Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0473
Offentligt
1910340_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Strasbourg, 12.6.2018
SWD(2018) 347 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing
the Asylum and Migration Fund
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing
the Internal Security Fund
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing,
as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the instrument for financial
support for border management and visa
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing,
as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the instrument for financial
support for customs control equipment
{COM(2018) 471} - {COM(2018) 472} - {COM(2018) 473} - {COM(2018) 474} -
{SWD(2018) 348} - {SEC(2018) 315}
EN
EN
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
Table of contents
1
INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 1
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
Scope and context .............................................................................................. 1
Scope of the Impact Assessment ............................................................................. 1
Policy context in the areas of asylum and migration, borders and customs control
equipment, and security ........................................................................................... 2
Policy response ........................................................................................................ 4
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
2
Lessons learned from previous programmes ................................................... 10
Key findings from evaluations of previous programmes ...................................... 10
Consultation activities ........................................................................................... 14
THE CHALLENGES .......................................................................................................................... 15
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3
The main challenges to be addressed in the post-2020 MFF .......................... 15
Enhancing flexibility within a stable framework ............................................ 15
Further simplifying the rules for implementing EU Funds ............................. 16
Ensuring more coherence and synergies between actions supported by
EU funding instruments ................................................................................... 17
Achieving the highest level of EU added value with a focus on
performance ..................................................................................................... 18
The EU’s right to act and the necessity for the EU to act
............................... 18
Architecture of the Funds: the Asylum and Migration Fund, the
Integrated Border Management Fund and the Internal Security Fund ............ 20
Asylum and Migration Fund ................................................................................. 20
Integrated Border Management Fund .................................................................... 22
Internal Security Fund ........................................................................................... 24
ARCHITECTURE OF THE FUNDS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................ 18
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.3
4
Coherence and complementarities with other EU funding instruments .......... 26
Enhancing flexibility within a stable framework ............................................ 34
Implementation modalities .................................................................................... 35
The thematic facility .............................................................................................. 39
Emergency assistance ............................................................................................ 41
A strengthened mid-term review of national programmes .................................... 42
Use of financial instruments .................................................................................. 44
DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING ...................................................... 34
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
Further simplifying the rules for implementing EU Funds ............................. 45
Common provisions for shared management ........................................................ 46
Simplification of the rules applicable to direct management ................................ 48
4.3
The need for an adequate level of funding ...................................................... 48
II
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
5
HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?....................................... 50
5.1
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
Practical arrangements of the evaluation: when and by whom ....................... 50
Monitoring indicators ...................................................................................... 51
Core performance indicators for the Asylum and Migration Fund ....................... 51
Core performance indicators for Integrated Border Management Fund
–
Border
Management and Visa Instrument ......................................................................... 52
Core performance indicators for the Integrated Border Management Fund
–
Customs Control Equipment ................................................................................. 52
Core performance indicators for the Internal Security Fund ................................. 52
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 54
1
2
3
4
LEAD DG(S), DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES ............................................................. 54
ORGANISATION AND TIMING...................................................................................................... 54
CONSULTATION OF THE RSB....................................................................................................... 54
EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY......................................................................................... 56
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION....................................................................................... 57
ANNEX 3: HOME AFFAIRS FUNDS IN THE 2007-2013 AND 2014-2020 MULTIANNUAL
FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 69
ANNEX 4: DELINEATION OF INTERVENTIONS IN THE POST-2020 MULTIANNUAL
FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 81
ANNEX 5: OBJECTIVES OF THE FUNDS ............................................................................................... 90
ANNEX 6: OVERALL DESIGN OF THE NEW CUSTOMS CONTROL EQUIPMENT
COMPONENT .................................................................................................................................... 96
ANNEX 7: PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THE MID-TERM REVIEW ...................................... 98
III
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0004.png
Glossary
Term or acronym
AFIS
AMF
AMIF
ANPRS
BCP
BMVI
C2020
CAP
CBRN-E
CCE
CELBET
Meaning or definition
Automated Fingerprint Identification System
Asylum and Migration Fund (2021-2027 programming period)
Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (2014-2020 programming period)
Automated Number Plate/container number Recognition System
Border Crossing Point
Border Management and Visa Instrument
Customs 2020 Programme, as established by Regulation (EU) No 1294/2013
Common Agricultural Policy
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive materials
Customs Control Equipment
Customs Eastern and South-Eastern Land Border Expert Team, an expert team
established under the C2020 programme and aimed at increasing collaboration at the
Union’s
external land frontier by pooling expertise from 11 MS for strengthening and
improving operational cooperation between customs authorities and with border
guards and in particular at mapping available and missing customs equipment for all
BCPs.
Cohesion Fund
Programme "Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism
and other Security related risks"
Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
Development Cooperation Instrument
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
European Asylum Support Office
European Border and Coast Guard Agency
External Borders Fund
European Criminal Records Information Exchange System
European Cybercrime Centre
Entry / Exit System
European Fisheries Control Agency
European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
European Multidisciplinary Platform against Criminal Threats
CF
CIPS
CMEF
DCI
EAFRD
EASO
EBCGA
EBF
ECRIS
EC3
EES
EFCA
EIF
EMFF
EMPACT
IV
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0005.png
EMSA
EPPO
ERDF
ERF
ESF
ESI
ESIF
ETIAS
EU
EUTF
EUROSUR
EUIPO
Eurodac
Eurojust
Europol
eu-LISA
Hercule
European Maritime Safety Agency
European Public Prosecutor’s Office
European Regional Development Fund
European Refugee Fund
European Social Fund
Emergency Support Instrument
European Structural and Investment Funds
European Travel Information and Authorisation System
European Union
European Union Emergency Trust Fund
European Border Surveillance system
European Union Intellectual Property Office
EU asylum fingerprint database
European Agency for judicial cooperation
European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation
European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT Systems in the
area of freedom, security and justice
The Hercule programmes protect the Union's financial interests by supporting action
to combat irregularities, fraud and corruption affecting the Union budget. They are
administered by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
Integrated Border Management Fund
Programme "Prevention of and fight against Crime"
Internal Security Fund
Information Technology
Joint Investigation Team
Multiannual Financial Framework
Non-Governmental Organisation
Organised Crime Group
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
Passenger Name Records
Radicalisation Awareness Network
Regional Development and Protection Programme
European Return Fund
Schengen Evaluation mechanism
Secure Information Exchange Network Application
IBMF
ISEC
ISF
IT
JIT
MFF
NGO
OCG
OECD
PNR
RAN
RDPP
RF
Scheval
SIENA
V
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0006.png
SIS
SRSP
Schengen Information System
The Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP) is an EU programme that provides
tailor-made support to all EU countries for their institutional, administrative and
growth-enhancing reforms. The SRSP is coordinated by the European Commission's
Structural Reform Support Service (SRSS).
World Trade Organisation (WTO) Trade Facilitation Agreement, WTO Agreement on
Trade Facilitation WT/ MIN (13) / W/ 8, 6 December 2013, entered into force in
2017.
General Programme
“Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows”
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Universal Message Format
Visa Information System
TFA
SOLID
TFEU
UMF
VIS
VI
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0007.png
1
1.1
I
NTRODUCTION
: P
OLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
Scope and context
Scope of the Impact Assessment
1.1.1
On 2 May 2018, the European Commission adopted its proposals for a new Multiannual
Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027
1
. The
Reflection paper on the future of EU
finances
2
states that the post-2020 MFF needs to budget migration management, internal
and external security, external border control, the fight against terrorism and defence
within a longer-term perspective. The size, structure and content of the future budget of
the European Union (EU) will have to correspond to the political ambition that the Union
sets itself for the future.
In the 2014-2020 programming period, the Union budget has underpinned the European
response to the refugee crisis and to the threat of organised crime and terrorism. The
funding initially earmarked for migration and security was increased to address the
migration and security challenges.
The two key EU Funds addressing migration and security are the Asylum, Migration and
Integration Fund (AMIF)
3
and the Internal Security Fund (ISF)
4
; other Funds, notably the
external Funds and the European Structural and Investment Funds, have also supported
Member States as well as partner organisations to deal with the comprehensive approach
on migration that the Commission has put in place.
This Impact Assessment report reflects the decisions of the MFF proposals and focuses
on the changes and policy choices which are specific to the Commission proposals for
the successors to these Funds in the post-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework.
Current Funds are taken as the baseline and the options for the future are assessed against
the outcomes of both the ex-post evaluation of the Home Affairs Funds in the 2007-2013
programming period and the interim evaluations of AMIF and ISF as well as the changed
migratory and security context. Moreover, it is in line with the principles of reform for
the post-2020 Union budget, as set out in the
Reflection paper on the future of EU
finances.
The migration, borders and security cluster
5
will be covered by four instruments under
three Funds: the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the
Integrated Border Management Fund (with a Border Management and Visa component
and a Customs Control Equipment component). Due to the Treaty provisions that apply
to the home affairs area, regarding the Schengen
acquis
and the protocols on the
1
2
3
4
5
COM(2018) 321.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/reflection-paper-future-eu-finances_en
Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of 16 April 2014 (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 68).
Regulation (EU) No 513/2014 of 16 April 2014 (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 143) and Regulation (EU) No
515/2014 of 16 April 2014 (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 143).
Covered by heading 4 "Migration and Border Management" and heading 5 "Security and Defence". Heading
5 also covers defence and crisis response.
1
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0008.png
positions of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark, the creation of the Funds
requires the adoption of four separate legislative instruments.
The creation of a new instrument dedicated to customs control equipment will support
the management of the external borders of the Union. Dealing with goods (as opposed to
persons) and the protection of the financial interests of the Union and its Member States,
Customs Union and customs cooperation are different areas of EU intervention than
security and border management under the Treaties, subject to dedicated Union
legislation and a specific EU action programme
6
.
Nevertheless, under a new Integrated Border Management, the strong operational
connections between border control and customs control and the fact that both take place
at
the Union’s
external borders, can be underpinned with enhanced funding linkages,
especially as regards customs equipment. Whereas the current Customs programme, as
the main or only means of customs financing at Union level, allows funding for
cooperation, IT systems as well as administrative capacity building of the national
customs administrations, it did not provide means to fund customs detection and control
equipment. Other EU instruments (Hercule
7
, the Structural Reform Support Programme
and the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)) only marginally support
funding of such equipment. As a new instrument, the customs control equipment (CCE)
component is subject to different considerations than AMIF and ISF, but it may also
benefit from experience gained in these areas over the recent years and vice versa.
The MFF proposals for the 2021-2027 programming period indicate that the Asylum and
Migration Fund is proposed to have a budget of EUR 10.415 billion, the Integrated
Border Management Fund a budget of EUR 9.318 billion (of which EUR 8.018 billion
for its Border Management and Visa component and EUR 1.3 billion for its Customs
Control Equipment component) and the Internal Security Fund a budget of EUR 2.5
billion
8
.
This Impact Assessment meets the requirements of the Financial Regulation
9
in respect
of preparing an ex-ante evaluation.
1.1.2 Policy context in the areas of asylum and migration, borders and customs control
equipment, and security
Over the past three years,
migratory challenges have increased.
Flows in the EU have
evolved greatly. The number of irregular arrivals to the Union in the wake of the
migratory crisis has been unprecedented
10
, posing a serious challenge to the systems of
Member States in the area of reception, asylum and migration and the proper functioning
6
7
8
9
10
COM(2018) 442.
The only existing EU instrument which finances the purchase of customs equipment, among other activities,
is the Hercule III Programme, whose main objective is to fight fraud affecting the financial interests of the
EU. Although the equipment made available to the customs administrations under Hercule III has had a
positive impact on the protection of the EU's financial interests, its specific focus and rather limited financial
envelope do not meet the wider requirements of customs administrations.
Expressed in current prices.
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1).
More than 1.8 million irregular border crossings detected in 2015 (Risk analysis data of the European Border
and Coast Guard Agency (EBCGA)).
2
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0009.png
of the Schengen area. The number of asylum applications was approximately 5.6 times
higher in 2016 (1 260 910) than in 2008 (225 150, Eurostat). It decreased in 2017 (704
630) but remains at substantially higher level than the average of the pre-crisis years.
Member States at the external borders of the Union, Greece and Italy in particular, have
been mostly affected by the reception of migrants upon their immediate arrival, while
Germany, Hungary, Italy, Sweden, France and Austria received the highest number of
asylum applications in 2015 and 2016
11
.
Eurostat statistics on return and asylum show that with approximately 2.6 million asylum
applications in 2015 and 2016 combined, and considering that the first instance
recognition rate stands at 47% in 2017, over one million people may need to be returned
once their asylum applications have been processed. On the other hand, return rates at
Union level have not yet been improving to the extent necessary (46.3% in 2016).
The number of non-EU nationals arriving to the EU via legal pathways is set to increase
in the future. Statistics show that the EU is already facing significant labour and skills
shortages in key sectors
12
. The EU's working age population is also declining, making
migration an increasingly important way to enhance the sustainability of social security
systems and to support growth, but also requiring immediate and long-term integration
support.
Data related to the situation at the external border also illustrate the changing of
paradigms relating to
border management
as the total number of irregular border
crossings between Border-Crossing Points (BCPs) increased from 282 933 crossings in
2014 to 1 822 177 in 2015 and 511 371 in 2016
13
.
The number of visa applications processed by Member States has increased considerably.
The number of visas processed in 2017 was 16.1 million, representing a 50% increase
compared to 2009 (11 million).
With 2 140 customs offices
14
that need to be equipped to implement the common
customs legislation,
customs control equipment
funding is a long-standing political
issue within the Customs Union. Member States have repeatedly expressed the need for
financial support and requested an in-depth analysis of the equipment needed. In its
conclusions on customs funding on 23 March 2017, the Council invited the Commission
to "evaluate
the possibility of funding technical equipment needs from future Commission
financial programmes and improve coordination and
[…]
cooperation between Customs
Authorities and other law enforcement authorities for funding purposes".
Terrorism as well as the evolving threats linked to organised crime and cybercrime
are critical challenges for the EU and its Member States,
attacking its values as well
as its social and economic model. In the period 2014-2016, a total of 554 failed, foiled or
11
12
13
14
DE: 1 221 665 applicants (total for 2015 and 2016), HU: 206 565 applicants, IT: 206 500 applicants, SE: 191
240 applicants, FR: 160 435 applicants and AT: 130 415 applicants.
A potential shortfall of around 1 million workers is estimated by 2020 in the health sector, rising up to 2
million if long term care and ancillary professions are taken into account.
Risk Analysis data from the EBCGA.
Annex of the Annual 2016 Report of the Customs Union Performance.
3
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0010.png
completed terrorist attacks were reported in the EU, and 294 people died. The scale and
the flow of European citizens who have radicalised and/or joined terrorist groups in
conflict zones, in particular in Syria, Iraq and Libya, as well as the networked nature of
these conflicts, are unprecedented
15
.
Furthermore, serious and organised cross-border crime has been finding new avenues to
operate in the EU and new ways to escape detection. More than 5 000 Organised Crime
Groups (OCGs) would be operating in the EU in 2017, compared to 3 600 in 2013
16
.
Finally, cybercrime is an ever-growing threat. On average, globally more than 4 000
ransomware attacks have occurred daily since the beginning of 2016, representing a
300% increase compared to 2015. Studies suggest that the economic impact of
cybercrime increased by 500% from 2013 to 2017, and is projected to rise significantly
by 2019
17
. Threats such as those posed by cyberterrorism and hybrid threats could also
increase in the years to come.
1.1.3 Policy response
Migration and security being at the top of the political agenda, the
Union’s response has
been swift and comprehensive, formulated in the Agendas for Migration
18
and Security
19
adopted in 2015.
The
Agenda on Migration,
as confirmed by the regular reports on its delivery
20
, has set
out actions to reduce the incentives for irregular migration, efforts to save lives and
secure the external borders of the Union, actions supporting a strong common asylum
policy and supporting a new policy on legal migration. The continuous implementation
of the EU-Turkey Statement
21
, the Partnership Framework
22
and the joint actions taken
on the Central Mediterranean route have brought the number of arrivals down by almost
30% compared to 2014, before the crisis. The management of the external borders of the
Union has taken a major step forward with the hotspot approach
23
, where Union
Agencies (most notably the reinforced European Border and Coast Guard Agency
(EBCGA)
24
, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and the European Union
Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)) work together in a coordinated
manner to manage exceptional migratory flows.
More than two years on, the EU relocation scheme
25
is successfully coming to an end. To
date, more than 96% of all eligible applicants registered have been relocated from Italy
and Greece with almost all Member States contributing. The EU resettlement scheme
adopted in July 2015 was also successfully completed in 2017 (19 432 vulnerable
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Europol
–
EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Reports 2015, 2016 and 2017.
Europol
–
European Union Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2017.
Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the United States Department of Justice (2016).
COM(2015) 240.
COM(2015) 185.
COM(2017) 558, COM(2018) 250 and COM(2018) 301.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/
COM(2016) 385.
As outlined in the European Agenda on Migration (COM(2015) 240).
Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of 14 September 2016.
Council Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and 2015/1601.
4
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0011.png
persons resettled to Europe) and resettlements under the EU-Turkey Statement continue.
A new resettlement scheme was launched in September 2017 for at least 50 000 refugees,
with a particular focus on refugees on the Central Mediterranean route and those
displaced by the conflict in Syria. At the same time, progress is being made in improving
cooperation on return with countries of origin, while the Commission also proposed
stricter conditions for processing visas when a partner country does not cooperate
sufficiently on readmission.
In order to consolidate these positive trends, the Commission has launched a reform of
the Common European Asylum System, with a solidarity component in the Dublin
system
26
and a proposal to establish a permanent Union resettlement framework
27
, under
negotiation. The Action plan on the integration of third-country nationals
28
and the
Renewed Action plan promoting an effective return policy in the European Union
29
were
launched in 2016 and 2017 respectively.
The Commission has also made proposals on legal migration, with the revision of the
Blue Card Directive under negotiation
30
, and is carrying out an evaluation of the legal
migration framework to identify weaknesses as well as possible ways of simplifying and
streamlining it.
The interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) showed
that EU funding, being part of the policy response, contributed to policy results and
provided added value. Despite their relatively small size in comparison with the
challenges raised by the crisis, EU Funds have had an added value by supporting actions
with a transnational dimension, boosting national capacities and optimising procedures
related to migration management, and enhancing solidarity and responsibility sharing
between Member States, in particular through emergency assistance and the relocation
mechanism.
EU added value of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund
By the beginning of 2017, AMIF supported the creation of almost
7 500
additional places
in reception centres, and provided assistance to
814 000
asylum applicants and
beneficiaries of international protection. With the help of emergency assistance, shelter
has been provided to
35 000
people in Greece, including more than 400 safe places for
unaccompanied minors.
More than 32 000 persons were resettled and more than
34 000
persons have been
relocated from Italy and Greece
31
.
Integration assistance was also provided to more than
1 400 000
third-country nationals
32
.
The added value of support through AMIF relied also on the synergies and
complementarities achieved with the European Structural and Investment Funds
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
COM(2016) 270.
COM(2016) 468.
COM(2016) 377.
COM(2017) 200.
COM(2016) 378.
COM(2018) 301 (resettlement of 27 637 persons to Member States participating in AMIF).
