it allowed financial and technical reports to be sent in

electronic form, which shortened the document processing time for beneficiaries

124

and also

facilitated the work of RAs thanks to the centralisation of all relevant documents and

communications with the Commission in one electronic database

125

As regards the

Special Transit Scheme for Lithuania,

the instrument has been assessed very

positively by projects’ beneficiaries, although there have not been significant changes, compared to

the previous period

126

. However, despite the multiple measures introduced to increase simplification

and the positive feedback they received

127

, stakeholders agreed on the Fund’s limited

contribution

to reducing administrative burden

128

. Monitoring, reporting, and verification procedures remain

burdensome and many Member States pointed out a lack of detailed instructions, asking for more

Commission guidelines in order to meet the monitoring and reporting standards required by the

Commission

129

. Furthermore, the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework was established

too late, which hindered the Fund’s implementation since the reporting on projects

had to be

adjusted under the CMEF while projects had already started

130

. Also, the RAs of the Schengen

Associated Member States criticised delays during the programming stage. In their opinion,

simplification would have been increased by ensuring

Schengen Associated Countries’ accession to

the Fund at an earlier stage, allowing them to begin implementing actions at the same time as other

Member States

131

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

Member States: CH, EL, FR, LT, LU and PL. Interviews with 4 RAs (BG, BE, NL and SI).

Webinar held on 14 November on ISF problem definition in the context of the Interim Evaluation to support the preparation of

the next generation of EU Funds in the Home Affairs area; interview with the BG Responsible Authority. 37% of replies to the

online survey.

Regulation (EU) 515/2014, Art.10.

Member States: AT, CH, CY, IS, IT and PT.

Member States: AT, BE and HR.

Member States: FI, BE, EE and PL.

Ibidem.

Member States: LT.

Details are provided further in this section.

Member States: AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, EL, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE and SI.

Interviews with 6 RAs (NO, NL, BE, IT, ES and BG); 1 delegated authority (EL).

Interviews with BE, CH, and NO RAs and Webinar held on 14 November on ISF problem definition in the context of the

Interim Evaluation to support the preparation of the next generation of EU Funds in the Home Affairs area.

CMEF was approved on 3 October 2016.

Interviews with CH and NO RAs.

Examples of the use of simplified cost options

Finland

and

Romania,

the use of the flat rate financing for indirect costs has facilitated

beneficiaries, since travel costs do not need to be tracked in the bookkeeping

132

. On the contrary,

Hungary

could only implement simplified cost options to a limited extent, since the plan to use unit

scale costs and lump sums for training projects was not approved by the responsible authority due to

the presence of non-comparable cost categories, despite the projects being of the same naturet

133

Direct management

Under direct management, procedures are considered to be appropriate, clear and transparent and do

not create additional burden for Member States or beneficiaries

134

. Most difficulties encountered by

beneficiaries in implementing EMAS actions are generally connected with national political

issues

135

or operational difficulties related to the projects’ implementation (i.e. lack of adequate and

competent human resources to implement the measures)

136

132

133

134

135

136

Member States: FI and RO.

Member States: HU.

Analysis of EMAS and UAs technical reports. Interviews with RAs: BG and IT. 71 % of replies to the online survey.

For instance, as regards the implementation of EMAS in Greece (HOME/2014/ISFB/AG/EMAS/0007 and

HOME/2014/ISFB/AG/EMAS/0008), the austerity measures and capital control at national level created a limited vendor base

and frequent requests for advance payments.

Analysis of EMAS and UAs technical reports.

5.4

How relevant has ISF-BV been so far?

This evaluation question aims to determine whether the Fund’s original objectives are still relevant

and how well they still match the current needs and problems. It also addresses the question of the

Fund’s flexibility against changing circumstances in the

wider context.

In a nutshell

The Fund's original rationale and objectives are still relevant in the aftermath of the migratory

crisis. Appropriate mechanisms have been put in place to address the changing needs both at the

programming and implementation stages. The flexibility offered by the Fund, consisting of

transfers of money between different objectives, helped to address the changing needs. However

Member States would appreciate even more flexibility that would result from the minimum

allocations of funds to objectives no longer being imposed and the number of national

objectives being reduced.

The design of the national programmes, including the identification of key needs, priorities and

objectives, was supported by the policy dialogue between the Commission and the Member States

at the beginning of the programming stage. The policy dialogue took account of both the difficulties

encountered during the EBF programming cycle and the new and emerging needs as reported at

national level. In some Member States the objectives set in the national programmes were based on

national strategic documents defining long-term goals and priorities, further helping to align the

national programmes with the identified needs. A common problem perceived at national level was

the migratory pressure at the external borders and related security threats. In this light, all Member

States allocated more resources under specific objective Borders than under specific objective Visa.

Also, given the fragmentation of actions under multiple national objectives that prevented the

pooling of resources around key priorities and made it difficult to implement cross-objective

projects. This has also led to an increased administrative burden as the Member States are required

to report on the implementation of cross-objective actions for each national objectives concerned

with the actions specific scope.

During the Fund’s implementation, some

trends

increased the need for an effective EU action at its

external borders.

An increasing number of refusals of entry issued at the EU’s external borders has

been noted since 2014 with 115 862 registered in 2014, 130 279 in 2015, 215 403 in 2016 and a

slightly lower number in 2017 - 183 548

137

. Document fraud detections at the Member

States’

external borders decreased steadily since 2014 on specific incoming routes

138

and reached their

lowest level in the second quarter of 2016 compared to figures since the beginning in 2013

139

Increased migratory pressure in the Central Mediterranean has been noted mainly due to West

African arrivals with the highest levels of irregular migration reported in 2017

140

. The exceptional

migratory pressure required common high standards of border management that fully comply with

the rule of law and with fundamental rights in order to prevent cross-border crime and terrorism

141

In this context, the Commission introduced an action plan as part of a broader effort to address the

137

138

139

140

141

Frontex Risk Analysis Annual Report 2018.

Ibid.

Frontex Risk Analysis (FRAN) 2016, Q2.

In the first quarter of 2017, irregular migration flows from Libya, Turkey, Algeria and Greece all increased, while the number of

arrivals from Tunisia decreased (Frontex Risk Analysis (FRAN) 2017, Q1).

COM(2015) 185 final European Agenda on Security.

root causes of irregular migration, in cooperation with countries of origin and transit

142

. In addition,

the visa liberalisation dialogues with neighbouring countries (Georgia, Ukraine, Kosovo and

Turkey) raised the need for strengthened cooperation in the area of border control, requiring also a

revision of the ‘suspension mechanism’

143

The identification of priorities to be covered by the ISF-BV national programmes was based on a

thorough policy dialogue between the EU and the Member States, taking into account the

difficulties encountered during the previous programming cycle, the new EU policy priorities and

the new and emerging needs as reported at the national level. The interim evaluation also indicates

that the Fund’s scope is sufficiently broad to enable necessary actions to be implemented in the

areas of external border management and the common policy on visa. Despite new and emerging

needs which changed the migration picture, the Fund’s objectives are still relevant and have adapted

to challenges

144

. What also contributed to addressing the changing needs, is the

flexibility

offered

by the Fund, i.e. Member States are allowed to transfer money between the specific objectives

worth up to 15 % of the basic allocation without needing to revise the national programme.

Regarding

borders,

almost all Member States deemed the increasing pressure at the external

borders as a significant challenge to their border control policy

145

. Such pressure resulted in an

increase in the proportion of passengers that come from outside the Schengen area out of the total

number of passengers

146

. As migration patterns are fluid and the composition of the flow is

constantly changing, more attention needs to be paid to the link between border management,

terrorism and cross-border crime and this is where both ISF-BV and ISF-P proved to be useful and

relevant. Member States identified the following needs during the programming stage:



increase border surveillance capacity

147

;



develop EUROSUR through:

148

developing the EUROSUR national coordination centres;

developing and modernising automated surveillance systems; and

upgrading the National Situational Picture for EUROSUR through collecting related

information and data so as to ensure compliance with EUROSUR requirements;



maintain and further upgrade the national Schengen Information System II and link it with

relevant international databases (Schengen Information System, SIRENE), and train border

guards especially in Schengen Borders Code practices and modules from the Frontex

Common Core Curriculum

149

;

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

COM /2015) 285 final EU action plan against migrant smuggling (2015-2020).

This suspension mechanism ex Article 1a of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 allows the visa exemption for third-country nationals

to be temporarily suspended in certain emergency situations, as a last resort. The proposed revision was meant to strengthen the

suspension mechanism by making it easier for Member States to notify circumstances leading to a possible suspension (COM

(2016) 290 final).

Eighth Meeting of the Evaluation Network: BE, CH, EE, ES, LT, NL, NO, PL and HU. Member States: AT, CH, CY, CZ, DE,

EL, FI, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI and SK. Interviews with 10 RAs (NO, PT, PL, BG, FR, NL, LT, NL, FI

and IT) and 1 delegated authority (EL).

National programmes: BE, BG, CH and NL.

For instance in the baseline data given in the Swiss draft national programme, in 2015, compared to 2014, the number of asylum

applications rose by 66.3% (from 23 765 applications to 39 523). Thus, Switzerland remained one of the primary destination

countries for people crossing the central Mediterranean to Europe.

National programmes: CY, CZ, FR and IT.

A priority in the following National programmes: BG, CY, CZ, FI, FR, GR, HR, LV, LT, PL and SK. In the case of EE and FI,

EUROSUR was emphasised as the most significant development in the coming years. On the contrary, EUROSUR was not a

priority for NO and SI where all necessary infrastructure and equipment had already been purchased before the ISF was

implemented.

149

Further information on the Frontex Common Core Curriculum can be found at:

http://frontex.europa.eu/training/educational-

standards/



improve information exchange

150

(strengthen capacities of communication systems

supporting the border control and further develop Visa Information System functionality for

fluid communication between the various services);

ensure the correct application of EU

acquis

151

(training for staff tasked with guarding

borders on the EU legal instruments, on the specific tasks in the process of border control in

order to improve their professional qualifications and knowledge

152

incl. relevant language

training for border guards

153

; and

introduce common EU standards

154

(introduce ABC technology and strengthen controls at

border crossing points) and improve the national Schengen Information System II and

SIRENE through the operating support

155

Regarding

visa,

the ever-increasing number of visa applications posed a challenge to consulates

especially due to problems concerning the security of their premises and obsolete equipment for

visa processing as reported by a number of Member States

156

. Consequently, the Member States

identified a number of key needs during the programming stage

157

, such as:



developing the national visa systems including the improvement/replacement/maintenance

of equipment;



furnishing consulates with modern equipment to help detect falsified documents and

upgrade network services

158

;



ensuring quality processing of visa applications and continuous improvement of the visa-

issuing process;



training consular officials and staff assigned to the national visa system on Schengen

acquis

and on counterfeited and false documents;



establishing and/or maintaining consular cooperation with other Member States so as to

exchange experiences, best practices, and knowledge;



purchasing additional or replacing the existing IT and security equipment; and



ensuring the exchange of information and connecting all visa authorities through the Visa

Information System (VIS Mail phase 2 began operating on 20 January 2016)

159

Furthermore, with regard to the

operating support,

it was mainly used for maintaining the Visa

Information System

160

and ensuring proper functioning and further development of Schengen

Information System II used at all border crossing points

161

Despite evidence gathered on the relevance of the Fund, some areas for improvement have

been reported

by the Member States

162

. Basic amounts of resources had to be allocated to certain

specific objectives outlined in the legal base for the ISF-BV (minimum

percentages).