AMIF 2017 annual implementation reports, covering the period until 15 October 2017.
5
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0012.png
(including the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Agricultural Fund for
Rural Development (EAFRD)), as regards integration and with the external instruments
in the areas of migrant protection, asylum and return. Examples were, in the area of
asylum, the implementation of the Regional Development and Protection Programmes
(RDPPs)
33
in North Africa and in the Horn of Africa and, in the area of return, the AMIF
contribution to the readmission agreements and mobility partnerships with third countries
and the creation of the conditions for sustainable return and reintegration in the countries
of origin (126 000 persons have been returned at the end of 2017)
34
.
Border management
Facilitating legitimate travel, while preventing irregular migration and security risks, is
also a key objective of the Agenda on Migration. On 14 March 2018, the Commission
presented its ideas on how to adapt the common visa policy to new challenges, including
through a revision of the legal framework of the Visa Information System (VIS). The
Commission also presented a legal proposal that addresses the existing divergent
practices among Member States and ensures that visa-issuing rules can play a part in the
Union's readmission policy.
To preserve and strengthen the Schengen area, Member States are obliged, since 6 April
2017, to carry out systematic checks against relevant databases on EU citizens who are
crossing the Union's external borders. Furthermore, the Commission issued a
Recommendation to Member States to make better use of police checks and cross-border
cooperation. The European Integrated Border Management Strategy is being
implemented by the European Border and Coast Guard, a close cooperation between its
constituent parts, namely the European Border and Coast Guard Agency and the Member
States' border guards. All of this will enable the Union to achieve its main goal of
reinforcing the functioning of the Schengen area without internal border control.
EU added value of the Internal Security Fund
–
Borders and Visa
ISF Borders and Visa is playing a crucial role in supporting the management of the
external borders, providing EU support to the most affected Member States as a sign of
shared responsibility for managing the common Union border. For example, Member
States are supported for the implementation of the European Border Surveillance system
EUROSUR
35
and the acquisition of border management equipment that is put at the
disposal of the EBCGA.
ISF Borders and Visa is also a main source of financial support for the development and
maintenance of the Schengen and the Visa Information Systems
36
and, more generally,
33
34
35
36
RDPPs aim at enhancing the capacity of non-EU countries in the regions from which many refugees
originate or through which they pass in transit as regards refugee protection, return, local integration and
resettlement.
AMIF 2017 annual implementation reports, covering the period until 15 October 2017.
EUROSUR is a multipurpose system for cooperation between the EU Member States and the EBCGA in
order to improve situational awareness and increase reaction capability at external borders. The aim is to
prevent cross-border crime and irregular migration and contribute to protecting migrants' lives. It comprises
all Schengen area countries and Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia.
The Schengen Information System (SIS) is a large-scale information system that supports external border
control and law enforcement cooperation in the Schengen States. The SIS enables competent authorities,
6
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0013.png
supporting the common visa policy, including by strengthening national capacity and
increasing consular coverage, thereby combatting irregular migration and facilitating
legitimate travel.
Through the Fund, deficiencies found in the application of the relevant legislation by the
Member States through the Schengen Evaluation mechanism (Scheval) have also been
addressed in order to ensure that Union law is applied in a uniform way on the ground
and contributes to the EU’s integrated border management. Furthermore,
emergency
assistance (over EUR 300 million) has enabled to strengthen the Union’s
external border,
notably in Greece, Italy and Bulgaria in face of a significant migratory pressure.
EU added value of Funds working in synergy
–
the hotspot approach
A key element in the EU's support to Member States is the hotspot approach. AMIF, ISF
Borders and Visa and ISF Police have made a tangible difference by supporting the
setting up of hotspot areas
37
. Their capacity reached more than 7 000 places in Greece
and more than 1 500 places in Italy. In 2015, before the establishment of the hotspots,
only 58% of migrants were fingerprinted upon arrival in Italy, currently almost 100% of
migrants are.
Customs Control Equipment
Improving the performance of customs controls throughout the Customs Union and
avoiding diverting flows of goods towards the weakest points has been another key
policy objective.
In the absence of a dedicated programme or Fund, the Commission supported Member
States by redirecting them to the other EU funding options: the European Structural and
Investment Funds (ESIF) and support investment in transport and other EU networks; the
EU Neighbourhood Instrument, Hercule III
38
and the External Borders Fund (EBF).
However, these solutions have proven to be not satisfactory as it did not allow for
Customs needs to be sufficiently addressed among the overall structural needs nor did it
allow for a minimum level of homogeneous or streamlined customs control and detection
equipment at the border, thus creating opportunities to identify the weakest BCP for
malpractices.
The Commission launched several initiatives to better scope the issue of equipment under
the Customs 2020 programme but the absence of dedicated Union intervention prevented
addressing in a systematic and comprehensive manner imbalances that exist between
Member States, due to differences in the capacities and resources available. Their ability
to react to challenges generated by the constantly evolving global business models,
such as police and border guards, to enter and consult alerts on certain categories of wanted or missing
persons and objects. This database included 70 827 959 alerts, 3 983 457 108 searches and 200 778 hits in
2016. The Visa Information System (VIS) allows Schengen States to exchange visa data.
In the hotspot approach EASO, EBCGA, Europol and the EU Agency for judicial cooperation (Eurojust)
work on the ground with the authorities of frontline Member States to help to fulfil their obligations under
EU law and swiftly identify, register and fingerprint incoming migrants. The hotspot approach also
contributes to the implementation of the relocation schemes.
Hercule III has proven to be a successful instrument, valued as such by its stakeholders, as demonstrated by
the 2017 independent mid-term evaluation.
37
38
7
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0014.png
threats and supply chains depend not only on the IT and human components
–
adequately
supported by the existing customs legislation and programme
–
but also on the
availability of state-of-the-art and reliable control equipment
–
an issue with strong
connections with border management.
Against this background, it is thus proposed to reinforce the Customs Union, the related
customs policy and its programme by establishing a new Instrument for customs control
equipment, closely linked to support for border management through the Integrated
Border Management Fund in view of the particular, deep and operational connection of
the equipment file with border management.
EU added value of the future Customs Control Equipment Fund
The Customs Union has a key function, not only in view of its traditional role of
protection of the financial interests of the Union and its contribution to the Union budget
as well as of trade facilitation, but also because customs authorities play a decisive role in
the safety, security and border-management.
Currently, Customs services of several EU Member States suffer from the severe
shortage of customs control equipment
39
: 53% of the EU Customs BCPs at the EU
Eastern and South-Eastern Land Borders lack automated number plate/container number
recognition systems (ANPRS) that would be needed for risk management; 46% of them
lack scanners for cargo and vehicle inspection of trucks and wagons; and 51% lack
personal hand control equipment.
This lack of fundamental control equipment puts at risk the EU Internal Market and EU
security and financial interests through:
1. Insufficient protection of the financial interests of the Union and its Member
States via the better collection of customs duties
40
;
2. Ineffective fight against illegal trade and reduced facilitation of legal trade
processing;
3. Decreased security and safety of the EU internal market, the Union and its
citizens and the protection of the environment.
Supporting the creation of an adequate and equivalent level of protection of the Union's
external borders for goods
–
as a complement to existing instruments under ISF as
regards persons
–
would thus contribute to a better functioning of the Customs Union. In
view of the challenges facing the world, the EU and its Customs Union and in particular
the continued need to ensure the security and safety, while securing revenues and easing
the flow of legitimate trade, the availability of state-of-the-art and reliable customs
control equipment at the external borders is a must.
The
Agenda on Security
has provided a clear framework for the Union and its Member
States to address better together security concerns and was the basis for the European
39
40
2017 Customs 2020 Programme activity (Customs Eastern and South Eastern land Border Expert Team
–
CELBET expert team - reports in 2017).
Council report 11760/17 on the fight against excise fraud (8 September 2017) noted that "according to
conservative estimates, tobacco product smuggling costs national and EU budgets more than 10.2 billion
EUR in lost public revenue annually".
8
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0015.png
Council's endorsement of a renewed Internal Security Strategy, adopted on 16 June 2015.
Its priorities focus on combatting terrorism, organised crime and cybercrime, and
progress towards an effective and genuine Security Union. To combat terrorism, actions
have been implemented or proposed which include preventing and combatting
radicalisation and terrorist financing, protecting public spaces and restricting the use of
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive (CBRN-E) materials,
improving the controls on explosives precursors.
To combat cybercrime, operational measures are complemented by proposals to build EU
resilience to cyber-attacks, creating effective EU cyber deterrence and strengthening
international cooperation on cybersecurity, as well as improving the capacity to identify
perpetrators of cybercrime and cyber-attacks. The EU Policy Cycle for serious and
organised crime is delivering a more coordinated strategic direction and implementation
of joint operations of authorities in Member States.
EU added value of the Internal Security Fund
–
Police
ISF Police has been part of the Union response, providing Member States with the
opportunity to work together to effectively tackle cross-border crimes and risks,
enhancing cooperation and the exchange of information between law enforcement
authorities in different Member States, and supporting the development of the necessary
capabilities. These include the Secure Information Exchange Network Application
(SIENA)
41
used by Europol, Member States and third parties, the exchange of DNA,
fingerprinting and vehicle registration numbers via the Prüm Decision
42
, the continued
development of the Universal Message Format (UMF), which offers important benefits
such as shorter response times and improved data quality, or the creation of dedicated
Passenger Information Units in the context of the Passenger Name Record Directive
(PNR)
43
, while also supporting the interoperability of different security systems in order
to combat cross-border crime.
ISF Police also co-funded successful actions to prevent and counter radicalisation, such
as the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN)
44
and the EU Internet Forum
45
. In the
aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015, emergency assistance funding has
helped to put in place a digital solution to process large amounts of surveillance data,
increasing the preparedness of the Union to possible new threats.
Information systems for security, border and migration management
Legislative acts have been adopted or proposed towards stronger and smarter information
systems for security, border and migration management, making the data architecture of
EU information systems more effective and efficient. These include the Entry / Exit
41
42
43
44
45
SIENA is managed by Europol and enables a swift and secure communication and exchange of operational
and strategic crime-related information.
Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 (OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1).
Directive (EU) 2016/681 of 27 April 2016 (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 132).
The Radicalisation Awareness Network brings together practitioners on the prevention of radicalisation.
Launched in December 2015, it brings together EU Home Affairs Ministers and stakeholders to reduce
accessibility to terrorist content online and empower civil society partners to increase alternative narratives
online.
9
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0016.png
System (EES)
46
, the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS)
47
,
the Schengen Information System (SIS)
48
, the Automated Fingerprint Identification
System (AFIS), Eurodac
49
, the European Criminal Records Information Exchange
System (ECRIS)
50
and Passenger Name Records (PNR). In order to improve the
management of data in the area of security, border and migration management there is an
increased need for the interoperability of these IT systems
51
.
1.2
1.2.1
Lessons learned from previous programmes
Key findings from evaluations of previous programmes
The interim evaluations of the Funds of the 2014-2020 programming period, as well as
the ex-post evaluations of Funds under the 2007-2013 programming period (instruments
under the "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows" (SOLID) Programme,
"Prevention of and fight against Crime" (ISEC), and "Prevention, Preparedness and
Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security related risks" (CIPS))
allowed to identify the findings indicated below. The added value of the Funds having
been outlined in the previous section, the following analysis will focus on the other key
evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency (including simplification and
reduction of administrative burden) and coherence (including complementarity).
1.2.1.1 Relevance, scope and size of the Instruments
The broad scope of AMIF, ISF Borders and Visa and ISF Police ensured they could
support the implementation of the necessary actions needed at EU level in the home
affairs area. Other EU Funds contribute to migration, border management and security
objectives within their scope of intervention.
Due to the migratory and security crises significant budget reinforcements were needed,
raising the available budget from EUR 6.9 billion for the 2014-2020 programming period
to EUR 10.8 billion. Please find an overview of the Funds in the 2007-2013 and 2014-
2020 programming periods in Annex 3.
The possibility to provide emergency assistance (through direct management) has
contributed to ensuring the relevance of the Funds by increasing their flexibility but it
was used at a significantly higher scale than originally intended, to respond adequately to
the unprecedented large-scale migratory movements and security challenges. In certain
cases emergency assistance was also used to support actions that contribute to long-term
capacity building.
The interim evaluations also showed that even if the scope of the Fund was sufficiently
broad to enable the implementation of the necessary actions in the areas of external
border management and common visa policy, as regards ISF Police, stakeholders
46
47
48
49
50
51
Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of 30 November 2017 (OJ L 327, 9.12.2017, p. 20).
COM(2016) 731.
COM(2016) 881, 882 and 883.
COM(2016) 272.
COM(2017) 344.
COM(2017) 793 and COM(2017) 794.
10
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
expressed a need to further promote the external dimension, in order to better address
global security threats.
Furthermore, allocations being fixed at the beginning of the programming period, on the
basis of statistical data, do not reflect changes in the needs of Member States during the
implementation period. For example, the United Kingdom was the largest beneficiary of
AMIF based on pre-crisis data, while in fact other Member States (such as Germany)
were most affected by the crisis. When providing additional financial support during the
programming period, the distribution key established at the beginning of the
programming period does not allow for flexibility, potentially affecting the effectiveness
and efficiency of the Funds. For example, when allocating funding to implement the
PNR Directive under ISF Police, France received double the funding needed while other
Member States received much less funding than needed. More flexibility would be
needed as far as the implementation of national programmes is concerned and a
distribution system should be adaptable in order to ensure an appropriate response to
changing needs.
1.2.1.2 Effectiveness
The interim evaluations show that AMIF and ISF are considered as effective,
contributing to their objectives although the migration and security crisis impacted their
effectiveness, since the challenges they needed to address increased. The possibility to
use emergency assistance was generally highlighted as crucial to ensure the
responsiveness of the Funds in changing circumstances.
Both the ex-post evaluations of the 2007-2013 Funds and the interim evaluations of the
current Funds show that a mix of delivery modes in the areas of migration, border
management and security allowed for an effective way to achieve the objectives of the
Funds. The holistic design of the delivery mechanisms should be maintained.
On the other hand, the evaluations point to the lack of flexibility, to be balanced with
predictability as Responsible Authorities and beneficiaries need financial and legal
certainty to plan the implementation of the Fund throughout the programming period, as
a limitation to their effectiveness. Although the ISF Borders and Visa Regulation
includes a financial envelope to be distributed across the national programmes in the
framework of the mid-term review, this was not foreseen in the AMIF and ISF Police
Regulations, limiting the possibility to provide additional funding to the national
programmes. Another limitation relates to the fact that the mid-term review can only be
used at a pre-defined time during the implementation period. The migration and security
crises have shown that flexibility was needed from the beginning of the programming
period onwards to be able to react to changes on the ground.
The interim evaluations also note the need for a clear intervention logic, and that more
focused national programmes would increase the effectiveness by allowing to prioritise
some objectives, and the importance of a full monitoring and evaluation system.
Designed at an early stage, it ensures a consistent and uniform monitoring of progress
and effectiveness from the outset. The shortcomings of the SOLID Funds in this respect
(absence of mechanisms common to all Member States, with baselines and targets) have
11
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0018.png
been largely addressed in AMIF and ISF. Common indicators for shared management are
used and a common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF) has been designed.
However, the interim evaluations also show that it was established late and needed to be
improved, also as regards baseline values and the clarity of the indicators. This would
allow for better tracking of the intended results and informing any future revisions of
policy interventions, both under shared and direct management.
1.2.1.3 Efficiency (including simplification and reduction of administrative burden)
The interim evaluations emphasise that stakeholders have noted progress in the
simplification of the procedures, especially as regards the programming phase (ISF
Borders and Visa), less though as regards AMIF and ISF Police. Innovative measures
(simplified cost options, multiannual programming) are considered beneficial. Although
the late adoption of the legal bases and the need to complete the programming exercise of
the national programmes as well as the designation of authorities, as set out in those legal
bases, have delayed the implementation of the Funds, overall implementation seems on
track. Establishing common rules on the implementation of AMIF and ISF (through the
Horizontal Regulation
52
), has supported the management of the three funding
instruments, leading to close cooperation between
–
and in some cases the unification of
–
the entities responsible for the management of the two Funds.
Furthermore, a number of changes compared to the previous programming period were
introduced and have simplified the management of the programmes:
multiannual
programming
(the ex-post evaluations of the SOLID programmes had shown that
annual programming provided insufficient predictability for Member States and resulted
in a high administrative burden, both for the managing authorities and for the
Commission), a
simplified Management and Control System
(the involvement of a
separate Certifying Authority is no longer required),
increased alignment with rules
applicable to other EU shared management Funds; Simplified Cost Options were
introduced, and more flexibility granted to Member States to set up the
rules on the
eligibility of expenditure.
However, the administrative burden is still perceived to be too high by both managing
authorities and beneficiaries, undermining the efficiency of the Funds. For example, even
though the use of national eligibility rules has the potential to reduce administrative
burden, eligibility rules that are applied at times remain too heavy. Simplified Cost
Options are not applied to the full extent. Several stakeholders indicated that the
introduction of national eligibility rules did not simplify the implementation of the
Funds.
There is also a relatively high administrative burden for both Member States and the
Commission in the provision of emergency assistance through direct management. This
entails setting up a detailed grant agreement in a short period of time and more detailed
reporting requirements towards the Commission for the beneficiaries (compared to
shared management).
52
Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of 16 April 2014 (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 112).
12
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
The interim evaluations also show the need for a sufficient level of technical assistance to
facilitate the successful management of the Funds and for further efforts to simplify
access to the Funds for potential beneficiaries by providing information regarding actions
and funding opportunities.
Furthermore, the current reporting system would not allow for adequately tracking
investments in the Union's policy priorities and there is no mechanism aiming at
improving performance, such as, for example, a system of incentives which would
further improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Funds. In the absence of such
mechanism, Member States that perform well in the implementation of the Funds could
not be rewarded. This could have increased the effectiveness of the Funds to achieve
their objectives.
1.2.1.4 Coherence (including complementarity)
The ex-post evaluations of SOLID indicate that some Member States reported that
complementarities could be improved with the European Social Fund as regards
integration measures, and with the external instruments as regards reintegration activities.
The implementation of the current Funds shows that steps undertaken during the design,
planning and programming stages have facilitated their coherence and complementarity
with other EU funding instruments. The format of the Funds (national programmes
aiming at long term capacities, emergency assistance aiming at alleviating immediate
pressure and Union Actions designed to support transnational cooperation) was
considered as positive. Nevertheless, ensuring coherence and synergies remains
challenging in three main areas: supporting asylum and integration objectives through
ESIF, supporting border management, return and reintegration measures as well as
developing protection systems in third countries and, finally, ensuring coherence between
the interventions of EU Funds in the area of security.
The interim evaluations emphasise the importance to ensure complementarity of
emergency assistance with the respective national programmes and other EU
programmes from the start, and during implementation. In the case of ISF Borders and
Visa for example, complementarity should be increased at implementation stage. Overall,
further efforts are needed to improve cooperation, coordination and strategic steering in
the implementation of AMIF and ISF with other EU level initiatives.
1.2.2
Consultation activities
In the context of this Impact Assessment the Commission has undertaken a broad range
of consultation activities in order to assess how well the existing programmes meet the
needs in the areas of migration and security and how they could be improved to address
future challenges and adequately support the Union's objectives in these areas.