However,

where a Member State did not address one of the specific objectives in its national programme set

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

National programmes: BG, CZ, FI, FR and HU.

National programmes: BG, CZ, EE, FR, GR, HR, HU, PT, SK and SI.

e.g. training on implementation of Schengen Acquis, document forgery, methodological training, and handling apprehended

vulnerable-persons.

Referred to in national programmes: FI and FR.

National programmes: DE, DK, FI, GR, IT, PT and SK. The installation of the ABC gates was a top priority in Iceland.

National programmes: LV, LU, PT and SI.

National programmes: CH, CY, EE and FR.

Source: National programmes.

For instance, a single internet service provider that will create a Multi-Protocol Label Switching network.

As underlined by the Hungarian national programme, it was necessary to invest in Visa Information System and interoperability

for Visa Information System with existing and new IT systems. Similarly, Denmark intended to optimise 75 % of Visa

Information System with the Fund’s help. On

the contrary, Switzerland covered this need through national resources.

5 national programmes (IT, CY, ES, FI and FR).

5 national programmes (FI, DE, HR, IS and SK).

Interviews with 2 RAs (BE and CH).

out in the ISF-BV Regulation or where the allocation envisaged was below the minimum

percentage for some objectives, the Member States concerned had to provide a justification for

deviating. Despite the afore-mentioned flexibility offered by the Fund, some Member States thought

the number of national objectives was too high with the links between them unclear

163

, resulting in

the

fragmentation of projects

under different national objectives. This prevents the pooling of

resources under the national objectives deemed most relevant at the national level. Therefore, some

Member States suggested providing a smaller number of objectives with a cross-cutting and broader

scope, which would increase the Fund’s overall relevance

164

Direct and indirect management

Both

direct and indirect management actions

proved

to be relevant.

They were complementary

to national programmes and helped to achieve the Fund’s priorities and objectives

165

. Their flexible

operational architecture contributes to the Fund’s relevance with action strategies

being redefined

according to actual emerging needs by means of simple and quick amendments to grant agreements

(i.e. to get further administrative and operational support, modify the EU contribution or extend the

period covered by the grant agreement).

The Fund may support

UAs,

i.e. transnational actions or actions of particular interest to the EU

concerning the general, specific and operational objectives referred to in Article 3

166

. UAs should

be aligned with the following aspects identified in the intervention logic:



problems, i.e.

‘Member States have divergent interpretations and application of visa code’,

‘IT systems potential is under used’,

‘External border management is not fully integrated’;



needs, i.e.

‘Improving services for visa applicants, boosting practice harmonisation’,

‘Supporting Schengen

acquis

on border and visa application’,

‘Developing EU common border management system’; and



impacts, i.e.

‘Enhanced situational awareness, through staff training concerned with border and

visa management’,

‘Higher, full, and interoperable use of (existing or new) IT systems’,

‘Improved cooperation and dialogue with third countries, by means of agreements

and partnerships’,

‘Increased harmonisation to migration management and internal security’.

According

to the analysis of UAs’ 2014-2017

AWPs, the original priorities and objectives set by

the legal base for UAs

167

are still relevant. It is possible to identify six clusters of priorities and

objectives pursued by the AWPs that were relevant in order to address the needs over the period

2014-2017: (i) Schengen evaluation, (ii) EUROSUR, (iii) training of ILOs, (iv) regional

cooperation, (v) coordination of research activities, and (vi) IT tools (Schengen Information

System). Interviews conducted with beneficiaries of UAs confirmed the relevance of these

163

164

165

166

167

Member States: AT. Eighth Meeting of the Evaluation Network: BE and NL.

Member States: AT. Eighth Meeting of the Evaluation Network: BE and NL. Poland is not in line with this statement as it

deems the rules governing the transfer of funds between different objectives as easing the Fund’s management,

allowing for

flexible adaptation to the current needs.

Interviews with 6 RAs (BE, BG, FR, PT, PL and LT).

Regulation (EU) 515/2014.

priorities. In particular, one Member States

168

stressed the importance of developing EUROSUR

and increasing Member States cooperation in order to improve border control. To this end, it

allocated a significant

part of the Fund’s resources to the control of the maritime external borders

and to the establishment of an integrated network of IT systems with other Member States. Another

Member States

169

confirmed that strengthening the cooperation between Member States by

exchanging information and good practices was relevant for improving border surveillance and for

preventing transnational organised crime.

EMAS

actions ensured there was financial assistance to address urgent and specific needs in the

event of emergency situations stemming from exceptional migratory pressure

170

. EMAS actions are

aligned with problems (‘Migratory pressure and security threats are increasing’), needs (‘Tackling

illegal migration’), and impacts (‘Immediate taking on of unforeseen migratory pressure and risks

through EMAS and adequate resource distribution’) as identified in the intervention logic.

According to the analysis of EMAS 2014-2017 AWPs, the above-mentioned problems and needs

still remained valid over the period 2014-2017. However, their gravity has increased immensely as

a result of the migration crisis

171

. EMAS has also contributed to the Greek hotspots

172

by providing

funds for food, shelter, medicines and transport at the hotspots, and funds for strengthening the

fingerprinting capacity on the ground. It should be also noted in response to the migration crisis the

allocation of funds to EMAS increased 11 times.

As regards measures put in place to address changing needs,

it is important to note that the

needs identified during the programming stage did not change significantly

during the Fund’s

implementation; rather it is the volume of issues to be addressed that increased as a consequence of

the migration crisis

173

A number of mechanisms have contributed to ensuring the Fund’s relevance

174

and the Member

States’ ability to address changing needs.

At the beginning, the policy dialogues between the Commission and the responsible authorities

enabled key needs to be identified and priorities and objectives to be designed accordingly

175

. The

consultative method

adopted with key stakeholders (the Commission and central authorities

concerned with the Fund’s implementation) and direct beneficiaries

(generally public institutions

and ministries) enabled their needs to be clearly identified during the programming stage

176

and

emerging needs to be assessed alongside the programming cycle.

Changing needs were addressed through minor budgetary adjustments and transfers between the

specific objectives of the national programme of up to 15 % of the basic allocation thanks to the

flexibility clause

in the legal base. This was considered to be a useful tool that enabled adaptation

to the changing environment and allowed some fine-tuning during the implementation cycle

177

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

Interview with 1 Union action beneficiary (PT).

Interview with 1 Union action beneficiary (ES).

Regulation (EU) 515/2014, Article 2 f) and Article 14.

Interviews with 7 RAs (BE, BG, EL, FR, LT, PL and PT).

The Hotspot approach was developed as part of the European Agenda on Migration. The operational support provided to

Member States is concentrated on registering, identifying, fingerprinting and debriefing asylum seekers. It is also concentrated

on return operations. The Member States cooperate closely with the Commission and a few EU agencies (EASO, Europol,

Frontex and Eurojust) in order to operationalise the concept. So far 10 hotspots have been created in Italy and Greece.

Member States: CZ, DE, LT, PT and SK. Interviews with 4 RAs (NL, BG, PL and NO) and 1 delegated authority (EL).

Interviews with 6 RAs (BE, BG, FR, PT, PL and LT).

Member States: AT, BE, CH, CZ, MT and NL.

Member States: AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, EE, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, MT, NL, RO, SE and SI.

Member States: AT and PL.

Furthermore,

continuous programme monitoring

during the implementation stage

178

allows the

responsible authority to promptly analyse the content defined in the national programmes and to

adapt to changing circumstances and emerging needs in cooperation with the Monitoring

Committee (MC). Due to the changes needed, the responsible authority should consider whether a

revision of the programme is necessary. Reprogramming may be required in order to address the

recommendations following a Schengen evaluation report

179

The

mid-term review

mechanism allows for a reassessment of needs and a dialogue with the

Commission including the possibility to amend the programme where necessary, therefore ensuring

that the Fund still corresponds to the actual needs

180

In addition, the ISF

Monitoring Committee

has also contributed to ensuring that the Fund remains

relevant. In fact, the Monitoring Committee should support the Fund’s implementation. As

evaluation reports show, the Committee also makes recommendations on how to improve

implementation and payment capacities

181

5.5

How coherent and complementary has ISF-BV been so far?

These evaluation questions look at the extent to which different ISF-BV actions work together

internally and with other EU interventions and identify whether there are complementarities, gaps

and overlaps between different initiatives.

5.5.1. Coherence

In a nutshell

The Fund is considered to be coherent with other EU and national interventions. Coherence with

other EU financing instruments was ensured at the programming stage. Coordinating

mechanisms have been put in place to ensure continued coherence at the implementation stage.

The Monitoring Committee and the Responsible Authority play key roles in ensuring coherence.

ISF-BV funded actions were found to be coherent with other actions related to border management

and visa system policy funded by other EU financial instruments, incl. AMIF and ISF-P, and from

the national resources of the Member States. Some policy fields were found to be at a higher risk of

overlapping with the Fund, including some areas under ESIF, the European Regional Development

Fund and the Societal Challenge ‘Secure Societies —

protecting freedom and security of Europe

and its citizens’ under Horizon 2020. Nonetheless, no overlaps or duplications between the Fund

and the aforementioned interventions have been found to date.

Internally, there is high coherence and complementarity between national programmes and EMAS,

which have clearly supported each other and high coherence between national programmes and

UAs (the latter being clearly design to complement the national programmes). EMAS especially

played a significant role in bridging the gap until national programmes were fully adopted.

178

179

180

181

Member States: CH, FI, FR, HU, LU, MT, NL, PL, RO and SK.

Art. 12 of Regulation (EU) No. 515/2014 in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 of 7 October 2013

establishing an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen

acquis

and repealing the

Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998 setting up a Standing Committee on the evaluation and

implementation of Schengen.

Member States: FR, HR, PL and RO.

Member States: CZ, DE and LV.

However, there appears to be room for improvement, especially with regard to UAs and EMAS,

because most ISF-BV beneficiaries were not aware of other ISF-BV financed actions and

considered coordination to be an informal initiative. There is clearly a need for more formalised

information at project and national level.

Several Member States carried out assessments of other EU interventions with similar objectives

during the programming phase

182

covering in particular: European Structural and Investment

Funds

183

; EU external relations instruments

184

; and other EU funds or programmes

185

. In other

Member States

186

, coherence was ensured by making it mandatory for project applicants to give an

overview of the projects they implemented previously in similar areas with the support of EU funds

or other instruments.

Most Member States adopted different coordinating mechanisms to ensure coherence with similar

interventions carried out under other EU funds. The main ones are:



information exchange on

the Fund’s actions and projects between the responsible authority

and other institutional actors responsible for other funds at different levels and with

Frontex;



structured policy discussion

—

regular meetings to discuss strategic documents organised

with the managing authorities of other EU programmes and interinstitutional working

groups involving representatives of the potential beneficiaries

187

; and



institutional arrangements, specific directorates, divisions, units, platforms, and committees

set up to boost the coordination and synergies with other EU funds

188

Most Member States emphasised the key role of specific actors including relevant public authorities

at national level, international organisations, non-governmental organisations, etc. that contributed

to the Fund’s implementation, by (i)

boosting synergies and preventing overlaps between ISF-BV,

ESIF programmes, and other EU instruments and (ii) strengthening communication and

coordination among actors concerned by different instruments

189

. Thus the MC was shown to be the

main institutional tool that ensured the ISF-BV’s

complementarity and coordination with other

funds. The MC includes, as members or as observers, representatives of institutions responsible for

the use of other relevant funds. It holds regular meetings and continuously analyses the

implementation status of ISF-BV projects. The Responsible Authority communicates regularly with

relevant partners and other state administration authorities to avoid any overlaps, ensures there is no

double-funding by examining and validating the original invoices, and implements the decisions of

the MC.

Finally, ensuring coherence between the ISF-BV actions and other interventions with similar

objectives at EU level is extremely important in order to ensure that external borders and the

common visa policy are managed effectively. Some EU programmes have been deemed quite

similar to the ISF-BV interventions.

Customs 2020

is the EU programme supporting the

functioning and modernisation of national customs in the EU as well as administration cooperation

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

All national programmes; Member States: BE, DE, EE, FI, FR, HU, LT, LV, MT, NL and PL; interviews with 4 RAs (CH, BG,

FI and BE).

European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, Cohesion Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Rural

Development, and European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.

e.g. Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, and Instrument

contributing to Stability and Peace.

e.g. Lifelong Learning programme, Cultural programme, and Youth in Action programme.

Member States: CZ, EE and IT.

AIRs: BG, IT and SI.

AIRs: AT, BG, CY, CZ, HR, MT and SE.

Member States: BE, CZ, CY, DE, EE, FI, HR, LV, LT, NO, PL, RO, SE, SI and SK.

for the period 2014-2020. No overlaps between Customs 2020 and ISF-BV have been noted so

far

190

. Nonetheless, since Customs 2020 and ISF-BV share common objectives related to security

issues and training, potential areas for synergies have been noted in those two areas

191

. Potential

synergies have been looked for through joint meetings and work on documents and guidelines

concerning co-operation aspects of border guards and customs services. The

ex post

evaluation of

the EBF had already called for a better mapping and monitoring of programmes which include

actions taking place at the external borders in order to check the possibility of joint procurement or

training

192

Actions funded by Frontex are also an example of an intervention that is coherent with ISF-BV.

ISF-BV

supports measures under Frontex joint operations in order to boost the Agency’s

operational capacity. This is enabled by the specific actions under ISF-BV. However, the need for

more coordination between the Commission and Frontex was already underlined in the EBF’s

post

evaluation

193

as one recommendation was to ensure that the Commission consults Frontex on

the draft national programmes of the Member States before adopting them. This recommendation

has already been taken into account in the ISF-BV Regulation, which in Article 9(4) provides for

such obligatory consultation. During the programming period, the Commission consulted Frontex

on all draft national programmes and took into account to the extent possible all comments received

by the Agency. In addition, to ensure coherence between the activities financed by the ISF-BV and

Frontex, the Commission put in place coordination measures that encompass electronic data

exchange on purchases of Frontex equipment both under shared and direct management and provide

Frontex with direct access to SFC2014 together with the related IT training.

Examples of national assessments of other interventions during the programming stage

Austria,

the co-financing agreements for projects financed by the BMEIA

194

contained a requirement for

the project beneficiary to ensure there was no duplication.

Belgium

regularly organised consultations

within the Steering Committee including representatives of the Foreign Affairs (External relation

instruments), Social Integration, Interior (e.g. Horizon 2020) and Asylum-Migration offices. Furthermore,

project applicants are requested to report on other sources of European funding they benefit from. In

Cyprus,

meetings with the relevant competent authorities were conducted during the programming stage

for the examination of subjects of common interest and to avoid any overlap. In

Greece,

the responsible

authority carried out extensive consultation with beneficiaries involved in other programmes to avoid

duplication with other actions.

Italy

adopted an integrated approach to ensure coherence, relying on multi-

sectoral (integrating policies, services, and initiatives referring to different yet complementary areas),

multi-level (involving all relevant institutional actors), and multi-stakeholder (involving all relevant actors)

mechanisms. Moreover, regular meetings between the RAs of AMIF and ISF-BV were organised to share

information on activities implemented under the two funds.

190

191

192

193

194

However, according to a representative of DG TAXUD, synergies among different EU policies and instruments concerned with

borders might by increased. Interview with DG TAXUD.

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Customs 2020 programme Progress Report for 2015.

Interview with DG TAXUD.

Conclusions of the

ex post

evaluation of the External Border Fund (EBF) 2007-2013; SEC(2011) 1358 final: COMMISSION

STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT.

Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs.

Examples of coordinating mechanisms to ensure the Fund’s coherence with other

interventions during the implementation stage

Bulgaria,

the International Projects Directorate within the Ministry of the Interior examines project

proposals and partnerships with EU financial institutions

195

. Its activity is part of the national strategy to

ensure the coherence and coordination with ESIF. ISF-BV’s MC meets regularly to address potential

duplications; ISF-BV’s responsible authority meets monthly with beneficiaries of the ISF-BV projects to

detect inter alia possible duplications with other projects. In

Cyprus,

since 2013, the Directorate-General

for European Programmes, Coordination and Development is responsible for implementing the

Europe2020 strategy and for coordinating the implementation of EU funds and programmes. In the

Czech

Republic,

the Coordinating Committee 2014+ (KV)

196

was established within the Ministry of the Interior

as an internal mechanism dealing with ESIF, AMIF, and ISF. The KV consists of several working groups

covering all projects in order to prevent any overlap. In

Germany,

a clear separation between the

objectives and approaches of AMIF and ISF in the area of migration was achieved by indicating the

Federal Office for Migration and Refugees as being responsible for implementing AMIF and the Federal

Police Headquarters for implementing ISF-BV. In

Sweden,

the SEFI Council (Council for the protection

of EU financial interests) was set up to promote the efficient and accurate use of EU-related funds. A

meeting ‘Ensuring synergies and strengthening capacities for addressing migration and integration

challenges in Sweden’ was held jointly

by the Swedish authorities and the European Commission on

17 February 2017.

5.5.2. Complementarity

In a nutshell

The Fund’s objectives are complementary to other national policies. Complementarity with

other EU financing instruments was planned at the programming stage. Coordinating

mechanisms have been put in place to ensure complementarity at the implementation stage.

Different implementation modes are complementary to each other.

The evaluation raised evidence on the complementarity between the objectives set in the national

programmes and those set in national policies in the area of borders and visa

197

. No overlapping or

duplication has been found.

As for synergies, the security research under Horizon 2020 with its border component is the main

source of synergies with the ISF-BV. Other EU interventions with potential for synergies with the

ISF-BV include ESIF, under which training for border police is financed, the ERDF, Customs 2020

and Frontex joint operations. It should be noted that so far, more emphasis has been put on

minimising the risk of any potential overlaps rather than on synergies themselves.

Some Member States

198

carried out assessments of the national interventions with complementary

objectives during the identification of the funding priorities and measures under ISF-BV. Different

consultation, coordination, and collaboration mechanisms were put in place to ensure alignment

with actions set in the framework of other national policies

199

, including:

195

196

197

198

199

The European Investment Fund, the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

The members of the KV are the deputies of the Minister of the Interior, the police president and the director of the fire rescue

service.

Member States: CH, CZ, EE, EL, ES, LT, LU, PL and SE.

Member States: AT, BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HU and PL.

Member States: BE, DE, ES, FR, HU and SI.



financial instruments and mechanisms to ensure traceability and control of funding throughout

the entire project lifetime;

consultation mechanisms with key stakeholders; and

application and project selection procedures that require the project’s coherence and

complementarity to be demonstrated.

The responsible authority and the MC also played a key role in ensuring the Fund’s

complementarity with national strategies in the field of visa and borders

200

In Member States where no assessment was carried out at the programming stage, the

complementarity

was ensured through management practices during the Fund’s implementation.

More precisely, the wide stakeholder consultation during the programming stage allowed for high

consistency of priorities and projects, therefore ensuring there were no overlaps with other relevant

interventions

201

The interim evaluation highlighted evidence on the complementarity among the Fund’s different

implementation mechanisms (shared, direct and indirect). Many Member States deem the different

implementation modes as having directly contributed to meeting ISF-BV objectives, ensuring that

all needs that are not covered by shared management instruments can be covered through direct or

indirect management instruments

202

. Moreover, no overlapping or duplication was found between

them, since they actually covered different types of actions

203

. Specifically, direct and indirect

management were generally intended to be designed and implemented to improve and complement

interventions planned under national programmes, or to fund interventions that cannot be

implemented under shared management for several reasons (i.e. allocation limits, difficulties in

reviewing national programmes). In particular, EMAS enabled the support of actions, which are

difficult to be implemented under national programmes (due to allocation limits), since they address

emerging and unpredictable needs arising from emergency situations. In addition, EMAS has

played a significant role in bridging the funding gap until the national programmes have been

adopted. EMAS has also improved private-public synergies

204

. UAs allowed the Member States to

plan and implement cross-country projects, otherwise not affordable under the national

programme

205

. Moreover, indirect management projects allowed the EU to entrust budget

implementation tasks to partner countries or the bodies they have designated or international

organisations provided with the necessary expertise and knowledge to properly manage and

implement the measures required.

Examples of national assessments of other interventions during the programming stage

Cyprus

the complementarity issue of the objectives and actions was taken into consideration by the

responsible authority in the programming phase. Furthermore, the country’s DG EPCD

206

launched the EU

Funds Web Portal in 2014 serving as an information hub for the public and businesses for all the cross-

cutting EU programmes to enable further coordination among the funds. In the

Czech Republic,

the

‘National Schengen Plan 2014’ (NSP 2014) setting up the national

strategy for visa policy was taken into

account in the preparation of the national programme, thus ensuring mutual complementarity.

Switzerland,

the national IBM strategy was taken into account while the the National Programme was

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

Member States: AT, DE, EE, FI, HR, LT, LV, NL, PL, SI and SK.

Member States: BE, CH, DE, EL, HR, IT, LU, MT, PT and SI. Interviews with BE, BG, NO and PT RAs.

Eighth Meeting of the Evaluation Network: BE, BG, EL, HR, FR, HU, MT, NL and NO.

Interviews with the Commission officials, BG Chief Directorate Police, IT Navy and CIES Onlus (beneficiary of Italian

EMAS), EL delegated authority.

Ibidem.

Interview with the Commission officials.

Directorate-General for European Programmes, Coordination and Development.

being prepared and was used in particular to prioritise the measures planned under the ISF-BV. This

ensured that the objectives of the envisaged measures were in line with and complementary to the

objectives of the existing actions of Swiss IBM.

Examples of coordinating mechanisms

to ensure the Fund’s complementarity with national

interventions

Austria

a separate unit within the EU department of the Ministry of the Interior (BM.I) was responsible

for coordinating all EU funding instruments at the BM.I including the avoidance of potential double-

funding. Furthermore, the templates for project proposals and monitoring and reporting included questions

specifically aimed at preventing double-funding. In

Bulgaria

and

Finland

the ISF Monitoring Committee

was indicated as responsible for ensuring the coordination between the relevant EU and national financing

instruments. During the regular meetings, representatives from the relevant authorities could discuss ISF-

BV projects detecting any possible synergies and complementarities with projects financed through

national resources. In

Hungary

the Ministry of Interior (MoI) plays a significant role in preventing any

overlapping and double financing with the national budget. The MoI also leads the Border Control Inter-

ministerial Working Group which should ensure the harmonisation of all the developments at the borders

which are co-financed by the EU or national funds; In

Iceland

and

Slovakia

the responsible authority is

responsible for ensuring complementarity between co-financing from ISF-BV and other sources of funding

at national and international level to foster synergies with national investments. In

Italy

a monitoring and

evaluation information system (containing the data of ISF and national operational programmes) was used

to detect possible duplication of projects from different financial instruments and to generate alerts

automatically.