Two dedicated
open public consultations
ran from 10 January 2018 to 9 March 2018
on
EU funds in the area of migration
and
on EU funds in the area of security.
Overall,
respondents strongly supported the need for simplification in the delivery of home affairs
Funds, greater flexibility (specifically in relation to the ability to respond to migration
and security related crises), and for increased funding and support in areas with strong
13
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0020.png
responsibility-sharing (asylum and border management) and/or high level of cooperation
between Member States, as well as cooperation with Home Affairs Agencies. Responses
demonstrate that through these measures the effectiveness and efficiency of instruments
can be improved and the EU added value enhanced. The need for greater home affairs
policy leverage in third countries was also indicated by stakeholders. A summary of the
consultation results is provided in Annex 2.
Consultations with Member States and Schengen Associated Countries took place in the
framework of the AMIF-ISF Committee
53
. Member States provided inputs on the main
funding priorities, problems, the architecture of the Funds and delivery modes. Other key
stakeholders, including beneficiaries of AMIF and ISF through direct and indirect
management, such as international organisations and civil society organisations were also
consulted, as well as Home Affairs Agencies.
Stakeholders concurred that in order to maximise EU added value, EU spending should
reflect Union level priorities and policy commitments and should support the
implementation of the Union home affairs
acquis.
Stakeholders called for sufficient
funding to be made available to face current and newly emerging challenges. Sufficient
funding should also be made available for the Home Affairs Agencies, in line with their
increasing activities. Stakeholders agreed on the need for more flexibility embedded
within the structure of the Funds. They found that, in order to retain sufficient flexibility
to be able to react to changing circumstances, the multiannual national programme
should be maintained. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were of the view that
direct management should also be continued.
These consultations confirmed an overall consensus among key stakeholders on the need
for a wider scope of action for EU funding, including as regards its external dimension,
enhancing the impact of home affairs policies, more simplification in the delivery
mechanisms and greater flexibility, notably to respond to emergencies.
Specific consultations as regards the new CCE fund
As a new component under the Integrated Border Management Fund, CCE cannot benefit
directly from lessons learned from evaluations of past experience. However, in the
context of the study on the post-2020 customs programme the needs and challenges as
regards customs control equipment were examined. In particular, a
dedicated survey
and
specific interviews and
case studies
were performed. An
overall open public
consultation
also took place from 10 January 2018 to 9 March 2018 on
EU funds in the
area of investment, research & innovation, SMEs and single market,
which addressed the
customs aspects as well and
inter alia.
A summary of all these contributions is provided
in Annex 2.
All these activities confirmed the diagnostic, need for Union action and expected strong
EU added value. Indeed, the ever growing volumes of goods together with the increasing
need for efficient and swift border control are underpinned not only by the traditional
53
Comprised of the representatives of the Responsible Authorities for the AMIF and ISF national programmes.
14
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0021.png
function of customs to collect revenue but also by the necessity to extensively reinforce
the control of goods entering and exiting EU external borders to ensure safety and
security. At the same time, these controls governing the movement of goods across the
external borders should not impair but rather facilitate legitimate trade. Customs control
equipment is an essential element for fulfilling these objectives and there is accordingly
an urgent need to foresee a dedicated EU instrument aimed at addressing current
imbalances and thereby ensuring a uniform application of customs rules at EU borders.
2
2.1
THE CHALLENGES
The main challenges to be addressed in the post-2020 MFF
From the evaluation and consultation activities outlined in section 1.2, the main
challenges to be addressed in the post-2020 MFF are identified in this section. The
interim evaluations plead for continuity in the objectives and structure of the Funds. The
main challenges are the cross-cutting challenges for the MFF, relating to flexibility,
simplification, coherence and complementarity, and achieving the highest EU added
value. Changes in the objectives and structure of the Funds are presented in section 3.
2.2
Enhancing flexibility within a stable framework
The constantly evolving challenges in the areas of migration, border management and
security require increasing the flexibility in the management of the Funds when
compared to AMIF and ISF.
New mechanisms for the allocation of funding
for shared,
direct and indirect management will be needed to address new challenges and priorities.
Currently, the largest share of AMIF and ISF is implemented through shared
management
54
, where a national programme is approved by the Commission for the
2014-2020 programming period. Basic allocations to the participating States are
calculated on the basis of 2008 to 2012 statistics. While the ISF Borders and Visa
Regulation provides for an additional envelope to be distributed across the national
programmes as a result of the mid-term review
55
, the AMIF and ISF Police Regulations
do not have such a provision. For an overview of the current allocations under AMIF and
ISF, please refer to Annex 3.
54
55
In the current Funds up to 76%, or EUR 8.2 billion, of the available funding is implemented through shared
management, through multiannual national programmes implemented by Member States. The remaining
24%, or EUR 2.6 billion, of the funding envelope is implemented through direct and indirect management.
This funding is implemented via two mechanisms: Union Actions, which are transnational actions for the
benefit of the Union as a whole, and emergency assistance, which complements the national programmes of
Member States having significant funding needs and which has been instrumental during the crisis years to
address urgent and short-term needs. Due to the situation on the ground, the support provided through
emergency assistance increased significantly from EUR 32 million in 2014 to EUR 956 million as per 30
April 2018. Indirect management represents a small share of the current Funds, with approximately EUR 60
million allocated through Union Actions and EUR 80 million allocated through emergency assistance.
Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 515/2014.
15
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0022.png
To provide additional funding under shared management, funding must be distributed
across all national programmes in accordance with the original distribution key, or be
based on Specific Actions or lump sum payments
56
.
A new mechanism should address the lack of flexibility related to the static distribution
key and be available throughout the programming period. It should also allow for an
adequate level of predictability, since the Responsible Authorities and beneficiaries need
financial and legal certainty to plan the implementation of the Fund throughout the
programming period.
Mechanisms will also be needed to allocate funding in such a way that enables further
incentivising
Member States to implement Union policy priorities. Shared management
has proven to be an effective delivery mechanism to Member States in maintaining and
improving migration management and the response to security challenges on national
level, in line with the specific needs of Member States. However, programmes
implemented by Member States under shared management have not always allowed the
Commission to ensure that funding was steered towards Union priorities to the extent
necessary
.
Finally, the possibility to provide
emergency assistance
under AMIF and ISF has
increased the capacity of the Funds to react to unforeseen circumstances. Emergency
assistance is implemented through direct management only. Future mechanisms should
retain the possibility to provide emergency assistance while reducing the administrative
burden of managing such assistance and facilitating the coordination with actions
supported through the national programmes.
2.3
Further simplifying the rules for implementing EU Funds
The architecture of AMIF and ISF addressed findings from the ex-post evaluations of the
SOLID Funds. Establishing common rules, the Horizontal Regulation has facilitated the
implementation of the three instruments and simplified the management of the Funds.
Nevertheless, the evaluations also find that there is further room for improvement for
simplifying the implementation of the Funds, notably by ensuring a coherent approach
with rules applicable to the management of other EU Funds and by ensuring the
eligibility rules under shared management make full use of simplified cost options
.
2.4
Ensuring more coherence and synergies between actions supported by EU
funding instruments
Findings from the ex-post evaluations and the interim evaluations of AMIF and ISF show
that there is still potential for improving the coherence between actions in a number of
areas.
In the field of
asylum
and
integration,
establishing the necessary shifting of resources in
the programmes of Member States under ESIF to include new priorities relating to
asylum and integration has proven challenging (through shared management).
56
These lump-sums are provided in accordance with Articles 17 and 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.
16
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0023.png
As regards the
external dimension,
certain areas of support with regard to border
protection, pre-integration, return and reintegration measures as well as developing
protection systems in third countries could not be fully covered by the different funding
instruments. Accompanying measures in third countries which support the Union’s
efforts to protect its borders and enhance sustainable returns could not be fully covered.
While the available resources in AMIF and ISF for actions with an external dimension
have been limited, the Union’s
external
financing instruments were in some cases not
fully optimal for different reasons. Available allocations for migration could not, at least
initially, meet the increased needs in partner countries and fragmentation exists among
the available external action instruments. This was to a certain extent mitigated by
pooling resources into EU Trust Funds and using an integrated and holistic approach.
Given the limited allocations available to migration, priority was given to capacity
building support over large scale investment in equipment and infrastructure. In addition,
according to the Financial Regulation, entities that subsequently implement EU Funds
must undergo a prior assessment to ensure they fulfil a number of criteria such as
International Organisations, third countries, development agencies of Member States or
civil society organisations. While the possibility to access such funding is open for all
agencies of EU Member States, mainly development agencies have opted for this
possibility and it is therefore more difficult to provide funding to others, for example to
assist services of Member States needing support to return irregular migrants. As a
consequence, the implementation modalities of the external financing instruments did not
always allow for an adequate response to the Union’s increased needs in third countries
as regards migration and security.
Since 2015, allocations for migration management have increased in programmes under
the external financing instruments, for instance under the Development Cooperation
Instrument (DCI) in Asia and with the creation of the EU Emergency Trust Fund (EUTF)
for Africa
57
, which has improved the situation by increasing the available financial
support and streamlining implementation. However, the EUTF for Africa has a limited
geographical coverage
58
and while its use has significantly speeded up the delivery times
compared to standard external action funding, a certain period of time is still required for
the coordination with beneficiary partner countries, implementing partners, including EU
Member State agencies and the signature of contracts.
Key
security
priorities, such as security infrastructure, the prevention of and fight against
radicalisation, cybercrime or the protection of public spaces are also partially covered by
other EU Funds than ISF Police. As the evaluations show, coverage by other EU Funds
57
58
Established at the Valletta Summit on Migration in November 2015, the EUTF for Africa was created to
address the root causes of instability, forced displacement and irregular migration and to contribute to better
migration management. The Valletta Summit brought together European and African Heads of State and
Government in an effort to strengthen cooperation and address the current challenges but also the
opportunities of migration.
The EUTF was created to support the priorities of the Valletta Declaration and its Action Plan, which
included clearly identified countries, i.e. the main origin and transit countries in Africa. It identifies eligible
countries in Africa, encompassing the major migration routes to Europe; the Sahel region and Lake Chad, the
Horn of Africa and the North of Africa.
17
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
within their scope of intervention, clear dividing lines and coordination mechanisms
leave room for improving the efficiency of allocating resources and targeting
interventions in these areas.
Finally, there will also be a need to ensure better coherence and complementarity of the
new
customs control equipment
funding programme with other EU Programmes and
Funds, in particular with the Customs programme and the new Single Anti-Fraud
Programme that also address challenges related to customs policy and the protection of
the Union’s
financial interests.
2.5
Achieving the highest level of EU added value with a focus on performance
Evaluations show that the scope of the Funds is adequate to support activities that
maximise the EU added value in their areas of intervention. However, ensuring that the
Funds support the implementation of the policy priorities of the Union will require
improving the monitoring and evaluation framework in a way which also supports a
strengthened performance based management. To do so, the monitoring and evaluation
framework needs to be established at the beginning of the programming period in order
to facilitate a swift start and indicators should allow for better measuring the performance
of national programmes, with a view to monitor EU added value. There is a need to
better enable tracking of whether the Funds deliver the intended results and informing
any future revisions of policy interventions, both under direct and shared management. In
addition, a new monitoring and evaluation framework will need to be established for the
new customs control equipment component of the IBMF.
3
3.1
A
RCHITECTURE OF THE
F
UNDS AND OBJECTIVES
The EU’s right to act
and the necessity for the EU to act
The EU’s right to act in the area of home affairs derives primarily from Title V ‘Area of
Freedom, Security and Justice’ of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
(TFEU):
External borders and common policy on visa (in particular Article 77(2) TFEU);
Common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection,
including the partnership and cooperation with third countries (Article 78 TFEU);
Common immigration policy and return policy, including the conclusion of
readmission agreements with third countries (in particular Article 79(2), (3) and
(4) TFEU);
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters (in particular Article 82(1) TFEU);
Crime prevention (Article 84 TFEU);
Measures regarding police cooperation (in particular Article 87(2) TFEU);
Cooperation with third countries and the competent international organisations
(Article 212(3) TFEU).
In addition, the EU’s right to act as regards customs control equipment derives from:
Customs cooperation (in particular Article 33 TFEU);
Internal Market (in particular Article 114 TFEU); and
18
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0025.png
Commercial Policy (in particular Article 207 TFEU).
The challenges in the areas of asylum, migration, the management of the external
borders, the prevention of and fight against serious and organised crime, terrorism and
other security-related risks are by their nature interlinked, transnational phenomena and
cannot be adequately addressed by the Member States acting alone.
The abolition of internal border controls must be accompanied by common measures for
the effective control and surveillance of the Union’s external borders as well as a
common asylum and migration policy. This is necessary in order to preserve the
Schengen area as an area without internal border controls, preventing and addressing any
secondary movements. Article 80 TFEU states that the common policies on asylum,
migration and external borders are based on the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of
responsibilities between Member States. EU funding is the mechanism which gives effect
to the financial implications of this principle. In addition, the integrated management of
the Union’s
external borders and the completion of a Common European Asylum System
are the most effective ways to fairly share these responsibilities and their financial
implications between Member States. Finally, EU funding in the area of integration of
third-country nationals is indispensable to increase the quality of support to newcomers
in the early stages after their arrival, which is a crucial component of the strategy to
ensure their full inclusion in the European societies in the long run.
The EU is designed to create an area of freedom, security and justice, without internal
borders for its citizens. In an era where terrorism and other serious crime operate across
borders, both the EU and its Member States have a responsibility towards their citizens to
deliver an area of security where individuals are protected, in full compliance with the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
59
. In this regard, the Treaties
envisage the need to ensure a high level of security, including through preventive
measures, and through coordination and cooperation between police, judicial and other
competent authorities. Member States have the frontline responsibility for security, but
cannot address transnational threats effectively acting on their own. The tools need to be
built at European level through which national authorities and, where relevant,
International Organisations can effectively work together to tackle shared challenges; an
effective and genuine Security Union in which the rights and freedoms of citizens are
well protected.
Finally, the current imbalances at EU external borders as regards customs controls
–
as
identified through consultations
–
cannot be addressed individually by each Member
State. The EU Customs Union is only as strong as its weakest point. And this is all the
more important when it comes to controls. Disparity in available control equipment
allows customs "shopping", i.e. creates opportunities for ill-intentioned citizens or
economic operators to identify the weakest BCPs for their malpractices. A coordinated
approach among Member States per category of BCP (land, sea, air, postal hubs) is
59
OJ C 326/02, 26.10.2012, p. 391.
19
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0026.png
therefore necessary. Such a high degree of cooperation and coordination can only be
achieved with a centralised approach, ideally at Union level.
3.2
Architecture of the Funds: the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Integrated Border
Management Fund and the Internal Security Fund
The future Funds are the Asylum and Migration Fund (AMF), the Internal Security Fund
(ISF) and the Integrated Border Management Fund (IBMF), consisting of two
components; the Border Management and Visa (BMVI) component and the Customs
Control Equipment (CCE) component. Due to the Treaty provisions that apply to the
home affairs area, in particular different voting rules in the Council stemming from
variable geometry pursuant to Protocols 19 (on the Schengen
acquis),
21 (on the position
of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and
Justice) and 22 (on the position of Denmark, including in relation to Title V, part three of
the Treaty), the creation of the Funds requires the adoption of four separate legislative
instruments. Implementing rules for shared management, currently set-out in the
Horizontal Regulation, will be included in the future Common Provisions Regulation
(CPR)
60
.
3.2.1 Asylum and Migration Fund
The interim evaluation of the current AMIF indicates that the scope of the Fund is
sufficiently broad to support the implementation of Union policy priorities, providing EU
added value. The objectives of the Asylum and Migration Fund are based on this scope
of intervention. It enables support for actions in the external dimension, complementary
to support provided by the external Funds, and caters to specific needs of vulnerable
groups, such as victims of trafficking in human beings and children in migration.
The
general objective
of the
Asylum and Migration Fund
will be to contribute to an
efficient management of migration flows, in line with the Union
acquis
on asylum and
migration and in compliance with the Union’s commitments on fundamental rights.
The
Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund is based on Articles 78(2) and
79(2) and (4) TFEU.
The
specific objectives of the Fund
will be the following:
Strengthen and develop all aspects of the
Common European Asylum System,
including its external dimension;
Support legal migration
to the Member States and
contribute to the
integration of third-country nationals.
Integration measures will be focused on
promoting early integration measures for the social and economic inclusion of
third-country nationals, preparing their active participation to the receiving
society, their acceptance by the receiving society and their social and economic
60
In order to ensure a coherent set of implementing rules for the EU Funds implemented under shared
management, such implementing rules should be established through a common Regulation. For more
information, please refer to section 4.1.3.1.
20
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0027.png
inclusion, in particular with the involvement of local or regional actors and civil-
society organisations;
Contribute to
countering irregular migration
and ensure
sustainability of
return and effective readmission in third countries.
The scope of intervention of the current Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund will
remain similar in the new instrument
61
. However, in order to better reflect policy
priorities set out in the European Agenda on Migration, the future AMF will have three
specific objectives: asylum, legal migration and integration, and return. The separate
specific objective of the current AMIF on solidarity and responsibility sharing between
Member States would be integrated under specific objective 1 of the future AMF
(asylum), incorporating resettlement and relocation to reflect policy and legislative
initiatives, namely the Union Resettlement Framework and the Dublin reform. New
Union competences following the reform of the Common European Asylum System
would be supported through the Fund.
There are minor adaptations to the priorities and actions supported to reflect policy
developments and synergies and complementarities with other EU Funds. These are:
1) Resettlement: the possibility for financing national resettlement schemes under
the national programmes to reflect the results of the negotiations on the Union
Resettlement Framework;
2) Integration of third-country nationals: AMF would prioritise early integration
measures whereas the future ESF+ would cater for their long-term integration
(please refer to section 3.3 for more information);
3) External dimension
–
legal migration and pre-departure measures: possibility to
support the development of migration mobility schemes to the EU (i.e. circular
and temporary migration schemes) through national programmes;
4) External dimension
–
return: possibility to support actions in third countries
including on infrastructure, equipment and other measures provided these
contribute to effective cooperation between third countries and the EU and its
Member States on return and readmission.
AMF would introduce a higher EU co-financing rate (up to 90%) as a way to incentivise
Member States to take action for some strategic priorities such as alternatives to
detention, protection of children and measures targeting vulnerable persons as well as
integration measures implemented by local and regional authorities as well as civil
society organisations. The arrival of migrants, particularly when high numbers are
concerned, has an immediate effect on the local infrastructure, provision of services,
housing, education, healthcare, family benefits, job search, or transport, and budget of
regional and local authorities. The arrival of asylum seekers in recent years has added
further pressure on local authorities to cater for their reception and integration. In
addition, migrants are usually concentrated in urban areas. Providing the possibility of a
higher EU co-financing rate for integration measures implemented by local and regional
61
For a comparison between the objectives of the future Funds and the objectives of the current Home Affairs
Funds, please refer to Annex 5.
21
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
authorities as well as civil society organisations would increase the effectiveness of the
Fund, as the development of national integration policies would be complemented by
sufficient support for integration measures at regional and local level.