5.6

What is the EU added value of ISF-BV so far?

This question aims to assess the value that results from ISF-BV that is additional to the value that

could result from interventions which would have been achieved by Member States at national

level.

In a nutshell

The Fund ensured EU added value through innovative investments in infrastructure and

equipment. It supported cooperation between Member States. Training activities enabled by the

Fund contributed to harmonising practices between Member States. A higher EU added value

could have been expected in areas of consular cooperation, cooperation with third countries and

IT systems.

Shared management

The interim evaluation collected evidence on the added value of the projects supported by the Fund.

Stakeholders

207

agree that the Fund has strongly contributed to ensuring a high level of security in

the EU, supporting the adoption of a

harmonised approach to visa processing

as well as the

establishment of IBM. The Fund acts as a catalyst, enabling, supporting, and

stimulating

innovations

that are taken up at national level, in terms of infrastructure, equipment and systems,

207

Interviews with Member States RAs (BE, BG, EL, FR, NL, NO, PL and SI). Information was also gathered through

questionnaires on the funding priorities in the Commission policy areas for the MFF post-2020 circulated by the Commission to

the responsible authority for preparing the AMIF and ISF Committee on 13 March 2017.

new operational techniques, and working methods

208

. In this respect, the actions considered as

bringing higher EU added value are the ones supporting the national capacity, both in the areas of

visa and borders

209

The uniform deployment of up-to-date

IT systems

by all Member States appears to be key to fully

achieving a common visa policy and IBM. Since large-scale IT systems need huge investments, it is

likely that, without an EU intervention, national IT systems would have continued to be diverse,

thus affecting

the EU’s capacity to achieve the overall objectives in the border and visa policy field.

In this view, the Fund added value to national efforts by allocating some resources specifically for

this purpose and by pushing all Member States in implementing similar systems in line with EU

standards, thus easing the exchange of information and increasing the EU’s security levels. In the

field of visa, the use of new technologies added value in terms of efficiency in processing visas,

improving the exchange of data and information within and between Member States

210

. In the field

of borders, the EU added value resulted in interoperable modern technologies being developed,

which improved the efficiency and speed of the Schengen Information System and Visa

Information System. This promoted interconnection with the Schengen partners, which contributed

to strengthening border checks and monitoring

211

. Actions related to IT systems were usually

complemented by actions funded by the

operating support

212

, which focused on the upgrading,

developing and maintaining ITC equipment used to support both visa issuing and border

management

213

Moreover, the Fund contributed to improved

cooperation among the different actors

involved at

different levels (EU, national, projects level), therefore enabling the strengthening of Member

States capacities and users awareness as well as the improvement of the quality of services

214

. In

light of this, stakeholders found that consular cooperation brings EU added value

215

, by:



setting up and developing common application centres;



purchasing equipment for consular offices including hardware equipment for the

functioning of national Visa Information System and its connection to central Visa

Information System;



repairing/refurbishing consular offices;



deploying consular officers; and



implementing technological infrastructure.

The Fund has also strengthened information sharing and collaboration mechanisms. It has also

enabled synergies on security issues between Member States

216

According to some Member States

217

, EU added value was related to the Fund’s capacity to

strengthen

solidarity and responsibility,

by boosting cooperation under EUROSUR and with

Frontex.

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

responsible authority responding to the questionnaires for the MFF post-2020: BE, BG, FR, IT, NL and PL; Interview with

CIES Onlus (Italian EMAS beneficiary). 45% of replies to the online survey.

responsible authority responding to the questionnaires for the MFF post-2020: AT, CH, CY, EE, ES, FI, HU, IT, LU, PL, SE, SI

and SK.

20 Member States (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, FI, FR, EL, HU, IT, LV, LT, PT, RO, SE, SI and SK). 5 interviews: 4

RAs (EL, NO, BE and FR) and one delegated authority (EL). OPC: 3 Public Authorities (BG, EL and IT).

6 Member States (AT, CZ, DE, EE, FR and LV). Interview with FR responsible authority.

ES and SI.

RAs that responded to the questionnaires for the MFF post-2020: CH, ES, FI, IT and SI.

Member States: BE, DE, EE, EL, ES, HR, HU, LU, LV, NL, PL and PT. 45% of replies to the online survey.

responsible authority responding to the questionnaires for the MFF post-2020: HU, LT, RO and SK.

Member States: BE, CY, DE, EL, ES, FI, HR, LU, LV, NL, PL, RO and SK.

4 Member States (AT, BE, CZ and PL).

From a financial perspective, the Fund enabled projects with a

high volume of investments

to be

implemented that would have not been possible under national budgets. Without the support of ISF-

BV (i) the scope of actions would have not been the same, (ii) the quality could have been

compromised given the high standards required for EU-funded projects, and (iii) there could

potentially have been implementation delays and the loss of knowledgeable staff

218

What is more,

training activities

brought EU added value since it enabled practices to be

harmonised across the Member States. Concerning the field of visa, the training of personnel was

aimed at supporting the implementation of the common visa policy and the correct and uniform

application of the Schengen

acquis

219

. Concerning the management of external borders, the training

aimed to facilitate the sharing of information and best practices for border control to improve the

effectiveness of the border checks

220

To conclude, it is worth mentioning some areas where a higher EU added value might be expected

in light of the Fund’s objectives and related EU commitment. In particular,

consular cooperation

represents the second national objective in terms of EU commitment (10 %, with a total amount of

EUR 14.8 million). However, Member States included few consular cooperation activities in their

national programmes, showing a low interest towards this objective. Similar considerations apply to

Member States cooperation with third countries,

as only a few Member States

221

implemented

actions pursuing

this objective and most stakeholders considered the Fund’s contribution quite

limited. Finally, despite the results achieved in terms of setting up and running

IT systems,

some

Member States

222

reported that better results would be achieved if the EU financing was higher.

Additional EU resources would have ensured better IT systems development as well as systems

interoperability.

Direct management

The analysis of data showed that, without the resources provided by the Fund under EMAS,

the use

of national funding only would have resulted in a more difficult and smaller scale

implementation of actions with a lower impact overall.

EU added value of EMAS can be seen in

innovative solutions proposed

223

, and the effective, timely, and efficient handling of migration

flows, the crisis, and emerging needs. The EMAS measures have contributed to (i) a closer

cooperation and collaboration across Member States, (ii) improved coordination of relevant

stakeholders at local and national level and (iii) improved synergies between public institutions and

the private sector.

As for the few action grants awarded under UAs, their implementation is at a very early stage.

Therefore no conclusions can be drawn for the interim evaluation.

Indirect management

The Fund allocated some resources to specific bodies and institutions which allowed them to extend

the scope of their activities by complementing Commission and national actions requiring a high

218

219

220

221

222

223

Member States: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI and SK.

responsible authority responding to the questionnaires for the MFF post-2020: AT, CY, EE, HU, LT, SI and SK.

responsible authority responding to the questionnaires for the MFF post-2020: CY, LT and SK.

4 Member States (AT, ES, IS and LT) declared to have implemented projects, without providing any detail/further information.

Ref. Ares(2017)2412067, ‘High-level

expert group on information systems and interoperability -

Final report’ (May 2017. 13

Member States (AT, CH, CY, ES, FI, HU, IT, LT, LU, PL, RO, SE and SK).

As also supported by the online survey: 71% (n=22) of respondents chose the options ‘3 – moderate extent’ and ‘4 –

high

extent’ to the survey question ‘To what extent do you think that Union Actions allowed for innovative solutions?’.

level of expertise and knowledge. This mechanism provided

EU added value by strengthening

existing synergies between stakeholders at different levels

(international, EU, Member States),

therefore developing a coherent EU response to emerging challenges.

Three actions have been implemented under indirect management so far. The Commission entrusted

eu-LISA

to carry out the ‘Smart Borders Pilot’ testing phase, in the context of a ‘Proof of Concept’

exercise, as regards the Smart Borders Package adopted by the Commission on 28 February 2013.

Overall, over a period of 7 months, eu-LISA successfully carried out 78 testing activities for both

automated and manual border controls, covering different environments, and finally provided a

significant evidence base to assert the feasibility of systems and processes proposed for Smart

Borders. The Fund allowed eu-LISA to improve the relationship with several subjects: (i) Member

States, by coordinating and supervising their activities; (ii) the Commission and the European

Parliament, through continuous communication and reporting activities; (iii) other EU institutions

and agencies (i.e. European Data Protection Supervisor, the Fundamental Rights Agency and

Frontex), involved in both the preparation and execution phases.

The Commission

entrusted the ICMPD to implement the action ‘Mobility Partnership Facility’

(MPF). The MPF contributed to operationalising the EU GAMM and improving the EU’s

discussion and cooperation with partner countries, in the area of migration and mobility, providing

them with targeted, flexible and tailor-made assistance. Preliminary results showed that the MPF

allowed Member States and partner countries to implement their priorities according to: (i) flexible

deadlines; (ii) simple procedures (i.e. user-friendly grant agreements, 15-day long evaluation

process); and (iii) a significant co-financing rate, up to 95 %. The MPF contributed to strengthening

partner countries’ capacities, improving the levels of information and knowledge to critically

review ongoing activities and policy processes.

Furthermore, the Commission entrusted the UNHCR to implement the action ‘Support to Greece

for the development of the hotspot/relocation scheme as well as for developing asylum reception

capacity’. This action helped to create

20 000 reception places and supported relocation processes,

easing the deployment of UNHCR expertise and technical staff. UNHCR staff also supported the

Greek Ministry of Interior in managing and coordinating the sites as well as the Reception and

Identification Service. The action improved the capacities of several national stakeholders involved

in implementing referred processes, as well as the cooperation and coordination mechanisms

between them.

5.7

How sustainable are the actions implemented under ISF-BV so far?

Evidence collected suggests that the project outputs are able to continue after the EU support is over

both for shared, direct and indirect management.

In a nutshell

The sustainability of actions funded by ISF-BV relies on the continuity of EU funding with the

national funding. This appears to be insufficient to ensure the same level of investments.

Training activities play an important role in ensuring the sustainability of actions in the long

term.

Shared & direct management

The EBF

ex post

evaluation

224

concluded that overall the actions in the 2011-2013 period were

sustainable, as most of the assets acquired and knowledge generated were still being used while the

evaluation was conducted (2016). The evaluation recommended that the following components be

introduced in order to further improve sustainability of actions:



sustainability indicators to be part of the approval process at project and annual programme

level;



compulsory

ex ante

assessments of investments requiring significant maintenance and

operating costs with commitment from beneficiaries to secure the estimated post-

acquisition costs; and



procurement process to include provisions on the length of warranty, maintenance, and

training if appropriate.

The ISF-BV embraced some of the recommendations from the EBF

ex post

evaluation.

Sustainability indicators were not included among the common indicators provided by Regulation

(EU) No 515/2014 and 22

225

out of 30 Member States

226

did not include any specific reference to

sustainability in the national programmes. Common indicators were eventually introduced by

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/207

227

. Only five Member States committed to the

sustainability of the implemented projects

228

. There is no evidence of specific provisions or

mandatory requirements either for the

ex ante

assessment of investment or for the length of

warranty, maintenance, and training.

However, beyond the issues related to the EBF

ex post

evaluation’s conclusion,

the interim

evaluation of ISF-BV

highlighted evidence of the sustainability of the Fund’s results.

22 out of 30

Member States stated that the ISF-BV actions are long-term actions by their nature, since they are

generally designed and structured to remain operational after the

Fund’s support ends. In particular,

investments in infrastructure,

facilities, and IT systems have relatively high sustainability, as they

usually require smaller maintenance costs compared to the initial investments. Even if not explicitly

referring to sustainability, the Fund

—

particularly operating support resources

—

was used for

maintaining the equipment purchased, aiming to ensure the proper functioning of infrastructure and

to give continuity to the activities

229

. The sustainability of actions is also ensured through

training

sessions, information-sharing, and cooperation mechanisms that helped to improve expertise,

knowledge, and the qualifications of staff involved in managing and implementing projects

230

Furthermore, the effects achieved through the

Fund’s support are also expected to continue after the

EU funding, relying on national budgets to ensure the continuity of interventions and related

impacts

231

Examples of Member States reporting on project sustainability during the programming

phase

Estonia

planned the purchase of an additional central station and of the infrastructure supporting it to

ensure the sustainability of the operative radio communication network, making border control more

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

Optimity Advisors and CSD (2016).

Ex post

evaluation of the External Borders Fund 2011-2013.

National programmes: AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT,

RO, SE, SI and SK.

National programmes are not available for IS, LI and NO.

Example of sustainability indicator: number of equipment in use 2 years after their acquisition/number of equipment acquired

under the Fund (> than EUR 10 000).

National programmes: EE, LT, LV, MT and SK.

National programmes: all countries except Switzerland and the Netherlands. Interviews: 5 RAs (BE, BG, CH, LT and PL).

Member States: BE, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, MT and RO. Interviews: 3 RAs (BE, El and LT) and I

delegated authority (EL). 1 beneficiary responding to the online survey.

Member States: BE, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, MT and RO.

effective. Moreover, attention is devoted to sustaining the activities involving the Immigration Liaison

Officers (ILOs) in order to maintain the established connections in third countries (e.g. in Ukraine);

Lithuania

expressed its commitment to maintaining the border surveillance systems through national

resources. It aims to ensure the disaster recovery and business continuity plan is implemented

232

, as well as

the back-up components of the national Schengen Information System II;

Latvia

expected to have a

reliable, modern and sustainable national entry/exit system;

Malta

in its Manual of Procedures for the

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and Internal Security Fund 2014-2020, sustainability of projects is

directly mentioned in the subtitle ‘Sustainable

Management of Internal Security and Migration Flows’

233

making it a compulsory requirement to include the text in the publications concerning AMIF/ISF. In

Slovakia

authorities involved in the ISF-BV management have to regularly check the staff expertise so as

to be prepared in case of changes in the operational environment. There is often the need for specific

training (including language trainings) to upgrade staff skills, ensuring the sustainability and continuity of

the achieved high-level performance.

Examples of measures to ensure sustainability

Austria, Belgium

and

Cyprus,

during the programming stage, included project beneficiaries in the public

policy dialogue as well as in the negotiation process, with the aim of identifying potential investments, the

impact of which was likely to produce significant

results, at EU and national levels, beyond the Fund’s

support

234

Bulgaria

sets strict sustainability requirements in its eligibility rules to apply for projects.

Beneficiaries have to guarantee that they will also maintain the projects through national funding after the

ISF-BV fund is finished. Sustainability requirements depend on the type of equipment purchased: IT

systems should be used for at least 3 years whereas helicopters, vessels, and buildings should be in use for

almost 10 years

235

. In

Malta

beneficiaries are obliged to sign a declaration that ensures that the investments

will be operational after the Fund’s support ends

236

. In

Poland,

beneficiaries have to demonstrate

significant long-term sustainability, declaring the annual cost for the project maintenance and their

commitment in assuring it. The sustainability of the projects is measured by the Delegated Authority after

the project is completed

237

Switzerland

requires beneficiaries to use the infrastructure they purchase for at

least 3 years

238

As for shared management, the sustainability of investments under direct and indirect management

is also ensured by other funding schemes. In particular, under direct management it is ensured by

referring to other EU Funds (i.e. AMIF), national, and other

donor’s resources as well as by the

exchange of good practices and know-how among actors and other Member States. Under indirect

management, the sustainability of investments is ensured by the commitment of resources under

Member States national budgets as well as the exchange of good practice and know-how.

6. C

ONCLUSIONS AND ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

6.1

Effectiveness

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

Measures that ensure the continuity of the project in case of unexpected events.

Ministry for European Affairs and Implementation of the Electoral Manifesto (2015). Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund

and Internal Security Fund 2014–2020: manual of procedures.

Member States: AT, BE and CY.

Interview with Bulgarian responsible authority.

Member States: MT.

Interview with PL responsible authority.

Interview with CH responsible authority.

Concerning the common

visa policy,

the Fund is considered mainly effective. The Fund helped to

facilitate legitimate travel, boosting

Members States’ capacities to verify the authenticity of

documents used for visa applications, to develop information system for coordinating visa

applications and procuring security equipment for consular representations in third countries. The

Fund’s contribution

towards consular cooperation was limited in many Member States due to the

delays in starting the implementation. Training courses targeted consular officials, police, and

border guard officials engaged in developing and implementing the common visa policy. The EU’s

acquis

on visa has been supported either through mixed projects that also pursue other objectives, or

through projects specifically targeted to this objective. The development of a common visa policy

was also supported through the establishment and operation of IT systems, particularly regarding

the national Visa Information System. The operating support for visa measures also proved to be

extremely useful for covering those staff costs and other running costs related to implementing the

EU’s common visa policy.

Only a few Member States have used the Fund to strengthen their

cooperation with third countries. However, the Fund allowed some Member States multiple

postings of temporary liaison officers and visa experts to consulates in the third countries and

therefore improved the detection of fraudulent documents. The existence of different national rules

for implementing the Fund was a factor that hindered joint projects between Member States.

As regards the area of integrated

border management,

the Fund is considered mainly effective in

the context of the security and migration crisis. By boosting the border management capacity at the

EU’s external borders, the Fund contributed to safeguarding the free movement of people within the

Schengen area. The Fund contributed towards the effectiveness of external border controls by

supporting measures focused on purchasing, modernising, upgrading and replacing border control

and surveillance equipment. Border management capacity was addressed through the introduction

of Automated Border Control (ABC) gates. Training activities co-financed by the Fund contributed

to the implementation of the EU’s

acquis

that aims to improve staff awareness and competencies on

border management and on using related IT information systems. These training activities also

improved the linguistic skills of the staff responsible for border management. The cooperation

facilitated by the Fund between Member States and between Member States and Frontex, including

purchases

of equipment to be used in Frontex operations with the Fund’s help, contributed to

solidarity and responsibility sharing. The Fund played also a significant role in developing

EUROSUR

239

by co-financing activities both under national programmes and UAs with the

objective of improving situational awareness and increasing the reaction capability at the external

borders. However, limited progress was registered regarding promoting the development,

implementation and enforcement of policies with a view of ensuring the absence of any controls on

persons, whatever their nationality. Currently, the Fund is not supporting Member States in the

application of the non-refoulement principle.

Regarding

direct management,

it is very difficult to draw any conclusions on the effectiveness of

the action grants awarded under UAs or EMAS since very few actions have been completed in the

period covered by the interim evaluation. While EMAS measures proved to be an efficient

instrument to rapidly address a number of emergency situations arising from the migration crisis,

action grants under UAs proved to less popular. Member States expressed limited interest in them

with few proposals received to the calls published by the Commission.

Issues for future consideration:



The current structure of the Fund divided into external borders and visa should be

maintained.

239

Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 establishing the European

Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR).



The possibility of using emergency assistance is crucial and also ensures the Fund’s

responsiveness and relevance in changing circumstances.

6.2

Efficiency

The implementation of the national programmes started very slowly creating challenges for

evaluating the Fund’s cost-effectiveness

because the majority of the projects are still ongoing. Low

levels of human resources costs were associated with the pace of implementation of the national

programmes in the Member States. Overall, human resources at EU and national level show a

growing or stable number of FTEs over the years from 2014 to 2017, despite the large increase in

value of the EMAS and the emergency situation on the ground following the migration crisis.

Efficiency was ensured by means of considerable knowledge and expertise gained through

experience from previous projects and the flexibility of the national programmes. Furthermore

national measures concerning the application, implementation, monitoring and reporting processes

have been put in place in some Member States to ensure efficiency. As for the anti-fraud measures,

they are generally considered as appropriate and effective.

There are also a number of issues at Member States level that Member States deem as negatively

affecting efficiency and these are: (i) requirement to allocate minimum percentages among national

objectives, (ii) complex and recurrent reports, (iii) common indicators and (iv) alignment of

monitoring calendars.

Overall, direct and indirect management actions were deemed reasonable in terms of financial and

human resources.

Issues for future consideration:



The common monitoring and evaluation framework with relevant indicators should be

established at the beginning of the programming period addressing for example reporting

requirements.



The framework for jointly implemented projects, for example, in the area of common

consular cooperation should be better refined, addressing, for example, eligibility rules.

6.3 Simplification of management procedures and reduction of administrative

burden

Overall, the ISF-BV ensured clear progress was made towards simplifying procedures especially

regarding the programming phase. Stakeholders highlighted that multiannual programming enabled

emerging needs to be addressed throughout the seven-year timeframe and large investments to be

managed in the long term. This contributed to a reduction of administrative burden raised by the

annual implementation cycle. Administrative simplification also came from the introduction of the

simplified cost options, and particularly the flat rate calculation used with indirect costs, as well as

from the digitalisation of reporting and communication procedures.

However, the administrative burden is still perceived as high, as regards both the administrations

responsible for managing the funds and beneficiaries. The Common Monitoring and Evaluation

Framework was established too late, well after the projects had started. Monitoring, reporting, and

verification measures are still perceived as burdensome and Member States ask for clearer and more

detailed guidance to ease compliance with Commission requirements. Further guidance is also

needed to ensure a common definition of the simplified cost options that is perceived as positive but

is still not clear to beneficiaries, making them reluctant to use it.

As regards direct management, procedures showed to be suitable, clear, and transparent and do not

create additional burden to Member States or beneficiaries.

Issues for future consideration:



The common monitoring and evaluation framework with relevant indicators should be

established at the beginning of the programming period simplifying the processes and

calendars.

6.4

Relevance

The priorities and objectives set by Regulation (EU) 515/2014 as well as those within the annual

work programme of both EMAS and Union actions have proven to still be relevant and aligned to

current needs and problems. The types of needs identified during the programming stage did not

change significantly during the Fund’s implementation and no new need or priority emerged that

was not properly covered by the Fund. The main mechanisms identified to ensure the Fund’s

relevance included (i) the policy dialogue and the consultative method adopted during the

programming stage, (ii) the monitoring role played by both the responsible authority and by the

Monitoring Committee, (iii) the possibility to make budgetary adjustments and transfers, and

(iv) the mid-term review of the national programmes.