3.2.2
Integrated Border Management Fund
The Integrated Border Management Fund will consist of two components. The
component for Border Management and Visa supports measures related to external
border management and the common policy on visa. The component for Customs
Control Equipment supports enhancing customs controls through the financing of the
purchase, maintenance and evolution of customs control equipment. These components
are established through:
A Regulation establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the
instrument for financial support for border management, based on Article 77(2)
and 79(2)(d) TFEU;
A Regulation establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the
instrument for financial support for customs control equipment, based on Articles
33, 114 and 207 TFEU.
The
general objective of the Integrated Border Management Fund
–
Border
Management and Visa,
will be to contribute to guaranteeing a high level of security in
the Union by ensuring strong and effective integrated border management while
safeguarding the free movement of persons within it, in full compliance with the Union's
commitments on fundamental rights.
The
specific objectives
of the Fund will be the following:
Supporting effective
European integrated border management
implemented
by the
European Border and Coast Guard
(consisting of the Member States
and the EU Agency) to facilitate legitimate border crossings, to prevent and detect
illegal immigration and cross-border crime and to effectively manage migratory
flows;
Supporting the
common visa policy
to facilitate legitimate travel and prevent
migratory and security risks.
The objectives of the BMVI are based on the scope of ISF Borders and Visa, which is
considered sufficiently broad to support the implementation of Union policy priorities,
providing EU added value.
There are minor adaptations to the priorities and actions supported to reflect policy
developments and synergies and complementarities with other EU Funds:
1) The scope of the Fund takes into account recent policy developments, such as the
modernisation and digitalisation of the common policy on visas and the setting up
of new interoperable large-scale IT systems;
2) A bigger emphasis is foreseen for EU added value projects, including through
financial incentives, such as higher co-financing rates for projects under the
national programmes which support strategic Union priorities, or top-up funding
22
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
for Member States that initiate transnational projects of benefit to the Union as a
whole;
3) There is a strong focus on supporting capacity building and functioning of the
newly created European Border and Coast Guard as well as moving towards the
uniform application of the relevant Schengen
acquis
as regards borders and visa.
This includes conditionalities ensuring that:
Equipment purchased with the support of the Fund is put at the disposal of
the Agency for an adequate amount of time;
Trainings supported by the Fund are implemented in line with the relevant
uniform European standards;
Recommendations or deficiencies stemming from quality control
mechanisms (such as the Scheval mechanism and the European Border
and Coast Guard Agency's vulnerability assessment) are addressed with
the support of the Fund.
In view of the specific legal basis under the Treaties, a second legislative instrument will
be necessary for establishing the new Customs Control Equipment component of the
IBMF.
The general objective of the
Integrated Border Management Fund
–
Customs
Control Equipment
will be to support the customs union and customs authorities to
protect the financial and economic interests of the Union and its Member States, to
ensure security and safety within the Union and to protect the Union from unfair and
illegal trade while facilitating legitimate business activity.
The
specific objective
of the Fund will be to contribute to adequate and equivalent
customs controls through the
purchase, maintenance and upgrade of relevant, state-
of-the-art and reliable customs control equipment.
The creation of two instruments under one Fund will ensure strong synergies between the
two Funds and will support Member States' capacities at the external borders as regards
strengthening the control on persons and goods.
3.2.3
Internal Security Fund
The Internal Security Fund will support measures ensuring a high level of security in the
Union especially by tackling and preventing serious crime with a cross-border
dimension, such as terrorism and radicalisation, organised crime, corruption and
cybercrime, and by assisting and protecting victims of crime. The Regulation establishing
the Internal Security Fund is based on Articles 81(2), 82(1), 84 and 87(2) TFEU.
The
general objective
of the
Internal Security Fund
will be to contribute to ensuring a
high level of security in the Union, in particular by tackling terrorism and radicalisation,
serious and organised crime and cybercrime, and by assisting and protecting victims of
crime.
23
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0030.png
The
specific objectives
of the Fund will be the following:
Increase the
exchange of information
among and within the EU law enforcement
and other competent authorities and other relevant Union bodies, as well as with
third countries and international organisations;
Intensify
cross-border joint operations
among and within the EU law
enforcement and other competent authorities in relation to
serious and organised
crime
with a cross-border dimension;
Support effort at
strengthening the capabilities to combat and prevent crime
including terrorism, in particular
through increased cooperation.
The objectives of the Internal Security Fund are based on the scope of ISF Police, which
is considered sufficiently broad. Its scope will be enlarged as it will also include the non-
health related demand side of drugs, taking over a part of the
drugs component of the
Justice Programme
62
. This change in scope enables further synergies between actions
supported through ISF Police and actions supported through the current anti-drugs
component. It brings together support for the reduction of drug supply in one Instrument.
Actions that support the reduction of drug demand, in its health related aspects, fall under
the scope of interest of the Health component of the Single Market Programme. Such
change also brings more clarity for potential applicants. Close coordination is needed to
reach synergies with regard to actions that aim to reduce drug demand, but are not
directly health-related, such as information campaigns and preventive measures.
Currently, ISF Police has one general objective with two security specific objectives. As
the interim evaluation confirms that these are considered overlapping and unclear, the
future ISF structure will contain a single general objective reflecting the Security
Agenda's policy priorities and the following three horizontal specific objectives:
1) Better information exchange;
2) Increased operational cooperation; and
3) Increased national and collective capacities including training and non-standard
equipment.
Implementation measures reflect the concrete measures to be implemented in order to
reach the specific objectives (e.g. set up and maintain national and EU security relevant
IT-systems, measures to improve and facilitate the use of Joint Intervention Teams
(JITs), creation of specialised Union networks and cooperation structures etc.).
The Fund will continue to place emphasis on fighting serious and organised crime with a
cross-border dimension and, in particular, on ensuring a collective Union response to
security threats as well as on improving the Union's preparedness and resilience.
The role of EU Agencies
The role of the Home Affairs Agencies as key operational arms in the implementation of
the EU migration and security policies is expected to increase. The Union launched new
policy and legislative initiatives. It has also reviewed and substantially expanded the
62
Regulation (EU) No 1382/2013 of 17 December 2013 (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 73).
24
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0031.png
mandate of some Agencies, notably EASO and the EBCGA and has expanded the tasks
of Europol and eu-LISA.
Following the interim evaluation processes of the Agencies and recent Commission
initiatives, the Agencies may receive further tasks. The expanded mandate of the
Agencies would not have as purpose to substitute the current tasks performed by Member
States but rather to enhance and upgrade actions of the EU and its Member States in the
area of migration, border management and security. For example, Europol will further
develop the capacity of systematically bringing together intelligence of Member States to
improve the overall EU capacity to fight and prevent terrorism. This does not imply that
Member States will have to do less in this area, but more. Member States in the future
will not only have to continue collecting evidence and data but also share it in a uniform
format with Europol and other Member States, which is not the case to date.
Similarly, the expanded function of the EBCGA will not in the medium term replace the
action of customs and border guards in Member States but will enhance border
surveillance capacities that are not performed up to the right standards today and that will
necessitate more effective action by both Member States and the Agencies. As presented
in the Communication
A new, modern Multiannual Financial Framework for a European
Union that delivers efficiently on its priorities post-2020
63
, the future development of the
European Border and Coast Guard will depend on the decisions taken on the future
Financial Framework. With the increased capacities of the Agency, the need for financial
support and training for the increase of the national border guard component in
vulnerable Member States, the creation of bigger and more operational expert pools and
reinforced own equipment would increase.
The Agencies would have an important role during the programming of the national
programmes. Furthermore, the (new) monitoring roles, such as the assessments
performed by the EBCGA and the future EU Asylum Agency would feed into mid-term
review processes and may be cause for a revision of relevant national programmes.
The role of IT systems in the areas of migration, border management and security
The central components of the EU IT systems will be established and be interoperable in
2020, while the national components will be rolled out in 2020 and 2021. Adequate
financial support is needed for a full deployment of the new systems beyond 2020.
Additional funding will be needed for further development and maintenance of new and
existing systems. Furthermore, achieving full interoperability between these systems will
require significant investments. The success of information exchange depends on the
quality of data entered into the systems as well as the regularity of input and use.
Therefore, investment will continue to be needed in training and capacity building. The
systems would also need to be adapted to new requirements and innovations such as
facial recognition, encryption and decryption and development of capabilities to analyse
big data.
63
COM(2018) 98.
25
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0032.png
Impact of an insufficient level of funding on priorities
Overall, both evaluations and consultations carried out in the context of this Impact
Assessment show that the scale of the
challenges to be addressed under the next MFF
will increase.
Current levels of support would therefore not be sufficient to address the
needs nor enable to meet the political ambitions expressed in the areas of migration,
border management and security and to support the objectives outlined above.
Furthermore,
if funding levels were reduced,
dependent on its extent,
current
operations would be impacted
as choices would need to be made. For example, in the
field of
migration,
in order to maintain funding for asylum, integration and return,
funding incentives for the resettlement of beneficiaries of international protection might
need to be cut. In
external border management,
funding for consular cooperation
would have to be significantly cut, as well as incentives to Member States to invest in
EBCGA equipment. As regards
security,
less funding for developing the Member States'
technical and human capacities would certainly hamper the effective cooperation among
law enforcement authorities (both nationally and transnationally) in areas where
collective intelligence and action will be necessary, such as in the area of anti-terrorism
(including the fight against radicalisation), trafficking in human beings and crisis
preparedness and response, including the protection of critical infrastructure and soft
targets.
3.3
Coherence and complementarities with other EU funding instruments
Preferred option:
The objectives of the Union in the areas of migration, border management and security
will be supported through a fully coordinated set of funding instruments, including both
their internal and external aspects.
Alternative option:
All aspects of migration, border management or security would be supported through a
single Instrument respectively, namely AMF, BMVI and ISF.
Preferred option:
Priorities in the areas of migration, border management and security need to be supported
through a
fully coordinated and coherent set of funding instruments, including both
their internal and external aspects.
It is important to avoid overlaps with funding
provided through other EU instruments, by establishing dividing lines and effective
coordination mechanisms. AMF, BMVI and ISF will act as the Union's dedicated
instruments in the areas of migration, border management and security, in addition to
other relevant funding instruments which, from their own perspectives and areas of
support, reinforce the migration and security policy objectives. This is the
best option
to
ensure effective implementation of the objective within legal constraints, since it will
allow that the different Funds integrate fully the parts of migration and security which are
closer to their scope of action in their objectives and implementation structures. It will
also mobilise the Member States’ administrations and stakeholders’ expertise from
different angles to address the migration, borders and security challenges. Furthermore,
26
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0033.png
this option takes into account the variable geometry that applies to the home affairs area
and the different Treaty bases determining the scope of intervention of the various EU
Funds. However, under this option beneficiaries would still potentially need to access
funding from different sources, requiring coordination efforts to ensure consistency of
action. Furthermore, the design of AMF, BMVI and ISF will have to duly take into
account the reinforced mandates of the relevant Union Agencies, most notably the
EBCGA, EASO and Europol as well as the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)
and the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) and ensure coherence and
complementarities with actions carried out by these Agencies in the areas of migration
and asylum, border management and security.
In this context, overlaps need to be avoided with funding provided through other EU
instruments, by establishing dividing lines and effective coordination and governance
mechanisms within the Commission and managing authorities. Information and support
towards (potential) beneficiaries would be facilitated through establishing a single entry
or information point at national level.
Alternative option:
An alternative option would be to support all aspects of either migration under AMF,
border management under BMVI or security under ISF. The advantage of such a funding
architecture would be that would ensure full coherence of action and consistency of
measures inside the migration, border management and security areas. However, such
option would have several disadvantages; the connection with other Funds and
interconnections with other support measures in other policy fields would be weakened.
In the sections below the advantages and disadvantages of the options above are applied
to some areas of particular importance
64
.
1. Support for migration and security through the successors of the European
Structural and Investment Funds.
Preferred option:
The successors of the European Structural and Investment Funds support objectives
related to migration and security within their scope of intervention through a menu of
policy objectives. In the area of integration, long-term needs are covered with dedicated
budget, including earmarking.
Alternative option:
Support for all aspects of either migration, border management or security within the
Union will be implemented through AMF, BMVI and ISF.
Preferred option:
The interventions through the successors to the European Structural and Investment
Funds are structured by a menu of policy objectives. These Funds will include migration
and security in its menu of policy objectives, to be supported from their respective scopes
64
For further information regarding the delineation between the Asylum and Migration Fund and the Internal
Security Fund with the successors to ESIF, please refer to Annex 4.
27
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0034.png
of intervention. Please refer to Annex 4 for the delineation of interventions in the post-
2020 MFF.
The advantage of this option is that migration and security would become a prominent
focus area of Funds with larger volumes of resources and synergies with other policy
areas would be maximised. This option would ensure a strong and consistent support to
Member States for the development and implementation of their policies to face the
migration, border management and security challenges.
For example, the future European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is better placed
than ISF to incorporate the security considerations in the construction of a bridge, a
community centre or a railway station.
For instance, when the population of a small rural area is doubled in a matter of days due
to the high influx of refugees and there is a need to transform a public or private building
into a reception centre, the EAFRD, or the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
(EMFF) in coastal areas, might be a suitable alternative funding source to AMF and
closer to the local decision making authority.
The particular case of integration
Integration is a particular case since it would involve large volumes of investments as
opposed to, for instance, reception capacity, where capacities are in place to a large
extent. Integration support for third-country nationals is currently funded by a variety of
EU Funds, among which AMIF is the only Fund targeting third-county nationals
specifically. Other Funds, in particular ESIF, but also Erasmus+, are intervening in their
respective domains (employment, education, infrastructure, etc.) but without having the
integration of third-country nationals as a specific or priority objective.
The large influx of third-country nationals to the EU since 2014 has triggered additional
needs for integration support in Member States. As integration is a long-term process, the
need for investing in this area will continue or even increase in the 2021-2027 period.
The groups that are the most in need of integration support are asylum applicants likely
to be in need of international protection, as well as beneficiaries of international
protection and migrants arriving in the EU through family reunification procedures.
These groups of persons have specific needs. Dedicated funding to benefit this target
group continues to be necessary, in particular in the early stages of the integration
process.
Therefore, AMF should provide dedicated funding for actions specifically targeting third-
country nationals, in particular in the early integration phase for the social and economic
inclusion of third-country nationals, including by providing support for education to
children, as well as for horizontal measures supporting integration policies and strategies
of Member States. For asylum applicants covered by the reformed Dublin scheme, which
may include in certain cases also through its corrective allocation mechanism, AMF
28
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0035.png
would cover first reception measures, basic assistance and training and will also provide
support for those that would need to be returned
65
.
Interventions in different thematic areas for longer term measures, such as integration
into the labour market and social inclusion support for the integration of third-country
nationals are proposed to be supported through the successors to ESIF and other EU
Funds (see Annex 4
66
). Furthermore, for asylum seekers covered by the corrective
allocation mechanism of the Dublin scheme, the successors to ESIF would provide
support covering longer term basic assistance.
Alternative option:
Supporting migration management, border management and security through the
respective internal Instruments would mean that all needs in the areas of security,
migration including integration, and border management would be covered under AMF,
BMVI and ISF. This option would guarantee full consistency of all interventions under
the objectives of migration, border management and security. However, it would be less
effective in terms of policy purposes. For example, should all actions supporting the
integration of third-country nationals be supported through AMF, while no other
instruments would provide support within their scope of intervention, it would result in
integration processes that are supported in isolation from social inclusion measures that
are applied to the rest of society. This has proven to be less effective for successful
integration outcomes. Similarly, anti-radicalisation efforts directed at the target groups of
the Instrument would be delinked from broader efforts on social inclusion and anti-
radicalisation. In a similar vein, support for the security of critical infrastructures and the
protection of public spaces would be delinked from investments through other
Instruments in the development of such infrastructures. Therefore, there is a need for
various EU Funds to support the migration and security objectives of the Union within
their scope of intervention.
2. The external dimension of the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Integrated
Border Management Fund and the Internal Security Fund
Preferred option:
The main investments in the external aspects of migration, border management and
security will be the single external Instrument and AMF, BMVI and ISF will have a
sizeable external component to support the internal objectives of the Union within their
scope of intervention but complementary to the external Instrument.
Alternative option:
Supporting migration, border management and/or security will be implemented
exclusively through a single external Instrument.
65
66
Dependent on the negotiations of the Recast Dublin Regulation.
Support for local communities needs to be provided for larger communities as well as smaller or/and poor
hosting communities like in some rural areas.
29
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
Preferred option:
The drafting of new internal Instruments should include policy objectives that enable the
external projection of internal Union policies through these Instruments. As a
consequence, there is a need for AMF, BMVI and ISF to have a sizeable external
component to support the internal objectives of the Union within their scope of
intervention.
Such interventions will be designed and implemented in coherence with Union external
action and foreign policy, in particular with the Union’s external Instrument. Migration
and security would be covered in the different components (geographical, thematic, and
non-programmable) of the external financial instruments. More specifically, this
Instrument would contain an unallocated share for emerging challenges. The unallocated
share would contain a programmable thematic component with a strong focus on
migration. Actions supported through this component need to contribute to the attainment
of the Sustainable Development Goals. Through AMF it is not intended to support
actions which are development oriented but to complement, when appropriate, the
financial assistance provided through the external Instruments. The use of an EU Trust
Fund for actions in the external dimension is a potentially useful tool through which part
of the support from AMF, BMVI and ISF may be channelled, in coordination with other
funding sources. The future Funds would not contain a separate Trust Fund. However,
future Trust Funds should have the capacity of reacting with more agility and speed and
have a large geographical scope.
Support through the future AMF, BMVI and ISF would cover the following actions,
complementary to support through the external Instrument:
1)
AMF
would continue to support resettlement, capacity building of third-countries
to manage migration flows and ensure migrant protection and pre-departure
measures by Member States, aimed at facilitating the integration of third-country
nationals in the EU. In the area of return, it would continue to support the
implementation of readmission agreements with third countries and the
reintegration of returnees, as well as actions preventing irregular migration (i.e.
information campaigns, data collection and tracking of flows and routes, etc.). An
example where support of the Fund may be needed is in case of large numbers of
forced returns, including returns with specific medical needs. As a novelty, the
Instrument would provide the possibility to support the development of mobility
schemes to the EU in the area of legal migration and a possibility to provide
incentives and support to (and in) third countries to accept and reintegrate
returnees from the EU in the area of return.
2)
BMVI
would continue to support sharing of information and best practices with
third countries, improve operational cooperation, including through joint
operations, support capacity building of third countries to protect their borders
through training and purchase of equipment as well as other operational
necessities.
3)
ISF
would continue supporting cooperation with third countries on anti-terrorism
and anti-radicalisation activities, cooperation of law enforcement authorities in
30
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0037.png
the fight against terrorism as well as trafficking in human beings and migrant
smuggling, including through joint investigation teams.
Alternative option:
Supporting migration, border management and security through a single external
Instrument would have as an advantage that migration and security objectives would
become a more prominent component of the external Instrument of the Union. However,
it will also leave some areas uncovered and will decrease the degree of autonomy of the
EU to act rapidly when needed in the migration, border management and security areas.