The interim evaluation also shows that the Fund’s scope is sufficiently broad to enable the

implementation of the necessary actions in the areas of external border management and the

common policy on visa.

Despite the evidence

gathered on the Fund’s relevance, it has been noted that more flexibility would

be needed as far as the national programmes’ implementation is concerned. The main issue was

found around the fragmentation of actions under multiple national objectives that prevented

resources being pooled around key priorities making the implementation of cross-objective projects

difficult. This has also led to an increased administrative burden as the Member States are required

to report on the implementation of cross-objective actions for each national objective concerned

with the action’s specific scope.

Issues for future consideration:



The Fund’s scope, which allows flexibility, should be maintained.



The fragmentation of national programmes under several objectives with minimum

percentages of funding should be reconsidered in order to increase flexibility.

6.5

Coherence and complementarity

Most assessments of other EU interventions carried out by Member States have taken place at the

programming stage in order to ensure coherence and complementarity with them. Most Member

States have also adopted different coordinating mechanisms at the implementation stage to ensure

coherence and complementarity with similar interventions carried out under other EU funds. These

mechanisms include interinstitutional exchange of information and cooperation among authorities

responsible for different EU funds and specific institutional arrangements to boost their

coordination and synergies. No overlapping has been found between the ISF-BV and national

interventions in the field of visa and borders. The design of the national programmes was based on a

thorough policy dialogue between the Commission and the Member States, taking account of key

needs and priorities as reported at the national level. Also, it has been claimed that the Monitoring

Committee and the Responsible Authority play a pivotal role in ensuring synergies and avoiding

overlaps between the ISF-BV and other EU instruments. They did this through regular cooperation

with other national institutions implementing other funds (incl. EU funds) and with counterparts in

other Member States to avoid any overlaps and double-funding.

As regards

direct management,

both EMAS and UAs show they are coherent with and

complementary to actions supported by other EU funds, actions supported by EU Agencies, and

other EMAS actions funded under the ISF-BV. No issues of overlapping between the ISF-BV’s

direct management instruments and other relevant national interventions have been found. EMAS

actions generally improve and complete interventions planned at national level and allow for

actions to be implemented on a larger scale.

Issues for future consideration:



As coherence and complementarity were ensured at the programming stage, in future

coordination should be intensified during implementation in order to ensure even better

coherence and complementarity between different types of actions.



The complementarity of emergency assistance with respective national programmes and

other EU programmes should be ensured from the start.

6.6

EU Added Value

The Fund’s increased cooperation among actors dealing with visa processing and border

management across the EU, improving the sharing of information and practices and contributing to

their harmonisation at the EU level. Furthermore, the Fund bolstered the interconnection of national

IT and information systems, both among the Member States and with EU systems. Training proved

to be a relevant mechanism to ensure the Fund’s EU added value since it supported

a common

understanding of visa and border issues and related management. Operating support allowed the

Member States to finance daily tasks and regular operating costs (i.e. staff, maintenance, repair

costs) on both border and visa management.

From a financial point of view, without a dedicated EU funding instrument in the areas covered by

ISF-BV, national funding would not have allowed the effective and efficient funding of the actions

planned. Actions would have been implemented with much more difficulty. They would not have

been implemented on the scale nor in the timeframe planned due to insufficient national resources.

A higher EU added value could have been expected in areas of consular cooperation, cooperation

with third countries and IT systems,

especially in light of the Fund’s objectives and related EU

commitment.

As regards direct management, without the resources provided by EMAS and UAs, national

funding on its own would have resulted in a much more difficult and smaller scale implementation,

with a lower general impact. The Fund’s main advantages entailed by these measures included

higher cooperation both across and within Member States, including the sharing of information,

know-how and good practices as well as better private-public collaboration. This allowed for a

prompt and efficient handling of migration flows and related emergencies.

Actions funded under indirect management consisted of allocating some resources to specific

bodies and institutions, which allowed them to extend the scope of their activities by

complementing Commission and national actions requiring a high level of expertise and knowledge.

This mechanism provided EU added value by strengthening existing synergies between

stakeholders at different levels (international, EU, Member States) and therefore developing a

coherent EU response to emerging challenges.

Issues for future consideration:



Support through ISF-BV and all its instruments should be continued which would send a

clear message on the importance of solidarity and cooperation between Member States in

order to manage the EU’s external borders effectively.

6.7

Sustainability

The majority of Member States did not report any evidence on the sustainability of projects. Some

Member States reported that they took care of sustainability in the programming stage, by

requesting beneficiaries to demonstrate their commitment to maintaining the projects even after the

ISF. According to the national evaluation reports, only five Member States committed to the

sustainability of the implemented actions.

Many ISF-BV actions are long-term actions by their nature, since they are generally designed to

remain operational beyond the Fund’s support (investments

in infrastructure, facilities, and IT

systems). ISF-BV-funded training sessions and cooperation mechanisms contributed to the

sustainability of actions through improving expertise, knowledge, and the qualifications of staff

involved in managing and implementing projects. In conclusion, the effects achieved through the

Fund’s

support are also expected to continue after the Fund has finished, relying greatly on future

EU funding and also national budgets to ensure the continuity of interventions and related impacts.

Under direct and indirect management, sustainability of actions depends on complementary EU,

national or other donor funding.

Issues for future consideration:



Sustainability, in terms of both financial sustainability and the effects of sustainability,

should be taken into account at the project design and selection stage.



Disseminating information and supporting the uptake of good practices by other projects

should further improve sustainability.

NNEX

1: P

ROCEDURAL INFORMATION

Leading Directorate-General

Participating

units

Commission

the Commission

the A2

—

Legal Affairs

—

Visa Policy and document security

—

Information Systems for Borders and Security

—

Border Management and Schengen

—

Union Actions

—

National programmes for south and east Europe,

evaluation, AMF/ISF Committee

—

National programmes for north and west Europe,

budget, MFF, agencies

Participating DGs in ISSG

Secretariat-General

DG BUDG

DG JUST

DG TAXUD

Legal base

According to Art. 57 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014, the

Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, to the

Council, to the European Economic and Social Committee

and to the Committee of the Regions an interim evaluation

report of ISF-BV at the level of the Union by 30 June 2018.

Roadmap approval

11 April 2017

Decide planning

PLAN/2017/891

Exceptions to the Better Regulation None noted

guidelines

External

consulting

firm Contract signed on 19 September 2017 with a consortium of:

specialised in evaluation



Ernst & Young Special Business Services (lead partner),

BE;



Centre for International Legal Cooperation, NL;



Rand Europa Community Interest Company, UK.

Number of inter-service steering 4 meetings as (last on: 8 March 2018)

group meetings

Last deliverable handed in

12 March 2018 (Final report for acceptance)

Approval of the final report by

Steering Group

Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) 11 April 2018

meeting

Resubmission of the SWD to the

RSB

NNEX

2: S

TAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

ISF-BV had a consultation strategy whose objective was to gather input from stakeholders

(evidence, data, as well as views and opinions) and ensure that all of them have the opportunity to

present their views to the Commission on how well the existing programmes have performed and

the extent to which they met the EU’s objectives in these areas. Stakeholders’ input was

sought to

provide the Commission with valuable insights on how well the current funds are performing,

including on the challenges related to the implementation.

The Commission services have worked on the future multiannual financial framework in clusters

setting up a streamlined consultation that covered both forward and backward looking questions on

the programmes. This open consultation, as provided for in the Better Regulation guidelines and the

interim evaluation’s consultation strategy, was meant for

the general public and was published for 8

weeks on the Commission’s portal

240

. 350 answers and 52 position papers have been received in

this context. No separate, specific open consultation for the mid-term evaluation was carried out.

Launching a specific consultation for the mid-term evaluations could have created confusion and

not provided much added value compared to the broader exercise.

Instead, a targeted consultation specific for the mid-term evaluation was carried-out, which

eventually was used to contextualise the findings. The questionnaires were aimed at the

beneficiaries of Union actions and EMAS and were made available in English, French and German.

This consultation only received input from 4 participants.

The results of this

targeted consultation

are reproduced below:



Of the 4 answers received, half (2) were from individuals answering in their professional capacity and

half (2) from respondents answering on behalf of their organisations. All 4 of these were from national

public authorities and have declared knowing very well ISF-BV because they have benefitted from its

funding.



The first part of the consultation concerned the importance of the specific objectives of ISF-BV for the

policy priorities in the Member States (absence of controls at internal borders, checks at external

borders, integrated management system for the external borders, better consular cooperation on visa

issuance, IT systems, situational awareness, Union aquis, copperation of Member States in third

countries and with third countries). The answers received are overwhelmingly consider very important

the ISF-BV objectives.



The second part of the consultation concerned the extent at which the actions financed by ISF-BV in the

Member States contribute to the Fund's objectives (absence of controls at internal borders, checks at

external borders, integrated management system for the external borders, better consular cooperation on

visa issuance, IT systems, situational awareness, Union aquis, copperation of Member States in third

countries and with third countries). The vast majority of answers consider that ISF-BV funded projects

do contribute to the development of the Fund's objectives (either to a great extent or fully). Only one

participant did not know how to answer in the following cases: absence of controls at internal borders,

IT systems, copperation of Member States in third countries and with third countries. Half of the

participants (2) did not know how to answer to the question regarding better consular cooperation on

visa issuance.



All respondents consider ISF-BV being able to address new and emerging needs and having a positive

influence on how Member States work with border management and Schengen visa processing.



Regarding the cooperation among Member States, respondents consider that ISF-BV's contribution was

positive in the area of borde management (4), and Schengen visa processing (2).



Regarding whether the EU policies would have been implemented without the support of ISF-BV,

240

http://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations_en



respondents are divided with half (2) considering it mostly likely in the area of border management and

half (2) unlikely, while the majority (3) considered likely in the area of Schengen visa processing.

Looking at ISF-BV so far, respondents did not know whether the Fund promotes new actions that were

not delivered in the Member States before in the area of borde management (2) and Schengen visa

processing (4 out of 4).

All respondents think that ISF-BV funded projects help beneficiaries to better support border

management, better protect external borders, better ensure the smooth crossing of borders, better tackle

illegal immigration and better facilitate the travel of third-country nationals.

Respondents were divided in who considered ISF-BV generally easier or much easier (3) to implement

compared to the previous programming period (SOLID) and who found it generally harder (1).

In what concerns the degree at which actions financed by ISF-BV are coherent with actions and projects

funded by national resources, all respondents were positive (4) in the field of border management and

half of them were positive in the field of Schengen visa processing (2) with the other halh not being able

to answer.

Regarding sustainability, respondents were divided into those who believe actions would continue at

least partially also in the absence of the EU financial support (2) and those who did not know whether

this would have happened (2). The same proportion was then reproduced regarding the achievement of

the objectives in the absence of ISF-BV

–

2 who consider that these could have been achieved and 2

who believe it would have not been possible.



This targeted consultation has complemented the interviews and an online consultation run in

parallel by the consultant, and the table below provides an overview of the response rate to this

latter. The results of all those consultations have been used to answer and contextualise the

answers to the evaluation questions.