Furthermore, these external interventions would be decoupled from interventions in the
internal dimension, while the implementation of the current Funds has shown the need
for immediate links in areas such as pre-integration, legal migration, return and
reintegration as well as border management and security. This would increase the need
for coordination between interventions under the various Instruments.
3. Support for customs control equipment
Preferred option:
Establishing the new Customs Control Equipment component will allow a coordinated
and operational approach between customs authorities and with related policy areas for
integrated border management.
Alternative option:
Customs control equipment will be implemented exclusively through a single Instrument.
Preferred option:
Funding of customs control equipment presents a clear EU added value, considering that
the functioning of an efficient and secure Customs Union constitutes a European public
good. Since the establishment of the Customs Union 50 years ago, the role of customs
authorities in the management of the external border has now extended well beyond their
traditional role of collecting EU own resources and in supervising and facilitating EU
trade. Customs are nowadays active in the field of safety and security, controlling the
cross-border movement of restricted and prohibited goods and (narcotic) substances,
including activities potentially supporting terrorists and organised crime. State-of-the-art
customs control equipment is crucial for customs to perform in a more secure, faster and
more cost-effective way.
All these objectives are actively supported by the Customs programme, which provides a
comprehensive framework for cooperation as well as IT and human capacity building
–
with the exception thus of customs control equipment. As the Customs programme will
be extended beyond 2020, a proper coordination will need to be established between, on
the one hand, that programme and its horizontal wide-reaching objectives and, on the
other hand, the new customs control equipment component and its specialised area of
intervention. By extension, coordination shall also be foreseen with the future Single
Anti-Fraud Programme, which will also include funding of equipment as regards
specifically the protection of the Union's financial interests.
31
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0038.png
Creating a support for customs control equipment however does not impact only customs
authorities but reaches out as well to other departments or agencies such as police, border
guards, health and consumer protection authorities; the economic impact of cigarette
smuggling represents a budgetary loss of around 10 billion Euros per year. In addition,
counterfeit and pirated products represent up to 5% of all EU imports, worth up to
EUR 85 billion. Brands that suffer the most from Intellectual Property infringements are
primarily registered in the EU
67
.
Therefore, when establishing the new CCE component, there is a need to ensure a
coordinated approach between customs and related policy areas such as security, fight
against fraud, integrated border management. This applies all the more as control
equipment usually allows for dual or multiple use. A more integrated and coordinated
border and customs management as well as, as far as possible, co-sharing of control
equipment between all concerned stakeholders, whether customs authorities, border
guards, EBCGA, will also be aimed for. Exploring compatibility and inter-operability of
customs control equipment would not only address respective issues more effectively,
efficiently and consistently but also create shared expertise in view of better mobilising
EU and national funds. Such a coordinated approach shall however respect the different
legal bases for the Customs Union and the Schengen area.
Alternative option:
Implementing the Customs control equipment exclusively through a single Instrument
–
such as the future Customs programme
–
would present the advantage of ensuring
coherence among all customs activities.
However, if customs equipment is contemplated into the sole future Customs
programme, operational cooperation and coordination with the related policy areas for
border management will not further develop. It will thus not favour a sound integrated
border management approach.
4. Other areas of coherence and complementarities
Preferred option:
AMF, BMVI and ISF ensure full coherence and complementarity with other EU Funds in
the areas of migration, border management and security.
Alternative option:
AMF, BMVI and ISF do not ensure full coherence and complementarity with other EU
Funds in the areas of migration, border management and security.
Preferred option:
AMF, BMVI and ISF ensure full coherence and complementarity with relevant EU
Funds, such as in the area of education for migrants, maritime security and surveillance,
cybersecurity and judicial cooperation. The Funds will be complementary to the future
Emergency Support Instrument (ESI).
67
2017 Situation Report on Counterfeiting and Piracy in the European Union (Europol).
32
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
The post-2020 MFF should support a coherent EU policy for
maritime security and
surveillance.
Such coherence is needed given the wide array of coastguard functions and
the involvement of more than 300 responsible entities at national level. The BMVI and
the future EMFF should continue supporting improved interoperability and information
exchange across borders and sectors, as well as between civil and military actors. Such
support needs to be implemented with strong involvement of the EBCGA, EMSA and
EFCA. The primary objectives of those activities would determine which Fund would
support them. Legal provisions in the respective Funds should support joint,
multipurpose operations and also the dual or multi-use of equipment. For example,
surveillance aircrafts which can detect and off-shore patrol vessels which can address a
multitude of challenges, such as oil spills, fisheries control, search and rescue of life at
sea, and border control. By promoting such investments for multipurpose assets,
deploying more costly and labour intensive assets (such as Navy vessels), which are
often not fit for purpose to carry out civilian duties, could be avoided. In addition,
cooperation between bodies operating on the maritime security dimension would be
promoted.
With regard to
cybersecurity,
synergies will be established between ISF and a future
Digital Europe Programme, the next Research and Innovation Framework Programme
(Horizon Europe) and the Defence Fund. Synergies may cover the inclusion of civilian,
law enforcement and military cyber defence research entities becoming part of an EU
network to jointly carry out research, solving law enforcement challenges and possibly
creating a cluster of expertise involving law enforcement actors.
Given the close connections between
security and justice,
synergies will be ensured
with future Funds, such as the future Justice Programme and the Rights and Values
programme, supporting adequate protection to victims of crime, JITs and judicial
training, ensuring interoperability with ECRIS and improving detention conditions.
Police-justice cooperation activities, including via Justice-related Agencies, such as
Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), both at Union and
national level, should be enhanced. Synergies exist between measures against
radicalisation and terrorism and measures fighting racism, xenophobia and hate speech.
The promotion and protection of the rights of the child in a vulnerable situation, i.e.
unaccompanied minors, and the prevention of violence against women and children is
also important while dealing with the migration crisis. Trafficking in human beings has a
gender and age dimension that links this phenomenon to actions to combat violence
against women and children.
Alternative option:
In the alternative option, the synergies and complementarities between AMF, BMVI and
ISF with other relevant Funds would not be ensured. Given the need for maximising the
EU added value and avoiding overlaps such option is not considered realistic.
33
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0040.png
4
D
ELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING
This section presents the mechanisms to deliver funding under the Asylum and Migration
Fund, the Integrated Border Management Fund and the Internal Security Fund,
demonstrating how, first, flexibility and performance would be increased and, second,
how the implementation of the Funds would be simplified.
4.1
Enhancing flexibility within a stable framework
Preferred option:
AMF, BMVI and ISF will be designed in such a way that they are better equipped to
react to unforeseen circumstances and are able to address changes in spending
priorities, applying the elements for increasing flexibility that are presented in this
section. This option will include the flexibility mechanisms depicted below: a solid mid-
term review with a technical adjustment and a thematic facility to ensure a good steer of
the Funds and additional flexibility.
Alternative option:
AMF, BMVI and ISF will be designed in such a way that they provide a high level of
predictability, including an initial allocation and a technical adjustment during a mid-
term review for shared management. This option will not include other elements of
flexibility than the technical adjustment.
Both options will be delivered through a mix of shared, direct and indirect management
and emergency assistance will continue to exist in both options.
Other options that present different combinations of the elements presented below are
possible; i.e. a mid-term review with only a technical adjustment plus a thematic facility
or a mid-term review that also includes a dedicated performance reserve.
Preferred option:
AMF, BMVI and ISF need to be designed in such a way that they are better equipped to
react to unforeseen circumstances and are able to address changes in spending priorities.
The components listed below contribute to increasing the flexibility of the Funds. The
preferred option is to apply all those elements in the new Funds. The advantage of this
option is that the Commission would be able to react quickly, adapt to changing needs,
reward performance and steer more effectively the Funds towards high EU added value
objectives. The disadvantage of this option would be that, for shared management,
revisions of national programmes will be needed on a regular basis and the administrative
burden for the Member States and the Commission might be high. To accommodate that
disadvantage the current rules for revising national programmes should be simplified.
Member State authorities responsible for implementing the national programmes have
indicated that, in general, more flexibility in the methods for allocation and implementing
Funds is needed, while retaining a necessary level of predictability for long-term support.
Alternative option:
The alternative option would have the advantage of giving a high level of predictability
to Member States while keeping some flexibility and reducing the administrative burden
34
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0041.png
for Member States and the Commission. Furthermore, the ability to choose the best
implementation mode according to the objectives and needs would be substantially
reduced. The capacity for the Commission to steer the Funds to high EU added value
priorities would be reduced, but not annulled. The Commission would still be able to
negotiate priorities with Member States through Policy Dialogues and to influence
choices by Member States through higher co-financing rates, conditionalities and
legislative and policy requirements embedded in the legal acts. Furthermore, the
implementation of policies such as the 'Dublin reform' or resettlement, which require
regular top-up funding to Member States might become challenging and might require
frequent additions from the general budget of the Union.
4.1.1
Implementation modalities
4.1.1.1 AMF, BMVI and ISF
Preferred option:
AMF, BMVI and ISF will retain the current mix of shared, direct and indirect
management with a number of improvements.
Alternative option:
AMF, BMVI and ISF will be implemented through direct management only.
Preferred option:
The preferred option is
to retain the current mix of shared, direct and indirect
management with a number of improvements.
A mix of shared, direct and indirect
management in the areas of migration, border management and security provides for the
best set of delivery mechanisms to achieve the objectives of the Funds. Through shared
management Member States implement programmes that contribute to the policy
objectives of the Union, which are tailor-made to their national context. Through direct
and indirect management transnational, Union-wide actions are supported.
Through direct management, the Commission has a more direct influence on the use of
funding, ensuring it contributes to the common policy objectives of the Union when
compared to shared management. At the same time, shared management ensures that
financial support is available in all participating States and reduces the adverse effects of
competition for funding, which would result in funding going mostly to a small number
of active and well-organised Member States that are effective in bidding for budgets.
Furthermore, shared management allows for funding predictability and for Member
States, who are most knowledgeable of the challenges they are faced with, to plan their
long-term endowments accordingly. It is essential to guarantee the necessary support in
all Member States, while securing the ability to implement EU priorities across the
Union. Through indirect management, the Funds retain the possibility to delegate budget
implementation tasks to, among others, International Organisations and Home Affairs
Agencies for particular purposes. Without prejudice to decisions of the Budgetary
Authority, this would allow for supporting the Agencies in exceptional cases.
In order to
improve the 'steer' of Funds
that are implemented
under shared
management,
the dialogue between the Commission and the managing authorities of the
35
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0042.png
Funds needs to be improved, including more frequent high-level dialogues and the use of
periodical review meetings. In addition, AMF, BMVI and ISF need to be equipped with
adequate conditionalities and incentives, such as higher co-financing rates for a small
number of actions with high EU added value (Specific Actions as defined in the
Instruments, operating support for public services that are for the benefit of the Union
and emergency assistance)
68
. While some actions, such as operating support, would be
part of the basic allocation, to be part of the Policy Dialogue, other actions, such as
Specific Actions and Emergency Assistance would be dedicated top-up funding. This
needs to be implemented while retaining the benefits of multiannual programming. These
improvements compared to AMF and ISF would make the Funds more flexible,
achieving higher efficiency and effectiveness. Member States have confirmed the need to
continue implementing the Funds through shared management, in order to ensure that the
needs can be addressed across the Union, contributing to EU objectives. International
organisations and NGOs have indicated that, in addition, direct support from the Union
budget, via direct management, should be part of the future Funds.
Considering the need to retain all implementing modalities, it should be noted that
implementing shared management through annual programmes instead of multiannual
programmes would allow for a more real-time needs assessment of the needs on the
ground during the programming exercise. However, this would imply returning to the
system that was applied during the 2007-2013 programming period. The ex-post
evaluations of the SOLID Funds and the interim evaluations of AMF and ISF confirm
that annual programming entails a high level of administrative burden to both the
Member States and the Commission, while it reduces flexibility in using the Funds. In
addition, annual programming lacks the level of predictability of allocations that is
needed in shared management. This would be detrimental to ensuring that the long-term
support and structural solutions are implemented that are necessary for improving and
maintaining the Union’s migration and security systems.
Alternative option:
An alternative option would be that
AMF, BMVI and ISF would be implemented
through direct management only
(through Union Actions and emergency assistance).
Such option would increase the influence of the Commission on the use of the Funds and,
by doing so, direct it to support Union priorities. In that case, the possibility to delegate
the implementation of (part of) the funding to an executive agency, to alleviate the heavy
burden on the limited Commission resources, would be necessary.
However, implementing all funding under direct management
would not be
proportionate and would not ensure that the available funding is implemented
successfully,
tailor-made to a national context, in accordance with the findings of the ex-
post and interim evaluations, which confirm that a mix of direct, indirect and shared
management was effective in order to ensure support for
the Union’s priorities and
implementation of the
acquis
in all Member States. In this field of shared competences
68
By reducing the level of co-financing that beneficiaries need to provide the implementation of such actions is
stimulated.
36
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0043.png
managing authorities in Member States are closer to the beneficiaries, enabling the Funds
to reach a larger number of beneficiaries. As a result, actions can be better adjusted to the
needs and the best placed implementing partner can be selected. In addition,
implementing all funding through direct management would require significant increases
in staffing of the responsible services of the Commission in order to manage and
monitoring its implementation. The need to retain these management modes was
confirmed in the stakeholder consultations for the Impact Assessment.
4.1.1.2 Customs Control Equipment
Preferred option:
The IBMF
–
Customs Control Equipment will build on direct management through the
provision of grants to national authorities for the purchase, maintenance and evolution
of customs control equipment.
Alternative option:
The IBMF
–
Customs Control Equipment will be implemented through shared
management.
Preferred option:
As regards the Customs Control Equipment component, the preferred option is
direct
management through the provision of grants to national authorities for the
purchase, maintenance and evolution of customs control equipment.
The new EU intervention aims at addressing current imbalances between Member States
and ensuring equivalence in the performance of customs controls throughout the Customs
Union. Such an objective requires obviously coordination beyond national borders,
which a centralised approach through direct management is best placed to deliver. As the
national authorities
–
and not the Union
–
should continue to own directly the equipment
they use for carrying out their duties at EU borders, EU intervention would take the form
of grants to Member States supporting the purchase, maintenance and upgrade of
customs control equipment in accordance with predefined standards per border type.
It is also an appropriate approach as, in the case at hand, it will only involve a limited
number of beneficiaries, the 27 Member States, thereby allowing the application of
several simplifications foreseen by the Financial Regulation and its rules for application,
in particular the exceptions to calls for proposals. Direct management is furthermore the
delivery mechanism for existing actions in the customs field, whether under the Customs
or Hercule III programmes.
In order to build thoroughly on the knowledge and operational experience of the national
authorities and thereby meet their actual needs, direct management by the Commission
will be supported by expert teams/task forces composed of Member States for
preparatory tasks (e.g. assessment of needs and definition of standards of minimum
equipment by border type). The final policy decision will be taken by the Commission,
which will allocate the funds through grants based on customs policy priorities, threats
and volumes under a comitology procedure.
37
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0044.png
Co-funding
–
i.e. national contributions on top of EU intervention
–
and ex-ante
conditionalities
–
such as the demonstration of adequate administrative capacity in terms
of e.g. staff number and skills
–
will be considered as well where deemed appropriate.
This ensures that the provision of customs control equipment takes place only with the
full commitment of Member States and where conditions are met, thereby securing the
actual use of equipment and a real impact for EU intervention.
Alternative option for the delivery mechanism:
An alternative option would be to implement
the Customs Control Equipment
component through shared management.
Discussions with other services
implementing this delivery mechanism showed clearly that, apart from its complexity,
shared management would not provide the overall coherence and cross-border
coordination needed for customs given the requirement to ensure an equivalent level of
control across all Member States. Moreover, in the absence of cooperation between
Member States as each of them would draft its own national plan independently, shared
management does not foster the sharing of experiences and exchange of expertise and
best practices, which are important benefits expected from this intervention for a uniform
application of EU customs rules.
4.1.2
The thematic facility
69
69
The thematic facility does not address needs in relation to the Customs Union and its policy as they are
covered separately by the customs programme.
38
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0045.png
Preferred option:
The flexibility of the management of AMF, BMVI and ISF will be increased through the
introduction of the thematic facility.
Alternative option:
Methods for providing additional funding for AMF, BMVI and ISF will remain
unchanged compared to the current Funds.
Preferred option:
Of the total envelope of AMF, BMVI and ISF 60% should be reserved for the national
programmes. A critical mass is needed for the Funds to allow for Member States to plan
long-term support through shared management, providing legal and financial certainty, in
particular for structural and large, multiannual investments in line with Member States'
needs for further developing their migration and security systems.
The remaining
40% should be managed through a thematic facility
–
this would not
apply to the customs control equipment Instrument. During consultation activities
Member States have indicated to be generally supportive of the need to increase
flexibility, while indicating there is a need to provide predictability and financial
certainty in order to successfully implement national programmes. These needs are
accommodated through providing a multiannual allocation of funding to the national
programmes and complementing it with a mechanism that increases flexibility by
disbursing funding periodically to a number of themes defined in the legal bases. The
term 'thematic facility' should not be understood as a facility in the way it is used under
financial instruments. It is a mechanism that offers flexibility in the management of the
Fund by allowing to disburse Funds through the following mechanisms:
Support for Specific Actions, providing additional funding for dedicated actions
of high EU added-value, through the national programmes of Member States;
Support for Union Actions, managed through direct and indirect management;
The provision of emergency assistance;
Support for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission
70
;
For AMF, to provide financial support for the implementation of resettlement
and relocation activities.
The programming of the actions under the thematic facility would be implemented
through Work Programmes
71
, adopted by Commission Implementing Decision following
the consultation of Member States through the AMIF-ISF Committee. The thematic
facility would allow for addressing new priorities or urgent actions and to implement
70
71
For the preparation, monitoring, administrative and technical assistance, evaluation, audit and control
measures and activities necessary for the implementation of the Funds.
Support for resettlement activities should be provided in accordance with the methods agreed during the
negotiations on the Union Resettlement Framework. In the proposal, the Commission is authorised to
establish each year one or more targeted Union resettlement schemes. This should occur as soon as possible
after the adoption of and consistent with the annual Union resettlement plan adopted by the Council and also
taking into account the discussions within the High-Level Resettlement Committee. The Commission may
adopt one or more targeted Union resettlement scheme(s) during the period covered by an annual Union
resettlement plan.
39
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0046.png
them through the delivery mode that is best placed to achieve the policy objective. As a
result, the thematic facility would allow for providing support in line with the needs of a
particular Fund. In the current programming period, the share of direct management in
ISF Police is higher than for the current AMF and ISF Borders and Visa. Should these
needs continue to differ, as would be outlined in the Work Programmes, the thematic
facility would cater for Fund-specific needs. In order to ensure sufficient predictability,
minimum percentages for Specific Actions and Union Actions and a maximum
percentage for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission could be set by the
legal bases
72
.
Alternative option:
In the absence of a thematic facility and considering that the mix of delivery mechanisms
would be retained, the distribution of funding would be implemented as under the current
AMIF and ISF. This has proven to provide an insufficient level of flexibility and, as a
result, more recourse to the use of emergency assistance was needed compared to what
was originally foreseen. Currently, transfers of funding between direct and shared
management are not possible which leads to inefficiencies (money not implemented
under shared management or under direct management). Furthermore, top-ups to national
programmes require a formal revision and cannot be adjusted to needs to the necessary
extent.
4.1.3
Emergency assistance
73
Preferred option:
AMF, BMVI and ISF will retain the possibility to provide emergency assistance, to be
implemented through all implementing modalities.
Alternative option:
AMF, BMVI and ISF will not retain the possibility to provide emergency assistance.
Preferred option:
In order to react to unforeseen circumstances or emergency situations, the Funds would
need to be able to assist at short notice by providing emergency assistance. The Funds
will define what is considered an emergency situation within their scope of intervention.
If such conditions are met, the Union will be able to provide swift financial assistance
(up to 100% of indicated needs), with a certain level of retroactivity. The possibility to
provide support retroactively is included in the current Funds and would be retained
74
.
72
73
74
Such levels may be set in accordance with rules for shared management laid down in the future Common
Provisions Regulation.
The emergency assistance does not address needs in relation to Customs Union and its policy as they are
covered separately by the customs programme.
In accordance with Article 7(4) of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014: “Emergency
assistance may support
expenditure which was incurred prior to the date of submission of the grant application or the request for
assistance, but not prior to 1 January 2014, when necessary for the implementation of the action.” Recital 15
of that Regulation
further states: “To ensure an adequate framework for providing rapidly emergency
assistance, this Regulation should allow support for actions the expenditure of which was incurred before the
application for such assistance was made, but not before 1 January 2014, in accordance with the provision in
40
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0047.png
Due to its emergency nature, the Funds should be able to support measures that needed to
be undertaken prior to the submission of a grant application, in duly substantiated cases.
Since the volatile character of the migration and security policy areas will not change
soon, it is important that the Funds retain the possibility of quickly deploying funding.
This emergency mechanism will exist within the funding envelopes of each of the three
Instruments for migration and security. Member States have confirmed that the provision
of emergency assistance increased the flexibility in managing the Funds to respond to
urgent needs and that such possibility should be retained in the future Funds.
Such assistance should be complementary to the future Emergency Aid Reserve at the
level of the Union budget, which could be mobilised to provide additional funds. It is
important that the Emergency Aid Reserve would support AMF, BMVI and ISF in
exceptional and well defined circumstances, such as support for the reformed Dublin
scheme in crisis situations.
The Emergency Aid Reserve would bring together the internal and external response of
the Union to crisis situations by topping-up the respective Instruments with additional
funding, but no earmarking of funding for specific policy areas within this reserve has
been foreseen. In the current programming period, emergency funding was often the only
mechanism through which additional funding could be deployed quickly to Member
States or other actors to address pressing needs stemming from migratory or security
challenges.
Different from the current situation, it should be possible to, in addition to direct
management, also provide emergency assistance through shared management, relying on
the management and control system in place. The managing authorities would have the
possibility to decide on the nature, duration and scope of the actions within limits set by
the Commission. Providing emergency assistance through shared management would
facilitate further coordination and complementarity between the emergency assistance
and other actions that are implemented through the national programmes, since it would
be provided through the same management and control system at national level.
In the future Funds, there is no dedicated envelope foreseen for emergency assistance. It
would rather be a possibility to deploy funding from the thematic facility envelope as
emergency assistance, in case of urgent need. This is more likely in the areas of
migration and border management, but also for internal security it is important to
maintain the possibility to use emergency assistance in case of acute security threats. The
use of emergency assistance is expected to be more limited in the next programming
period due to the additional flexibility mechanisms, through the thematic facility, which
would be built into the design of the future Funds.
Alternative option:
The absence of a possibility to provide emergency assistance would reduce the ability of
the Funds to assist in well-defined emergency situations. This would reduce the
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which allows such
flexibility in duly substantiated exceptional cases. […]”.
41
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0048.png
flexibility of the Funds. Only using an Emergency Aid Reserve, an Instrument at the
level of the Union budget, would have the advantage of streamlining the provision of
emergency assistance at the level of the Union. However, it cannot fully replace the
emergency assistance mechanism embedded in AMF, BMVI and ISF. It would not be
exclusively dedicated to the home affairs policy area and may therefore not be able to
make additional support available in time. Furthermore, it would only be activated in the
event of major crises.
4.1.4
A strengthened mid-term review of national programmes
Preferred option:
The national programmes of AMF, BMVI and ISF will be subject to a strengthened mid-
term review, consisting of a technical adjustment.
Alternative option:
The national programmes of AMF, BMVI and ISF will be subject to a strengthened mid-
term review, consisting of a technical adjustment and of a mechanism that rewards
performance towards agreed objectives.
Preferred option:
During the 2021-2027 programming period, 60% of the envelope of AMF, BMVI and
ISF will be reserved for the national programmes. In order to ensure the balance between
predictability and flexibility in disbursing these Funds, 50% of the envelope of these
Funds will be allocated to the national programmes at the beginning of the programming
period. The remaining 10% of the envelope will be allocated to the national programmes
during the mid-term review. This amount is intended to respond to changing needs of
Member States during the programming period.
The initial allocation of 50% of the envelope of the Funds will be distributed across the
national programmes based on the most recent statistical data available, for which the
criteria will be set out in the Regulations establishing the Funds. These criteria will
reflect, to the extent relevant statistics are available for all participating States, the areas
of intervention of the Funds. The initial allocation should take into account data from the
last three reference years for which data is available on the date of adoption of the
Instruments. This would allow for taking into account the most recent data available at
the time of adoption.
Technical adjustment of the allocation keys
In addition to the basic allocation of 50%, 10% of the envelope of AMF, BMVI and ISF
would be used as a technical adjustment to the basic allocation. It is foreseen to conduct
this exercise in 2024, calculating the distribution across the national programmes based
on updated statistical data for the criteria set out in the distribution key of each Fund. The
aim is to provide additional support to Member States that reflects their needs in the
middle of the programming period. This would contribute to a better match between
allocation of funding and needs on the ground. The technical adjustment would not
directly reward performance in reaching the Funds' objectives, however, it would require
national programmes to reach a minimum level of absorption in order to benefit from the
42
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0049.png
mid-term review. When disbursing Funds through the thematic facility, achievements
towards key performance indicators would be taken into account where appropriate.
Member States have confirmed that in order to address changes throughout the
programming period, additional Funds in the mid-term review were needed for AMIF
and ISF Police, however, the Funds did not include such a possibility. For ISF Borders
and Visa the available envelope was not considered sufficient to cover the additional
needs by Member States. The absence of a strengthened mid-term review would reduce
the responsiveness of the Funds to address potential policy developments. Without a
technical adjustment the Funds would have no mechanism to address the need for up-to-
date statistics to reflect the needs on the ground, while the evaluations have indicated the
need for such an update. In order for the Fund to address changing needs, the technical
adjustment needs to have critical mass.
Alternative option:
An alternative option would be to have the strengthened mid-term review consist of a
technical adjustment and a performance review, each endowed with 5% of the envelope
of a Fund. In order to ensure that such review would effectively incentivise Member
States to achieve the common objectives, the mid-term review needs to have critical
mass.
The performance review would be conducted in 2025 and include an assessment of the
programmes in line with the most recent policy developments and any recommendations
with regard to funding needs that would stem from evaluations. The aim would be to
reward those Member States that have performed well in the implementation of the
programmes with additional funding and, on the other hand, to provide support to
Member States undergoing significant changes compared to their baseline situation by
adjusting their basic allocation to better fit their needs. By rewarding performance,
considering that actions implemented under the national programmes bring EU added
value, those Member States that have proven to successfully implement such actions
would receive additional funding. It is expected that this would increase the effectiveness
of the Fund to achieve its objectives.
Measuring performance would be conducted through taking into account implementation
rates of the programmes
75
and by measuring progress towards the achievement of
performance targets for the programming period 2021-2027
76
. Performance targets would
be agreed between the Commission and Member State and indicated in the national
programmes for a common set of indicators that is selected for the performance review.
For an overview of what indicators might be used for such purpose, please refer to Annex
7.
Introducing a performance review would increase the performance based management of
the Fund. In order to ensure that such review would effectively incentivise Member
States to achieve the common objectives, the mid-term review needs to have critical
75
76
Based on information included in the accounts that are submitted by Member States.
Based on information included in the annual implementation reports that are submitted by Member States.
43
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0050.png
mass. However, the use of dedicated performance reserves in the current programming
period in other EU Funds appears unsuccessful to date. The future Funds would be
subject to common rules for shared management Funds. In this framework, it is not
foreseen to reserve a dedicated funding envelope for a performance review. As outlined
in the preferred option, performance based management would be pursued through the
thematic facility.
4.1.5
Use of financial instruments
Preferred option:
The Funds should be designed in such a way to offer the possibility to use grants, both
through direct and shared management, to complement financial instruments channelled
via ‘Invest EU’ or outside it.
Alternative option:
The Funds would not offer the possibility to use grants to complement financial
instruments
channelled via ‘Invest EU’ or outside it.
Preferred option:
Currently, AMIF and ISF, due to the nature of operations supported, channel most
funding through grants. Other modalities, such as market-based financing with an EU
guarantee, equity investment or a risk-sharing arrangement do not appear to be the most
appropriate models of support in migration, border management and security policies.
While such other modalities address market failures by investing in potentially
economically viable projects that are unable to obtain sufficient funding on the market,
migration, security and border management are likely to attract the interest of private
investors only to a limited extent. Home Affairs policies are not, in general, revenue-
generating activities.
In addition, the concept of ‘market failure’ or ‘suboptimal
investment situation’ to justify public intervention in the market is not applicable to
migration and security where only public goods are delivered. Funding in the future must
therefore to a large extent rely on grants.
However, there may be circumstances in which it would be beneficial to blend grants
from the Funds with support through financial instruments. This should be mainly
channelled via the Single Investment Fund ‘Invest EU’,
on a voluntary basis. The Funds
should be designed in such a way to offer the possibility to use grants, both through
direct and shared management to complement the financial instruments channelled via
‘Invest EU’ or outside it.
Alternative option:
In this option, the Funds would not be able to use grants to complement financial
instruments. While the occasions where such possibility may be used are considered
limited, not being able to use the Funds for this purpose would prevent the Funds from
supporting certain activities that would, through a combination of grants and financial
incentives, be able to benefit from increased amounts of funding available. Therefore, the
preferred option is to allow for the Funds to have such possibility.
44
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0051.png
4.2
Further simplifying the rules for implementing EU Funds
Preferred option:
Implementing rules for the Funds will be aligned as much as possible with the
implementing rules of other EU Funds, both for shared and direct management.
Alternative option:
Implementing rules for the Funds will be fully aligned with the implementing rules of
other EU Funds, both for shared and direct management.
Preferred option:
In order to simplify the implementation of AMF, BMVI and ISF, the Funds should
function as much as possible with identical delivery mechanisms and have a structure
that resembles as closely as possible that of other EU financial instruments under shared
and direct management. Current rules leave room to simplify the management of the
Funds, as confirmed by the interim evaluations. As a newly created tool, the customs
control equipment component is not subject to simplification but its design will rely on
experience gained from similar experience and remain as simple as possible. The
preferred and alternative options are assessed below, for shared and direct management
respectively.
4.2.1
Common provisions for shared management
Preferred option:
Simplify the implementation of AMF, BMVI and ISF, by using implementing rules that
are aligned as much as possible with those of other EU financial instruments under
shared management.
Alternative option:
The implementing rules of AMF, BMVI and ISF will be partially aligned with those of
other EU financial instruments under shared management.
Preferred option:
As indicated in the
Reflection paper on the future of EU finances,
the implementation
rules in the next MFF should be based on a "single rule book" governing all similar
processes and instruments across the Funds and management modes. This can be
achieved by grouping all Funds managed under shared management under one umbrella
Regulation or by agreeing a single rule for a given process.
The successor to the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR)
77
that is currently governing
the implementation of the European Structural and Investment Funds, would contain a
77
The current CPR is laid down in Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of 17 December 2013 laying down common
provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and
laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the
Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320).
45
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0052.png
coherent set of common financial rules for shared management. The legal basis of this
CPR would be Article 322 TFEU.
The preferred option is therefore to align with the rules applicable to other shared
management Funds. This option allows for moving towards a single set of rules that
equally fits all EU Funds in shared management. To address particular needs, these
common provisions will be complemented by rules set-out in the Fund-specific
Regulations while avoiding any duplication.
AMF, BMVI and ISF will fall under the rules set out in this Regulation as regards shared
management. This will have the benefit that rules for potential beneficiaries will be
identical for all shared management Funds. Managing authorities and potential
beneficiaries have indicated that different implementing rules continue to be an obstacle
in achieving synergies between the interventions of EU Funds.
However, considering the rules of the current CPR, various thresholds and percentages
would not be suitable for the successors of AMF and ISF. These relate to the level of
technical assistance for both the Commission and the Member States (dependent on the
financial envelope of the Funds), the thresholds for proportional controls and the level of
pre-financing payments. Furthermore, certain provisions from the current CPR, such as
those with regard to macroeconomic conditionality, the use of financial instruments and
certain ex-ante conditionalities may constitute an unnecessary increase in administrative
burden when compared to the current legal framework of the Home Affairs Funds
78
.
The common rules for shared management should therefore be complemented with a
small number of rules that are specific to AMF, BMVI and ISF, which will be included
in the Fund-specific Regulations. This approach ensures that rules for shared
management are aligned to the rules for other shared management Funds to the extent
possible, but allow for some flexibility that is needed due to the special nature of the
Home Affairs Funds.
Stakeholders have indicated that the provision of information on EU funding
opportunities and actions that have been implemented under the Funds should be
improved. Access to EU funding for potential beneficiaries should be facilitated by
creating a single entry point for beneficiaries at national level. Cooperation between the
different managing authorities of the future Funds should be facilitated by the existence
of the common rules.
Based on the findings of the interim evaluations of AMIF and ISF as well as on other
consultation activities carried out, the provisions of the future framework need to ensure
a sufficient level of pre-financing payments, clear indication of decommitment
procedures, more efficient control and audit procedures, the application of national
eligibility rules that make use of the possibilities for simplification embedded in the legal
bases to the extent possible, the
‘roll
over’
of
the current management and control
78
Considering the difference in size of the current envelopes of AMIF and ISF compared to ESIF and the
administrative procedures linked to fulfilling ex-ante conditionalities that need to be completed before
funding can be disbursed.
46
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0053.png
systems enabling a swift start of implementation; enabling the use of 'operating support'
to public authorities responsible for accomplishing the tasks and services which
constitute a public service for the Union
79
, further promotion of the use of Simplified
Cost Options, and linking the technical assistance at both the initiative of the
Commission and at the initiative of the Member State to the volume of financial
envelopes to a certain extent.
Alternative option:
Partially aligning (only in relation to the management and control system) the rules of
other future shared management Funds would ensure that AMF, BMVI and ISF keep an
additional level of flexibility as regards a few rules to adjust to some specificities of these
Funds namely: higher need of pre-financing for the NGOs in the field of integration,
which tends to be limited, or giving more time for decommitting the Funds for areas such
as resettlement or relocation that depend on migratory flows and are politically sensitive.
However, beneficiaries and managing authorities would have to consult and apply
different legislative acts for an overview of applicable rules, increasing administrative
burden.
4.2.2
Simplification of the rules applicable to direct management
Preferred option:
Simplify the implementation of AMF, BMVI and ISF, by using implementing rules that
are aligned as much as possible with those of other EU financial instruments under
direct management.
Alternative option:
Do not simplify the implementation of AMF, BMVI and ISF.
Preferred option:
A similar approach would be followed for direct management, aligning rules to the extent
possible with other EU Funds insofar as it would not increase the administrative burden
for beneficiaries. This would facilitate the implementation of EU funding by
beneficiaries. It corresponds to needs expressed by international organisations and NGOs
during the consultation activities, especially with regard to activities in the external
dimension and with rules that are applied under the successor to the Horizon 2020
Programme. This would be achieved through aligning rules for all direct management in
the Regulations for the future Funds. In addition, it should be possible to provide
operating grants to organisations whose activities represent a clear EU added value.
Alternative option:
One of the main challenges for the next MFF is to simplify the management of the
Funds. Therefore, this option is not considered realistic.
79
This type of support enables 100% financing by the Union and has lighter reporting requirements.
47
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0054.png
4.3
The need for an adequate level of funding
The past and ongoing efforts in the different fields outlined above will have to continue,
as migration and security risks remain highly significant and the need for the EU to act is
still there. Europeans indicate that security and safety are a top priority for their Union
80
.
The size, structure and content of the future Union budget will have to correspond to the
political ambitions in these policy fields, taking into consideration that migration and
security will remain defining issues for the Union for the years to come.
Therefore, in order to adequately support the policy response to the increased challenges
in the area of migration, border management and security,
an increase in the level of EU
funding is needed
when compared to the current programming period.
Ensuring a sustainable implementation of a genuine
Security Union,
including the
development and maintenance of various databases and IT systems, has required and will
still require financial support. As the terrorist attacks of the past years have shown, the
Union’s
exposure to such violence is increasing and has to be mitigated adequately,
particularly through preventive work. Support continues to be needed to combat
cybercrime as well as serious and organised crime.
In the area of
border management,
the future development of the European Border and
Coast Guard will depend on the decisions taken on the future MFF. While the level of
funding needs depends on the level of ambition, it is certain that significant financial
support is needed. The choice to upgrade the European Border and Coast Guard would
allow support for a fully integrated EU border management system, which would be
based on a revised legal framework with an expanded mandate. In accordance with
scenario 2 outlined in the MFF Communication, that covered the upgrading of the
EBCGA, substantial funding support would be needed to reinforce the existing tools
related to risk assessment and situational pictures; provide financial support and training
for the increase of the national border guard component in vulnerable Member States;
bigger and more operational expert pools; and reinforced equipment for the Agency and
Member States.
In the area of
customs control equipment
imbalances exist between Member States and
are reinforced by objective geographical differences. Depending on the nature of the
external border, Member States have different resources and needs for their customs
control equipment. For example, large ports with huge volumes generate higher revenue,
which increase the amounts available to customs authorities to cover their collection
costs and at the same time allows synergies in the use of equipment. Long land borders
with a high number of small border crossing point, require a lot of material and
equipment to be fully operational, generate less revenue and therefore less resources
available to customs authorities to cover their collection costs. The six Member States
with the large seaports collect more than 75% of all customs duties and therefore retain
the largest part of the collection fees. These imbalances and the lack of a specific EU
80
Special Eurobarometer 464b:
European’s attitudes towards security, December 2017.
48
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
instrument for equipment thus impair dramatically equivalence in the performance of
customs controls throughout the customs union.
Securing equivalent customs equipment and infrastructure is an important aspect for
ensuring that all points of the external border are equipped in a way which allows a
uniform level of protection. Using modern equipment would facilitate the quick and
efficient implementation of physical checks, thus securing the control of restricted and
prohibited goods and facilitating the flow and speed of legitimate trade. Achieving these
objectives within the Customs Union can only be done by ensuring that even the weakest
link is strong enough to fulfil its function.