This targeted consultation has complemented the interviews and an online consultation run in

parallel by the consultant, and the table below provides an overview of the response rate to this

latter. The results of all those consultations have been used to answer and contextualise the answers

to the evaluation questions.

Table 8: Overview of consultant's online survey respondents

N. Sent

Monitoring Committees

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

responsible authority and delegated authority

audit authority

EMAS beneficiaries/coordinator

UAs beneficiaries/coordinators

Multiannual programme beneficiaries

Experts

Total

167

110

396

Discarded

N. Completed

Source: ISF-BV Interim evaluation by EY

In addition to this, the evaluation reflected the results of a

forward-looking workshop

with

representatives of responsible authorities and the Member States evaluators. Its results are presented

below:

Participants: two representatives of the COM, three representatives of EY (EY, service provider

for the Interim Evaluation of the ISF-BV 2014-2017), representatives of nine Member States

and two Schengen Associated Countries.

Date: 30th November 2017.

Contribution of the ISF-BV to the harmonisation of visa processing/issuing and to the

effective implementation of an integrated border management

Visa processing

The Fund contributes to the establishment of an information-based decision-making, to the

development of instruments (an APP, in particular) that provide relevant information, and

enable sharing information with other MS. Visa application procedures have been externalised

to a specific Agency, managed under the national budget.

The Fund contributes to the delivery of training in foreign missions. Ministries of Foreign

Affairs have outsourced visa issuance service. The impact of training is hardly quantifiable, and

the available indicators are not fitting for purpose. In general, however, trainings have been

positively evaluated and staff’s skills have upgraded.

Some MS have not implemented any projects under this objective, but they are still interested in

putting in place some actions. They regret the limited capacity of beneficiaries to draft projects.

The main contribution of the Fund is the operating support, above all for the maintenance of

VIS. Despite the clear contribution of the Fund, there are issues concerning national capacity

that affect the Fund’s success. Embassies struggle to: i) design and manage projects under the

National Programme (above all on security issues); ii) manage EU funding - since they do not

have the skills to manage the financial implementation.

The main contribution of the Fund is the possibility to finance IT projects (VIS) and projects

concerning the deployment of visa experts for regional training in third countries. These are

important to implement

Union’s standards and to keep the staff up-to-date.

The visa application

service has been externalised. A project for the development of consulates not approved yet,

was considered too risky in terms of sustainability, due to constant changes.

Projects concerning: i) training on visa application for consular officials, visa specialists,

internal staff and for third countries representatives (located in third countries); ii) IT projects

for visa management (i.e. purchase of fingerprint scanners, renewal of computers to process

Schengen Visas).

Projects with different scope (i.e training, deployment of DVO). However, some externalities

are causing delays.



Implementation of integrated border management



Projects concerning the establishment of ABC gates and the deployment of ILOs, considering

both relevant eligible actions.



Projects concerning the deployment of ILOs, the purchase of equipment, and the development

of smart borders. ISF-BV also supports cooperation measures with third countries.



Since MS are required to comply with EU standard in the area of border management, the

contribution of the Fund has been mainly in the development of IT systems (i.e. SIS, ETIAS) -

for better collecting and using relevant information on border checks - smart borders

mechanism and training, in compliance with EU standards.

Experience with Specific Actions on consular cooperation and the purchase of means of

transport and operating equipment for the deployment during joint operations by the Frontex

Agency.



Specific Actions on consular cooperation, both as project lead and as participant, not able to

assess the current added-value of such actions. Despite the large sums of money provided, there

are issues of administrative burdens raising from national laws and regulations.



Issue of lack of additional funding for the management of specific actions.



Specific Actions for the development of Schengen Houses and CCM. Difficult to be

implemented, due to externalities and challenges related to the multinational management.



All countries agree on the fact that: i) multinational projects are difficult to be managed due to

different national eligibility and implementation rules. Suggestion that COM establishes

standard eligibility and expenditure rules; ii) additional funding should be provided for the

management of Specific Actions; iii) Specific Actions for FRONTEX equipment are easier to

be managed since they consist in procurement and purchase.

Key advantages and issues of the ISF-BV as compared to the previous fund.



There has been huge improvement compared to the EBF. Multiannual programming allows

more flexibility. However, the Fund should probably focus on fewer objectives with a broader

scope, without limiting the resources to narrowly defined objectives.



National objectives should be more focused.



Operating support is very useful in the area of borders management. Some don’t use operating

support on visa issues due to difficulties in project acquisition.

Administrative burden, if any.



Need to establish simplified procedures at Union level, also across programmes.



All countries agree on the fact that most administrative burden derives from national rules and

from heavy national procurement procedures.

Extent to which the effects of the ISF-BV actions are achieved at a reasonable cost in terms of

financial and human resources deployed.



Current costs are not effectively monitored by Responsible Authorities and COM, mainly due

to administrative burden.



Too early to draw conclusions on this, given the long duration of the projects.

Extent to which the Fund still covers needs and problems as evolved since its establishment in

2014.



According to all countries, nothing is missing in terms of priorities, since the scope of the Fund

is broad and can cover the Smart Border initiative. However, a discussion panel on border

management to address mid-term review may be needed.



Need to develop national implementation capacity, since many challenges derive from MS’s

lack of management capacity.



The area of competence of beneficiaries is limited, and thus they may be less interested in

implementing projects with a wider scope.



Sustainability measures.

All countries agree that ISF-BV projects are sustainable by nature. The main issues concern:

- the fact that staff turnover is very high and this entails the need to provide continuous training

schemes. Training is a sustainable action as information and material is shared.

- IT-related projects may be not sustainable, since technology develops fast.

Proposal to share a booklet of good practices to improve sustainability.

Coherence and complementarity. All countries agree on the need of mapping potential

overlapping and complementarity with other funds, during the designing phase of new financial

instruments. However, MS are not able to do this alone and suggest that COM could start a

mapping of all funding possibilities. Moreover, some countries suggest creating a network to

standardise different eligible costs under different funds.



Added- value brought about by the EU support, if any.



According to all countries, without the support of the Fund, actions depending on year-to-year

national budget would have been financed and put in place with a smaller scale and scope, and

later in time. ISF-BV stimulates a better management and acts as a good incentive to implement

relevant actions (i.e. smart borders, IT systems). In some cases, the Fund helps implementing

projects that bring benefits only on the long-term and thus are not a national political priority.

Main problems during or with the implementation, if any.



Regulations have been approved too late at the EU level. Implementing regulations were

actually not ready when approving some National Programmes. Some countries have set up a

specialized unit on EU funding to effectively manage the allocated resources.



Some have set up a specialised bureau of border guards with expertise in EU project

management. This had a very positive impact on the Fund’s implementation.



The same staff members and beneficiaries are often engaged in overlapping issues and tasks,

creating implementation delays.

Measures put in place to prevent, detect, report and follow-up on cases of fraud and other

irregularities, if any.



No country present at the workshop has put in place special methods and measures to prevent,

detect, and report frauds.

NNEX

3: C

OST

BENEFIT ANALYSIS

The following table analyses the costs incurred by the various actors involved in

implementing ISF-BV, the target group, the beneficiaries, the national administrations and the

EU. These costs vary from the administrative/indirect or compliance costs for the

beneficiaries, to the administrative costs or technical assistance for the RAs, to the actual

financial costs for the EU and to the human resources costs for all of the above. The analyses

made were both qualitative and quantitative (including monetary analyses).

Table 11: Overview of costs associated with the ISF-BV

Target Group

n/a

Beneficiaries

Admin

EMAS and UAs, as well as indirect management actions have been achieved at reasonable financial costs.

Most beneficiaries of EMAS and UAs consider the overall funding and administrative costs to be appropriate,

as were the number of staff involved in the implementation.

The procedures applicable to EMAS and UAs are simpler and quicker compared to shared management, and

they allow for prompt and suitable interventions. This is particularly relevant in the case of EMAS, since

national budgets are often shown not to be adequate to cope with emergencies.

In terms of allocations, most beneficiaries consider the overall funding to be adequate, also because it is

possible to ask for amendments to the grant agreements. Moreover, procurement procedures represent one

of the main components that ensure the efficient achievement of results, since they allow the most

economical offers to be selected

—

complying with tender specifications, timeliness of deliveries, and

other relevant factors.

Direct management: EUR 414 million (planned)

—

EUR 271 million (allocated)

—

EUR 17 million (spent).

Indirect management: EUR 12 million (planned)

—

EUR 9.5 million (allocated)

—

EUR 0 million (spent).

By 31 December 2016, Member States had spent a total amount of EUR 3.7 million overall out of the total of

EUR 62 million, with the payment rate at 0.13 % and an implementation rate of 6 %.

The complexity and recurrence of reporting requirements entail implementation delays and administrative

burden; according to several Member States, compared to the previous programming period, reporting

requirements have considerably increased.

TA costs and administrative costs of projects increased between 2015 and 2016, with a low decrease in 2017.

According to available data (11 out of 30 Member States): 2015 EUR 1.17 million (ratio=1.16); 2016

EUR 6.78 million (ratio= 0.7); and 2017 EUR 6.68 million (ratio= 1.48).

The Fund is efficient as regards the deployment of human resources. Some concerns emerged regarding the

lack of knowledge, expertise, and capacity of professionals involved at national level in managing and

implementing the Fund.

On average, 7.08 FTEs have been involved in implementing the Fund and are paid through TA or national

budgets, with remarkable differences between the different Member States. Overall, considering the

average number of projects implemented by 2017 (12.84), an average of 0.55 FTEs were engaged per

project.

Considering the ratio FTEs (average)/ amount of the funds claimed for the financial year (average), 0.5 FTEs

have been involved per EUR 1 million for the implementing ISF-BV. In this regard, there has been a

significant decrease over the years, dropping from an average of 1.35 FTEs in 2014, to 0.72 in 2016, with a

further decrease in 2017. On average, according to available data (11 out of 30 Member States) compared

to 2016, the costs for FTEs have decreased by 0.2 % (EUR -222 198 per million); compared to 2015, the

costs for FTEs have decreased by 0.3 % (EUR -854 935 per million).

National administrations

European Union

Budget

The total value of ISF-BV (EUR 2 609 million), although considerable, represents a small fraction of the total

Commit

EU budget. By comparison, the total value of the AMIF is considerably higher (EUR 6 888 million).

Payments Looking into each implementation mechanism individually: shared management shows a total payment rate

of 6.38 %; direct management shows a total payment rate of 6.12 % (EMAS: 5.93 %; UAs; 0.19 %); and

indirect management shows a total payment rate of 81 %. Therefore, both shared and direct management

do not appear to be on track to being fully used. Payments made so far amount to: shared management

EUR 178 million; direct management: EUR 171 million; and indirect management: EUR 8 million.

The number of FTEs dedicated to implementing the ISF (both Borders and Visa and Police) has increased

over the period 2014-2017 as well as the related costs. Specifically, in 2014 144 FTEs were involved

(including 22 external personnel) out of a total of 322 the Commission staff. There has been a significant

increase in this figure over recent years, rising from 153 FTEs (including 26 external personnel) in 2015

(out of a total of 454 the Commission staff), to 162 (including 27 external personnel) in 2016 (out of a total

of 480 the Commission staff). There was a further increase in 2017, with a total number of 187 FTEs

(including 32 external personnel), out of a total of 555 the Commission staff.