EU funding should also support the
integration of third-country nationals
legally
residing in the EU, in particular beneficiaries of international protection (refugees and
beneficiaries of subsidiary protection) and family members who come to the EU for
family reunification purposes. Support is also needed to step up the use of legal avenues
for persons in need of protection to come to Europe, while continuing efforts to decrease
irregular migration. Successfully implementing the reform of the Common European
Asylum System, including the reform of the Dublin system, the Action plan on the
integration of third-country nationals and the renewed Action plan on a more effective
return policy in the European Union will also require financial support.
Overall, both evaluations and consultations carried out in the context of this Impact
Assessment show that the scale of the challenges to be addressed under the next MFF
will be increasing. Current levels of support would therefore not be sufficient to address
the needs nor enable to meet the political ambitions expressed in the areas of migration,
security and border management.
5
5.1
H
OW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED
?
Practical arrangements of the evaluation: when and by whom
The current monitoring and evaluation framework, establishing common indicators for
shared management, needs to be improved in such a way that it allows for better
performance based management of the Funds and covers all management modes in a
timely fashion.
The Commission should ensure that systems are in place to monitor the implementation
of the funding instruments and evaluate them against the main policy objectives,
covering all management modes. The implementation of the Specific Regulations shall
be evaluated by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States.
Provisions of AMF, IBMF and ISF should be established for the evaluations of the
funding instruments. The timing of the mid-term review, taking into account available
evaluations, should be fixed in advance to guarantee predictability for the Member
States, and to encourage Member States to implement measures at the beginning of the
financial period.
In order to monitor the progress and measure the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,
added value, coherence and sustainability of the actions, a set of indicators should be
49
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
used. A first set of indicators is included as Annexes to the Regulations and the
Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in order to develop further the
monitoring and evaluation framework. Such implementing powers enable flexibility to
adapt to changing circumstances and changing availability of data in view of achieving a
robust monitoring and evaluation framework, while reducing the administrative burden
for the Responsible Authorities and beneficiaries in Member States. The monitoring and
evaluation framework will build on the provisions for monitoring and evaluation
included in the future Common Provisions Regulation, covering shared management.
The measurement of the success of the programmes will be based on objectives set
between Commission and Member States, to be agreed in the national programmes, and
the subsequent measurement of achievements towards those objectives. The achievement
of the specific objectives and implementation measures of the Fund are measured
through result and output indicators respectively. The measurement of achieving the
policy objectives of the Funds, assessing their impact, would follow from an analysis of
these result and output indicators.
The obligation and roles for Member States and Agencies to systematically gather and
provide data that are necessary to measure the effectiveness of the actions will be laid
down in the Regulations. Member States will report on the relevant output and result
indicators in the framework of the annual reporting requirements that will be laid down
in the future CPR.
The Commission shall also issue guidance on the monitoring and evaluation framework.
Learning from the implementation of the current funding instruments, such guidance
should be available at the beginning of the financial period in order to offer certainty,
predictability and assistance to the Member States and beneficiaries, in view of gathering
the data needed for monitoring and evaluation.
5.2
Monitoring indicators
Data for the monitoring indicators for AMF, IBMF, and ISF are to be collected on an on-
going basis by the Member States or Agencies. For evaluation purposes yearly statistics
will be computed and compared between successive years. Where possible, a comparison
with a baseline situation can be used. A set of core performance indicators will be
developed per Specific Regulation.
Monitoring indicators are not sufficient to provide an adequate evaluation of the effects
of the programme. For this reason, it is foreseen to plan for impact evaluations of the
effects of specific projects/interventions on selected outcomes (measured on
intermediate/end users), along with the relevant data collection at the appropriate level of
granularity. The details of the evaluation and data plans will be defined before 2020 in
collaboration with the Joint Research Centre of the Commission.
Building on the existing and best performing indicators, as well as the availability of
data, a first set of core performance indicators as well as a set of output and result
indicators per Specific Regulation is proposed. For the indicators listed, experience
50
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
confirms that such information is available. The source of data is indicated between
brackets in the overview below.
5.2.1
Core performance indicators for the Asylum and Migration Fund
1. Number of persons resettled with the support of the Fund (Data
source: Member
States).
2. Number of persons in the reception system as compared to the number of asylum
applicants (Data
source: EASO).
3. Convergence of protection recognition rates for asylum applicants from the same
country (Data
source: Eurostat).
4. Number of persons who participated in pre-departure measures supported under
the Fund (Data
source: Member States).
5. Number of persons who participated in integration measures supported under the
Fund reporting that the measures were beneficial for their early integration as
compared to the total number of persons who participated in the integration
measures supported by the Fund (Data
source: Member States).
6. Number of returns following an order to leave compared to the number of third-
country nationals ordered to leave (Data
source: Member States).
7. Number of returnees whose return was co-financed by the Fund, persons who
returned voluntarily and persons who were removed (Data
source: Member
States).
8. Number of returnees who have received pre or post-return reintegration assistance
co-financed by the Fund, as compared to the total number of returns supported by
the Fund (Data
source: Member States).
5.2.2
Core performance indicators for Integrated Border Management Fund
–
Border
Management and Visa Instrument
In the area of border management:
1. Number of irregular border crossings detected at the EU external borders a)
between the border crossing points; b) at the border crossing points (Data
source:
European Border and Coast Guard Agency).
2. Number of persons using fraudulent travel documents detected at the border
crossing points (Data
source: European Border and Coast Guard Agency).
In the area of visa:
1. Number of persons using fraudulent travel documents detected at consulates
supported by the Fund (Data
source: Member States).
2. Average decision time (and trends) in the visa procedure (Data
source: Member
States).
51
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
5.2.3
Core performance indicators for the Integrated Border Management Fund
–
Customs Control Equipment
The customs control equipment will be supported by an assessment of needs (see Annex
6 for more details), consisting in particular in establishing joint standards for customs
control equipment for each type of BCP and each type of equipment.
Once such standards are established, it is proposed to monitor the performance of the
new Instrument by comparing the equipment gap between these standards and the actual
availability of equipment by type of BCP:
1. Availability at land BCPs of customs control equipment meeting agreed standards
(by type of equipment).
2. Availability at sea BCPs of customs control equipment meeting agreed standards
(by type of equipment).
3. Availability at air BCPs of customs control equipment meeting agreed standards
(by type of equipment).
4. Availability at post BCPs of customs control equipment meeting agreed standards
(by type of equipment).
5. Availability at rail BCPs of customs control equipment meeting agreed standards
(by type of equipment).
5.2.4
Core performance indicators for the Internal Security Fund
1. Use of EU and international information exchange mechanisms (Data
sources:
Europol, eu-LISA, Council, Member States).
2. Number of joint operational actions supported by the Funds (Data
sources:
Europol, Eurojust, Member States).
3. The estimated value of assets frozen, estimated value of assets confiscated with
the help of the Fund (Data
source: Member States).
4. Value of illicit drug seizures achieved with involvement of cross-border
cooperation between law enforcement agencies (Data
source: Member States,
Union action grant beneficiaries).
5. Number of Schengen Evaluation Recommendations with a financial implication
in the area of security addressed with the support of the Fund, as compared to the
total number of recommendations with a financial implication in the area of
security (Data
source: Member States).
6. Number of law enforcement officials that completed training, exercises, mutual
learning or specialised exchange programmes on cross-border related topics
provided with the support of the Fund (Data
source: Member States).
7. Number of critical infrastructures and public spaces of which the protection
against security-related incidents has been improved with the help of the Fund
(Data
source: Member States).
8. Number of initiatives to prevent radicalisation leading to violent extremism (Data
source: Radicalisation Awareness Network).
52
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0059.png
Annex 1: Procedural information
1
L
EAD
DG(
S
), De
CIDE
P
LANNING
/CWP
REFERENCES
The lead department for this Impact Assessment is the Directorate-General for Migration
and Home Affairs (DG HOME) and the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs
Union (DG TAXUD). In particular the assessment has been carried out by Units
HOME.E3 (National Programmes for North and West Europe; Evaluations; MFF)
TAXUD.E3 (Management of programmes and EU training).
2
O
RGANISATION AND TIMING
As indicated in the Better Regulation Guidelines on Impact Assessments, an inter-service
steering group (ISSG) was set up to follow the assessment process. The ISSG was
created and held its first meeting at the end of June 2017. Members of the ISSG are the
following services: AGRI, BUDG, CNECT, DEVCO, EAC, ECFIN, ECHO, EEAS,
EMPL, FPI, GROW, JRC, JUST, MARE, MOVE, NEAR, OLAF, REGIO, RTD,
SANTE, SG, SJ, SRSS and TAXUD. The ISSG met on 26 June 2017, 30 August 2017,
26 October 2017, 22 February 2018 and 22 March 2018. It has been involved and
provided feedback on the deliverables of the MFF post-2020 study and in the overall
process of drafting the Staff Working Document. The minutes of the last meeting of the
ISSG are annexed to this Impact Assessment.
3
C
ONSULTATION OF THE
RSB
An informal upstream meeting was held on 24 January 2018 with RSB representatives
and the participation of SG, DG BUDG and JRC. During this discussion Board members
and representatives of the horizontal Services provided early feedback and advice on the
basis of the inception impact assessment (or scoping paper). The feedback by Board
members did not prejudge in any way the subsequent formal deliberations of the RSB.
On 13 April 2018, the RSB gave a positive opinion on the draft Impact Assessment and
recommended to further improve the report with respect to the following key aspects.
(B) Main considerations
Implementation of recommendations
(1) The report does not sufficiently Section 4.1.1 has been revised in order to
explain the new instrument for explain why shared management is not fit
customs control equipment. It does for customs.
not say why a direct management
mode is appropriate.
(2) The report does not explain how For AMF, BMVI and ISF, section 3.2 has
increasing EU competence in these been revised to explain how the extension
areas and expanded role of agencies of EU competence and larger role of
agencies affects the roles of the respective
53
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0060.png
will affect the overall system.
programmes.
For Customs Control Equipment, Section
4.1.1 has been revised in order to explain
the benefits of the new Union intervention.
The RSB provided further considerations and recommendations for improvement.
(C) Further considerations and
recommendations for improvement
(1) The report should clarify how the
new fund for customs control
equipment will be managed. It
should explain why it considers
direct management to be the most
appropriate delivery mechanism.
The current text gives the
impression that an executive agency
is a possibility. This is reportedly
not the case, so the text should be
adjusted to not mislead. As customs
control equipment is a new area of
intervention in these funds, the
report should add a dedicated annex
on customs control equipment and
on the chosen delivery mechanism.
(2) The report should present the main
changes in the programme structure
and the priorities compared to the
current
programming
period.
Moreover, the report should clarify
the scope of the external component
of the programme, i.e. its
complementarity with the external
instruments.
(3) The report should also explain how
the extension of EU competence
and larger role for agencies affects
the roles of the respective
programmes. Does it increase the
need for actions at national level,
for delegation to the agencies, or
reduce the priority of some
interventions?
(4) The Board understands that the new
mechanism
for
performance
reserves
was
still
under
development when drafting the
54
Implementation of further
considerations and recommendations
Section 4.1.1 has been revised in order to
clarify the reasons for selecting direct
management. A dedicated annex (Annex 6)
has been added to present the overall
design, including implementation model
and governance, of the chosen delivery
mechanism.
Section 3.2 has been revised to present the
main changes to the programme structure
compared to the current programming
period. Section 3.3 is revised to clarify the
scope of the external component and its
complementarity
with
the
external
instruments.
Section 3.2 has been revised to explain
how the extension of EU competence and
larger role of agencies affects the roles of
the respective programmes.
Section 4.1.4 has been revised to update
and clarify the preferred mechanism, taking
into account experience from other EU
Funds and developments in the framework
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0061.png
report. Its final version should of preparing the future Common Provisions
however update and clarify the Regulation for shared management.
chosen mechanism and justify it in
the light of experience from other
EU funds (as orally explained to the
Board).
(5) The report should clarify how the Section 4.1.3 has been revised to provide
new emergency mechanism will clarifications on how the new emergency
function within the envelopes of mechanism will function.
each of the three funds for
migration and security, and that the
use of emergency assistance should
be limited due to the new flexibility
provided by the thematic facility. It
should explain the advantage of this
mechanism
over
emergency
funding
in
the
previous
programming period.
(6) The monitoring arrangements are
not well developed. The report
should
clarify
how
the
programmes’ success will be
defined and measured.
Section 5.1 has been revised to provide
further information on the monitoring
arrangements and how programmes’
success will be defined and measured.
Some more technical comments have been
More technical comments have been
accommodated throughout the report,
transmitted directly to the author DG.
where applicable.
4
E
VIDENCE
,
SOURCES AND QUALITY
The analysis presented in this document was based on evidence supported by:
Interim evaluations of the current funds: AMIF, ISF Borders and Visa and ISF
Police;
Study of an external consultant;
Consultations with Member States and stakeholders (including an open public
consultation).
55
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation
Following the Better Regulation Guidelines, this Annex will summarise DG HOME's and
DG TAXUD's consultation activities with the aim (i) to inform policy making on the
outcome of the consultation activities; and (ii) to inform stakeholders on how their input
has been taken into account and to explain why certain suggestions could not be taken
up.
1.
Objectives and scope of the consultation strategy
The objective of the consultations undertaken by DG HOME and DG TAXUD was to
gather input from stakeholders and ensure that the general public's interest of the Union
is well reflected in the future design of the funding instruments. The aim of the
consultation activities was to feed the stakeholders' input into the drafting of the
legislative proposals and the accompanying Impact Assessment.
These consultations gave relevant stakeholders the opportunity to present their views to
the Commission on how well the existing programmes meet the needs of migration and
security and how they could be improved to address future challenges and adequately
support the Union's objectives in these areas.
The consultations covered general topics related to the design of the instruments and
future policy priorities, as well as more specific topics related to the delivery mechanisms
and practical implementation.
2.
Identified stakeholders
The consultation was based on a stakeholders mapping, which covers the main EU
organisations and institutions working in the field of migration and security, public
authorities at all levels of government, social partners, civil society organisations, and
funding beneficiaries.
Contributions were, in particular, sought from the following stakeholders:
Member States and Schengen Associated Countries:
National Authorities (e.g. Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Justice,
Ministry of Labour/ Employment);
Responsible Authorities for the implementation of national programmes
under AMIF and ISF;
Audit Authorities for AMIF and ISF;
Delegated Authorities for AMIF and ISF;
Managing Authorities for the European Structural and Investment Funds
(ESIF);
Local and regional authorities.
National Coordinators for the Customs 2020 Programme
European Institutions and bodies, including Home Affairs Agencies (EBCGA,
EASO, EUROPOL, CEPOL, eu-LISA and EMCDDA);
56
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0063.png
International Organisations, such as the International Organisation for Migration
(IOM) and the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR);
Beneficiaries of AMIF and ISF (but also other EU Funds, in particular ESIF);
Civil society (NGOs/civil society organisations);
Social partners (trade and employers' unions);
Academic institutions and think tanks, including experts in the fields of migration
and security;
EU citizens at large and third-country nationals in the EU.
3.
Consultation methods and activities
The stakeholder consultation involved a range of methods and tools in order to ensure
that a sufficient variety and number of stakeholders would be reached, and that opinions
would be cross-checked.
The consultation activities included:
4.
Open Public Consultations;
Stakeholder workshops;
Webinars;
Surveys;
Case studies.
Open Public Consultations
The aim of the web-based public consultations was to gather feedback from a broad
range of stakeholders. They were available in all EU languages.
The public consultations on EU Funds post-2020 were launched as a mandatory element
of the stakeholder consultation. The consultations were based on both closed and open
questions on the policy challenges, subsidiarity, objectives of the programmes and
obstacles to reach them, simplification and synergy between the programmes.
The standard 12-week open public consultation was shortened to 9 weeks by the
Commission due to the limited time for preparing the new programmes. The open public
consultations were launched on 10 January 2018 and remained open until 9 March 2018.
4.1.
Open Public Consultation on EU Funds in the area of migration
The Open Public Consultation (OPC) on EU Funds in the area of migration
81
received a
total of 351 replies
82
. This consultation was open to the general public and all
stakeholders with an interest and/or involvement in migration issues. The scope of the
81
82
The results of the open public consultation are available online:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/eu-funds-area-migration_en
Specifically, 165 respondents replied as individuals in their personal capacity, while 186 replied in their
professional capacity or behalf of an organisation (19 international or national public authorities; 81 non-
governmental organisations, platforms or networks; 3 private enterprises; 1 professional consultancy/law
firm, self-employed consultant; 34 regional or local authorities; 10 trade, business or professional
associations; 2 churches and religious communities; 6 respondents from research and academia; 30 other
organisations).
57
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0064.png
OPC was not limited to AMIF but also included other EU Funds supporting objectives in
the area of migration.
On assessing the importance of identified migration policy challenges that the Funds
could address, respondents identified the following priorities, listed by the percentage of
respondents who assessed them as ‘very important’ or ‘rather important’ (sum of
percentages into brackets):
83
‘Ensuring solidarity with MSs facing the greatest migration pressure’
(79%).
The majority of respondents believes that the current Funds successfully address
this challenge either fully (4%), fairly well (14%), or to some extent only (47%).
19% considers that the challenge is currently not addressed at all.
‘Strengthening and developing the Common European Asylum System’
(70%). The majority of respondents believes that the current Funds successfully
address this challenge either fully (9%), fairly well (33%), or to some extent only
(37%). 26% considers that the challenge is currently not addressed at all.
‘Supporting the work of MSs to accept and integrate migrants into their
societies’
(63%). The majority of respondents believes that the current Funds
successfully address this challenge either fully (14%), fairly well (22%), or to
some extent only (33%). 32% considers that currently it is not addressed at all.
‘Engaging with countries outside the EU to stem irregular migration,
including tacking smuggling networks’
(60%). The majority of respondents
believes that the current Funds successfully address this challenge either fully
(9%), fairly well (12%), or to some extent only (36%). 19% considers that the
challenge is currently not addressed at all.
‘Meeting reception needs of asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants’
(58%). The majority of respondents believes that the current Funds successfully
address this challenge either fully (11%), fairly well (24%), or to some extent
only (42%). 12% considers that the challenge is currently not addressed at all.
According to almost half of the respondents (47%), the current EU Funds create EU
added value, either to a fairly large extent, or to a large extent, compared to what MSs
could achieve at national, regional and/or local levels. A significant share of respondents
replied that EU Funds generate EU added value to some extent only (33%), while a
minority (15%) believes that they do not generate added value. Among the groups with
the largest number of respondents, more than half of the representatives from non-
governmental organisations, platforms or
networks selected ‘to a large extent’ or ‘to a
fairly large extent’ (62%), while stakeholders responding as individuals are those who
selected the most the option ‘not at all’ (30%).
83
Selected from a pre-defined list of options based on the sum of the percentages of respondents indicating
‘very important’ or ‘rather important’, on a scale including: ‘very important’, ‘rather important’, ‘neither
important nor unimportant’, ‘not very important’, ‘no opinion’.
The percentage per answer is calculated as
the number of persons who selected the relevant answer over total number of respondents, unless otherwise
specified.
58
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0065.png
‘Complexity of rules and high administrative burden’ (66%) and ‘lack of
flexibility to
respond to changing circumstances’ (66%) are identified as the
main obstacles
84
,
preventing the current Funds from successfully achieving their objectives, followed by
‘difficulty in combining EU and national/regional interventions’ (52%). On the contrary,
the ‘insufficient institutional capacity to manage the funds’ and ‘insufficient
focus on
incentivising performance and results’ are the options for which the largest number of
respondents selected that it was not at all an obstacle (19% each).