Total costs: EUR 68 million.

Costs related to HR dedicated to implementing the ISF have increased. Specifically, in 2014 costs amounted

to EUR 17.6 million (including EUR 1.6 million for external personnel). There has been a significant

increase over recent years, rising from EUR 18.7 million (including EUR 2 million for external personnel)

in 2015, to EUR 20 million (including EUR 2 million for external personnel) in 2016. In 2017, total costs

currently stand at EUR 12 million, calculated as 50 % of total annual cost as the interim evaluation only

covers the period up to 30 June 2017.

The following table analyses the benefits gained by the various actors involved in

implementing ISF-BV, the target group, the beneficiaries, the national administrations and the

EU. These benefits vary from intangible such as knowledge developed or capacity built to

tangible such as financial support. The analyses made are both qualitative and quantitative

(including monetary).

Table 12: Overview of benefits brought by ISF-BV during 2015-2017

Visa management

—

supports a common visa policy to (i) facilitate legitimate travel, a high quality

of service to visa applicants as well as equal treatment of third-country nationals, and (ii) tackle

illegal migration. Benefits: tangible (financial) and intangible (knowledge)

Target Group

Number of uniform visas issued: 13 860 218

Number of uniform Schengen visas issued at BCPs: 99 473

Number of uniform visas applied for in consulates: 15 003 765

Number of uniform visas issued in consulates: 13 760 693, which, includes the issuing of multiple entry uniform visas:

8 121 701; and of long-term visas: 95 759

Number of uniform visas not issued in consulates: 1 034 248

Beneficiaries

The Fund contributed towards the achievement of a common visa policy. It helped to facilitate legitimate travel across

Europe, by co-financing projects aimed at strengthening the national capacity, ensuring the refurbishment of premises

used for visa issuance and the procurement of security equipment for consular representations in third countries. The

Fund helped to ensure the correct and uniform application of the EU’s

acquis

on visa, indirectly through projects

pursuing other objectives. Moreover, the Fund contributed to consular harmonisation through measures aimed at

improving the exchange of information and practices. Specifically, the establishment and operation of IT systems, with

particular regard to national Visa Information System, ensured efficient and smoother visa processing and made it

possible to deal with the changing technical/legal requirements of the common visa policy, including the introduction of

digital passports and related compliance checks. The development of a common visa policy was also supported through

training for consular officials, police, Ministry of Interior officials and border guard officials.

Number of consular cooperation activities developed with the Fund’s help: 4.

number of staff trained in aspects related to the common visa policy with the Fund’s help: 2

240.

National administrations

Setting up of administrative structures and training for staff and relevant stakeholders

Number of consulates developed or upgraded with the Fund’s help: 156

Number of specialised posts in third countries (immigration liaison officers) supported by the Fund: 105

Hours of training courses in aspects related to the common visa policy with the Fund’s help: 756

European Union

Support Border Management

241

Section 6.3 (Section answering evaluation questions).

strengthened integrated border management;

uniform and high level of control and protection of external borders; and

smooth crossing of the external borders in conformity with the Schengen

acquis.

Benefits: tangible (financial support to Member States authorities and provision of services to) and

intangible (increased knowledge and awareness).

Target Group

Beneficiaries

The Fund contributed towards an integrated border management. Although many Member States did not implement any

actions specifically aimed at abolishing all checks on people crossing internal borders, interventions co-financed by the

Fund have in any case indirectly contributed to this objective. ISF-BV actions were aimed at boosting the border

management capacity to prevent cross-border crime and irregular migration, through introducing Automated Border

Control systems and the Public Key Directory, and using modern technical equipment for border surveillance such as (i)

engineering appliances and the TETRA communication system; (ii) document verification devices; (iii) mobile

scanning vehicles; (iv) mobile application for carrying out border checks and the purchasing of document readers for

portable border control devices; and (v) introducing biometric data. The Fund also helped to strengthen solidarity and

responsibility towards an integrated external borders management system by means of cooperation among Member

States, including interventions under EUROSUR, and between Member States and Frontex. Moreover, the Fund

supported the application of the EU’s

acquis

by co-financing training activities and programmes, which helped to

improve the technical, operational, and even linguistic skills of staff responsible for border management. In addition,

the Fund supported border management through adopting interoperable modern technologies in line with EU standards.

Number of border crossings of the external borders through ABC gates supported through the Fund: 18 782 556

Number of incidents reported by Member States to the European Situational Picture: 7 104

Number of staff trained in aspects related to border management with the Fund’s help: 2

760 out of the 29 678 expected by

national programmes

National administrations

Setting up of administrative structures and training for staff and relevant stakeholders.

Number of border control (checks and surveillance) infrastructure and tools developed or upgraded with the Fund’s help:

1 414.

Number of national border surveillance infrastructure established/further developed under EUROSUR: 4.

Number of training courses in aspects related to border management with the help of the Fund: 105 training hours

—

out

of the 332 772 expected by national programmes.

European Union

Emergency situation

—

support Member States in substantiated emergency situations requiring

urgent action.

Benefits: improved operational capacities; means of transport, infrastructure, operating equipment

and IT systems for better border management; support to staff, maintenance and repair costs;

linguistic and intercultural mediation services.

Target Group

Beneficiaries

EMAS actions are considered to be effective measures which can create positive impacts overall and enable actions to be

implemented promptly and effectively in response to emergency situations. This is due to the presence of beneficiaries

with high levels of competencies and expertise.

EUR 256 million (planned resources)

—

EUR 245 million (allocated)

—

EUR 165.6 million (spent). Payment rate:

5.93 %.

45 EMAS actions put in place including those aimed at:



improving operational capacities (27);



purchasing means of transport, infrastructure, operating equipment and IT systems for a better border management (8);



supporting staff, maintenance and repair costs (7); and



improving linguistic and intercultural mediation services (3).

National administrations

European Union

NNEX

4: E

VALUATION QUESTIONS

Effectiveness

How did the Internal Security Fund (‘Fund’) contribute to the achievement of the general

objective defined in the Regulation (EU) No 515/2014?

How did the Fund contribute to the achievement of the following specific objectives: Support

a common visa policy to facilitate legitimate travel; Provide a high quality of service to visa

applicants; Ensure equal treatment of third-country nationals and Tackle illegal migration?



What progress was made towards promoting the development and implementation of

the common visa policy to facilitate legitimate travel, and how did the Fund contribute

to achieving this progress?



What progress was made towards ensuring better consular coverage and harmonised

practices on visa issuance between Member States, and how did the Fund contribute to

achieving this progress?



What progress was made towards ensuring the application of the Union’s

acquis

visas and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?



What progress was made towards Member States’ contribution to strengthening the

cooperation between Member States operating in third countries as regards the flows

of third-country national into the territory of Member States, including prevention and

tackling of illegal immigration, as well as the cooperation with third countries, and

how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?



What progress was made towards supporting the common visa policy by setting up

and running IT systems, their communication infrastructure and equipment, and how

did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress?



How did the operating support provided for in Article 10 of the Regulation (EU) No

515/2014 contribute to the achievement of the specific objective on common visa

policy?

How did the Fund contribute to supporting integrated border management, including

promoting further harmonisation of border management-related measures in accordance with

common Union standards and through the sharing of information between Member States,

and between Member States and the European Agency for the Management of Operational

Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union? How did

the Fund contribute to ensuring, on one hand, a uniform and high level of control and

protection of external borders, including by tackling illegal immigration; on the other hand,

the smooth crossing of the external borders in conformity with the Schengen acquis, while

guaranteeing access to international protection for those needing it, in accordance with the

obligations contracted by the Member States in the field of human rights, including the

principle of non-refoulement?



What progress was made towards promoting the development, implementation and

enforcement of policies with a view to ensure the absence of any controls on persons

when crossing the internal borders, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this

progress?



What progress was made towards carrying out checks on persons and monitoring

efficiently the crossing of external borders, and how did the Fund contribute to

achieving this progress?



What progress was made towards gradually establishing an integrated management

system for external borders, based on solidarity and responsibility, and how did the

Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

What progress was made towards ensuring the application of the Union’s

acquis

border management, and how did the fund contribute to achieving this progress?

What progress was made towards contributing to reinforcing situational awareness at

the external borders and the reaction capabilities of Member States, and how did the

Fund contribute to achieving this progress?

What progress was made towards setting up and running IT systems, their

communication infrastructure and equipment that support border checks and border

surveillance at the external borders, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this

progress?

How did the operating support provided for in Article 10 of the Regulation

No 515/2014 contribute to the achievement of the specific objective on border

management?

Efficiency

Were the results of the Fund achieved at reasonable cost?



To what extent were the expected results of the Fund achieved at reasonable cost in

terms of deployed financial and human resources?



What measures were put in place to prevent, detect, report and follow-up on cases of

fraud and other irregularities, and how did they perform?

Simplification and reduction of administrative burden

Were the management procedures of the Fund simplified and the administrative burden

reduced for its beneficiaries?



Did the innovative procedures introduced by the Fund (simplified cost option,

multiannual programming, national eligibility rules, more comprehensive national

programmes allowing for flexibility, operating support and Special Transit Scheme for

Lithuania) lead to simplification for the beneficiaries of the Fund?

Relevance

Did the objectives of the interventions funded by the Fund correspond to the actual needs?



Did the objectives set by Member States in their national programmes respond to

identified needs?

Which measures did Member State put in place to address changing needs?

Coherence

Were the objectives set in the national programme coherent with the ones set in other

programmes funded by EU resources and applying to similar areas of work? Was the

coherence ensured also during the implementation of the Fund?



Was an assessment of other interventions with similar objectives carried out and taken

into account during the programming stage?



Were coordination mechanisms between the Fund and other interventions with similar

objectives established to ensure their complementarity for the implementing period?



Were the actions implemented through the Fund coherent with and non-contradictory

to other interventions with similar objectives?



Do the Fund’s different instruments (national programmes, TA, UAs, EMAS) support

each other?

Complementarity

Were the objectives set in the national programme and the corresponding implemented

actions complementary to those set in the framework of other policies

—

in particular those

pursued by the Member State?



Was an assessment of other interventions with complementary objectives carried out

and taken into account during the programming stage?



Were coordination mechanisms between the Fund and other interventions with similar

objectives established to ensure their complementarity for the implementing period?



Were mechanisms aimed to prevent overlapping of financial instruments put in place?

EU Added Value

Was any EU added value brought about by the EU support?



What are the main types of added value resulting from the support of the Fund

(volume, scope, role, process)?



Would the Member State have carried out the actions required to implement the EU

policies in the areas supported by the Fund without its financial support?



What would be the most likely consequences of an interruption of the support

provided by the Fund?



To which extent have actions supported by the Fund resulted in a benefit at the Union

level?



What was the EU added value of the operating support?

Sustainability

Are the positive effects of the projects supported by the Fund likely to last when its support

will be over?



What were the main measures adopted by the Member State to ensure the

sustainability of the results of the projects implemented with support of the Fund (both

at programming and implementation stage)?

Were mechanisms put in place to ensure a sustainability check at programming and

implementation stage?



To what extent are the outcomes/benefits of the actions sustained by the Fund

expected to continue thereafter?

What measures were adopted to ensure the continuity of the activities carried out thanks to the

operating support?