As regards
simplification,
85
according to the respondents, ‘clearer rules and simplified
procedures’ is the most important measure to help further simplify and reduce
administrative burden for beneficiaries (77%), followed by ‘simpler access to funding’
(65%), and ‘wider scope for interventions able to be funded’ (59%).
Strategies suggested by stakeholders to enhance
synergies
among funding instruments
include grouping/merging some programmes to avoid possible overlaps/duplication,
increasing exchange of information both at national and EU level, and simplifying the
Funds, programmes and related processes in order to reduce the risk of overlaps.
4.2.
Open Public Consultation on EU Funds in the area of security
The Open Public Consultation (OPC) on EU Funds in the area of security
86
received a
total of 155 replies
87
. The scope of the OPC was not limited to ISF but included also the
following EU Funds and programmes in the area of security: the European Defence Fund
(EDF), the Emergency Support Instrument (ESI), the Hercule Programme and the
Pericles Programme.
When assessing the importance of identified security policy challenges that the Funds
could address, respondents identified the following
priorities,
listed by the percentage of
respondents who assessed them
as ‘very important’ or ‘rather important’ (sum of
percentages into brackets)
88
:
‘Fighting
cross-border crime, including terrorism, with more cooperation
between law enforcement authorities’
(87%). The majority of respondents
84
85
86
87
88
Selected from a pre-defined
list of options based on the percentage of respondents indicating ‘to a large
extent’ and ‘to a fairly large extent’, on a scale including: ‘to a large extent’, ‘to a fairly large extent’, ‘to
some extent only’, ‘not at all’, ‘no opinion’.
Selected from a pre-defined
list of options based on the percentage of respondents indicating ‘to a large
extent’ and ‘to a fairly large extent’, on a scale including: ‘to a large extent’, ‘to a fairly large extent’, ‘to
some extent only’, ‘not at all’, ‘no opinion’.
The results of the open public consultation are available online:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/eu-funds-area-security_en.
Specifically, 39 respondents replied as individuals in their personal capacity, while 116 replied in their
professional capacity or behalf of an organisation (42 international or national public authorities; 16 non-
governmental organisations, platforms or networks; 25 private enterprises; 1 professional consultancy/law
firm, self-employed consultant; 7 regional or local authorities; 7 trade, business or professional associations;
1 church and religious community; 8 other organisations).
Selected from a pre-defined list of options based on the sum of the percentages of respondents indicating
‘very important’ or ‘rather important’, on a scale including: ‘very important’, ‘rather important’, ‘neither
important nor unimportant’, ‘not very important’, ‘no opinion’.
The percentage per answer is calculated as
the number of persons who selected the relevant answer over total number of respondents, unless otherwise
specified.
59
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0066.png
believes that the current Funds successfully address this challenge either fully
(13%), fairly well (32%), or to some extent only (31%).
‘Protection
of people, public spaces and critical infrastructure’
(87%). The
majority of respondents believes that the current Funds successfully address this
challenge either fully (7%), fairly well (29%), or to some extent only (37%).
‘Promoting
strong cyber-security’
(85%). The majority of respondents believes
that the current Funds successfully address this challenge either fully (6%) fairly
well (26%), or to some extent only (41%).
‘Supporting
security at the external borders’
(82%). The majority of
respondents believes that the current Funds successfully address this challenge
either fully (10%), fairly well (32%), or to some extent only (32%).
On the
EU added value
of the Funds, the majority of respondents consider that they
provide EU added value either to a large (31%) or fairly large extent (37%), compared to
what MSs alone could achieve at national, regional and/or local levels. In particular,
some stakeholders underline how EU Funds act as facilitators of transnational
partnerships, and enable MSs to face common and cross-border challenges.
‘Complex procedures leading to high administrative burden and delays’ are identified as
the
main obstacle
89
preventing the current Funds from successfully achieving their
objectives (71%), followed by ‘lack of flexibility to react to unforeseen circumstances or
new priorities’ (55%), ‘difficulty to ensure the sustainability of projects when the
financing period ends’ (46%), and ‘difficulty of combining EU action with other public
interventions’ (46%). On the contrary, the ‘insufficient focus on performance and results’
is the option for which the highest number of respondents selected that it was not at all an
obstacle (25%).
As regards
simplification,
90
respondents consider ‘fewer, clearer and simpler rules’
(78%), ‘simpler application and reporting procedures’ (73%), ‘alignment of rules
between EU Funds’
(66%), and ‘more flexibility of activity once funding is eligible’
(66%) as the main steps to further simplify and reduce administrative burden for
beneficiaries.
The strategies proposed by respondents to strengthen the
synergies
with other Funds to
avoid possible overlaps or duplication include providing more information on EU
funding opportunities; standardisation of procedures; combining Funds, especially for
common areas; or stronger management at the EU level.
89
90
Selected from a pre-defined
list of options based on the percentage of respondents indicating ‘to a
large
extent’ and ‘to a fairly large extent’, on a scale including: ‘to a large extent’, ‘to a fairly large extent’, ‘to
some extent only’, ‘not at all’, ‘no opinion’.
Selected from a pre-defined list of options based on the percentage of respondents indicating
‘to a large
extent’ and ‘to a fairly large extent’, on a scale including: ‘to a large extent’, ‘to a fairly large extent’, ‘to
some extent only’, ‘not at all’, ‘no opinion’.
60
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
4.3.
Open Public Consultation on EU funds in the area of customs control
equipment
A centralised multi-programme Open Public Consultation (OPC) was led and managed
by the Secretariat General: the public consultation on EU funds in the area of investment,
research & innovation, SMEs and single market. This consultation contributed to the
evaluations of existing EU financial programmes covering several policy areas and the
Impact Assessment in preparation of the sectoral programmes and contemplated also the
customs issues.
Out of the 4 052 respondents to this multi-clustered OPC, 13 reported on customs and
underlined
–
inter alia
–
that allowing for the acquisition of equipment for customs
control would greatly contribute to better use of the possibilities offered under the current
Customs programme and to increasing the effectiveness of the opportunities offered by
this programme. The current lack of programme and funds that directly supports the
purchase of customs equipment was underlined. It was mentioned that purchase of
equipment necessary for customs controls could be supported by programmes for the
support for the functioning of various aspects of the single market. As to the importance
of strengthening synergies among programmes/funds in order to avoid possible
overlaps/duplication, it was mentioned that it is fundamental to group/merge those with
similar scope.
5.
Stakeholder workshops
Consultations with Member States and Schengen Associated Countries took place in the
framework of the AMIF-ISF Committee, which is comprised of the representatives of the
Responsible Authorities for the implementation of the AMIF and ISF national
programmes. Member States had the possibility to provide feedback through a series of
workshops. On 23-24 November 2016 Member States provided initial ideas on the
preparation of the next home affairs funds. On 13 March 2017 Member States provided
feedback on the main funding priorities. On 6 December 2017 Member States had the
opportunity to provide input on the architecture of the funds, delivery modes and new
priorities.
In the customs domain, consultation with Member States took place in Workshops
organised under the auspices of the Customs 2020 Programme.
5.1.
Workshop I on the Horizontal provisions for the post-2020 HOME funds
As a general remark, Responsible Authorities (RAs) demonstrate overall satisfaction on
the current implementing rules of the Funds, and express consensus on the importance to
limit the changes in the post-2020 Funds. The late approval of the Horizontal Regulation
affected the design of the National Programmes and RAs call for any possible
modification of the Horizontal Regulation and the negotiations on National Programmes
well in advance the beginning of the implementation.
61
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
With regards to management and control systems, RAs agree that there are too many
controls to be performed at national level (i.e. administrative controls, operational and
financial on-the-spot controls, controls of the Audit Authority) and suggest considering
giving on-the-spot controls to Audit Authorities, while not re-introducing the Certifying
Authority. In addition, the use of Simplified Cost Options (SCOs) is challenging for RAs,
which suggest the introduction of guidance and “off-the-shelf” solutions from the
Commission. The introduction in the Regulation of lump sums (as already done for
resettlement) is considered a good example of simplification and need to be considered
for the future MFF (e.g. lump sums for asylum seekers, trainings, awareness campaigns).
On the financial management, MSs stress that the de-commitment rule (Year N+2) is not
very clear and that the adoption of payment claims based on payments moved the burden
from the Commission to RAs. The pre-financing rate is too low and the possibility to
submit accounts only once a year limits RAs’ room for action. The low
level of pre-
financing brought some RAs to ask for financial resources in advance to national
ministries in order to pay beneficiaries and avoid de-commitment. RAs suggest either to
set a higher annual pre-financing rate (e.g. 15%), or allow intermediate payments as it is
done for ESIF.
Finally, a few issues have been raised when discussing programme implementation. RAs
stress that there are too many reports to be submitted to the Commission and duplications
of efforts between the mid-term review and the interim evaluation have been identified as
an issue.
5.2.
Workshop II on the Specific Regulations: AMIF
The workshop showed a general consensus among Responsible Authorities (RAs) on a
proposal to not allocate the entire funding envelope as initial allocation and distribute the
remaining allocation via top-up funding, according to emerging needs and/or following
the mid-term review exercise. RAs stress that more
flexibility
to transfer money among
different Specific Objectives is welcome, while no substantial problems have been raised
regarding minimum percentages for the allocation of funding to Specific Objectives.
As far as the
architecture of EU funding for migration
is concerned, multiannual
programmes are perceived as very effective by MSs. National Programmes cover a broad
spectrum of issues and the current list of eligible actions is comprehensive and allows
sufficient interpretation. Complementarity with other EU Funds is more likely to occur
with the European Social Fund.
Commenting on
delivery modes,
according to most RAs, EMAS is a useful and
responsive tool, however it is not always easy to estimate how much funding is needed to
react to an emergency situation.
A focus on countering radicalisation - currently covered mainly under ISF - could be
included under the successor to AMIF as a
new priority.
62
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
5.3.
Workshop III on the Specific Regulations: ISF
To enhance the
flexibility
of ISF, it is proposed to allocate 50% of resources at the
beginning of the programming period, and to distribute the remaining 50% periodically
according to risk assessments. RAs stressed that the thresholds for the allocation of
resources among Specific Objectives limits the instrument’s flexibility. It is suggested
that the template for the design of the next National Programmes could include a
“glossary” that clarifies what should go under each National Objective. The threshold for
investments in IT maintenance in ISF Police appears to be too low. RAs demonstrate
consensus on the idea to have clear indications on the amount of resources available to
MSs for the procurement of the equipment, consistently with the budget period and the
role of the EBCGA according to the renewed mandate.
When commenting on
delivery modes,
several elements contribute to the workload of
managing the National Programmes (NP): (i) several changes occurred following top-
ups, internal redistribution of resources, results of the Schengen evaluations (ii) the
reporting is not synchronised with the changes RAs make to the National Programmes,
(iii) indicators are not always relevant, (iv) results of Schengen evaluations are often
available when most of national resources have been already committed, (v) the initial
approval of the National Programmes took too long and created a blockage in the
implementation for the first year.
There is consensus on the fact that ISF is wide enough and cover all relevant policy
priorities.
However, actions such as infrastructure for ISF Police, actions resulting from
the Schengen evaluation system, and actions to fund migration issues within the
Schengen area could be identified as
new priorities.
Cybercrime and financial crimes
should gain more importance, while priorities of the ISF Police should be better aligned
with the EU Policy Cycle priorities.
5.4.
Workshop with Home Affairs Agencies on post-2020 MFF
Home Affairs Agencies were consulted through a dedicated workshop that took place on
24 November 2017 where they had the opportunity to present their views and to submit
position papers.
Stakeholders concurred that in order to maximise EU added value, EU spending should
reflect EU level priorities and policy commitments and should support the
implementation of the EU home affairs
acquis.
Stakeholders called for sufficient funding
to be made available to the home affairs agencies, in particular the European Asylum
Support Office (EASO), the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation
(Europol) and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (EBCGA), in line with
their increasing activities. Stakeholders agreed on the need for more flexibility embedded
within the structure of the Funds.
63
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
5.5.
Workshop with international organisations and third sector representatives
on the post-2020 MFF
Representatives of international and civil society organisations, as well as think tanks and
research centres working in the field of migration and security were consulted through a
dedicated workshop, which took place on 15 December 2017 in Brussels. The workshop,
in the form of an informal round-table discussion, aimed at gathering the participants'
views on the scope, funding priorities and delivery modes of the future home affairs
funding instruments, taking into account the lessons learned from the implementation of
the current Funds.
With regards to
flexibility,
the attendees agreed that more flexibility is needed to address
emerging challenges and new priorities. The participants welcome the idea of not
allocating the full amount upfront and keeping a certain percentage of the Funds for
allocation during the programing period.
At the same time, participants asked for more
simplification
in the delivery mechanisms.
Attendees agreed that harmonisation of rules among different funding instruments should
be one of the key objectives for the next MFF. Union actions are a good tool to fund
policy priorities. Some attendees indicated that through Direct Management, in particular
Union Actions, it is easier to have an overview of what is being implemented and to
coordinate in order to avoid overlaps, while this is more complicated under Shared
Management. Compared to Union actions, Shared Management is more challenging for
beneficiaries. According to some attendees, AMIF funding is difficult to access in some
MSs.
There was an overall consensus among key stakeholders on the need for a
wider scope of
actions
for EU funding, including its external dimension, enhancing the impact of home
affairs policies. Participants agreed that it is needed to do more concerning the external
dimension, in particular to ensure adequate sustainability of such actions. A thematic
approach is preferred over a geographical approach. With regards to
synergies
with other
Funds, the risk of overlaps should be reduced by introducing a clear distinction of the
scope of the interventions managed by DEVCO, NEAR, ECHO or HOME. Attendees
suggested that a distinct instrument should be developed to deal with the external area.
Participants also added that before launching any intervention in third countries, it is
necessary to ensure that fundamental rights are observed.
5.6.
Workshops under the Customs 2020 programme
–
customs control
equipment
A workshop was organised on 21-23 June 2016 with all Participating Countries under the
Customs 2020 programme (Member States and Candidate countries). The workshop
consisted in identifying all challenges that Customs administrations are likely to face in
the 10/15 coming years, in classifying them in clusters and in considering how the future
customs programme could contribute to replying to these
–
or part of these
–
clusters of
challenges. For what concerns equipment and infrastructure, the workshop identified that
the challenge will be to obtain EU funds for obtaining necessary EU funds for necessary
64
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
national investments. Indeed, being faced with globalisation, security threats and possibly
economic migration issues, the EU needs a customs policy to support common or at least
coordinated operational border management to effectively adapt to these trends. Given
the general lack of national resources to deal with new ways and areas of control, for
what concerns the required equipment necessary for customs to perform their core duties,
the challenge will be to obtain EU funds for necessary national investments. The possible
solutions identified are to have a dedicated customs fund for financing, to develop a joint
usage of equipment and infrastructure and to support Member States to benefit from non-
customs EU funds.
Another workshop took place on 27-29 September 2017. Member States highlighted
again that funds should provide easy access and fair distribution mechanisms to
access/purchase customs control equipment.
6.
Webinars
Two webinars have been organised and managed by the external contractor (EY) through
the videoconferencing tool ‘Zoom’ on 13-14
November 2017, involving Member States
Responsible Authorities (RAs), EU Agencies, and individual experts:
-
-
Webinar on AMIF, with the participation of 8 RAs (BG, CY, EL, FI, HU, LV,
MT, PT) and 3 EU Agencies (EASO, eu-LISA, EBCGA).
Webinar on ISF, with the participation of 12 RAs (BG, CY, CZ, ES, FI, HU, LV,
MT, PT, RO, SE, SI), 4 EU Agencies (CEPOL, eu-LISA, EUROPOL, EBCGA),
and 1 security expert.
The discussions
focused on stakeholders’ views on aspects concerning the size and scope
of the Funds, as well as implementation issues.
6.1.
Webinar on AMIF
The participants stressed the importance of flexibility and simplification of procedures in
facing evolving needs. A number of participants highlighted that the current national
allocations have been defined based on a baseline scenario which changed dramatically.
Areas where the level of funding was identified as sub-optimal are asylum, integration,
and return.
Participants agreed that, overall, the
priorities
identified in the legal basis are in line with
the needs of MSs, and that there are no priorities which should be discarded. Some RAs
commented that they would like higher pre-financing. Regarding monitoring and
reporting, an issue encountered by some RAs is that preparing accounts and
implementation reports within few weeks of distance is considered as a duplication of
effort. Moreover, the delegated act, as well as the guidance, on the common monitoring
and evaluation framework was introduced after several projects were already launched.
Participants did not share a common view on whether the existence of
multiple funding
instruments
covering similar policy areas creates problems. Participants, who consider
that the fragmentation of funding may create problems, highlighted that several EU
Funds address similar target groups. Those participants believe that this fragmentation
makes it difficult for MSs to establish national priorities, and hinders their understanding
65
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
of funding opportunities, generating administrative burden. Participants who consider
that the existence of multiple funding instruments is not problematic explained that they
do not experience overlaps in terms of target groups between AMIF and, for example,
ESF and FEAD.
6.2.
Webinar on ISF
There is consensus among participants on the need for more resources in the future MFF,
in order to meet the objectives of the Funds. In particular, the current size of ISF Border
and Visa is no longer adequate to deal with the ongoing setting and upgrading of EU IT
systems in the field. Similarly, on ISF Police, there is consensus that the current level of
funding is low in relation to security needs.
On priorities, there is also consensus among the participants that both ISF Police and ISF
Borders and Visa cover all important priorities in the area of security, borders and visa. It
has been suggested by some participants to improve the current structure of objectives,
and to better align the priorities included in the Annex of the Regulation with the
priorities of the EU policy cycle.
Some participants believe that synergies with other funding instruments are not easy to
identify and exploit. Since the scope of ISF is wide, checking for double funding creates
a disproportionate burden for MSs. Moreover, in each policy area, there is often a
different administrative set up at national level, and cooperation between national
ministries and departments may be difficult.
Some issues have been identified regarding the flexibility of ISF. In terms of
programming, the request from the Commission to clearly identify the share of expenses
linked to each Specific Objective makes it too complex to have actions/projects
supported under several Specific Objectives. As regards the de-commitment rule,
participants raised concerns on the changes occurred during the implementation,
concerning the calculation base to be used and the use of the expenditures as a basis for
calculation. Furthermore, the current level of pre-financing is considered low and creates
pressure on national budgets. Some participants consider that there is significant
administrative burden related to the management and implementation of the Funds, in
particular with regards to the number of audits and controls.
7.
Survey addressed to customs administrations of Member States and
Candidate Countries and the question of customs control equipment
A general survey addressed the challenges and trends that customs would face in the
coming years.
In particular, the results to the survey indicated that a majority of respondents
–
17 out of
25
–
currently recur to other programmes for funding equipment. The most common
funding programme recurred to by customs administration is Hercule, with 11
respondents out of 25. Three respondents have also declared recurring to structural funds,
two to ESF and one to IPA.
66
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
Most of the respondent declared, however, not having an easy access to other source of
funding. The main obstacles reported by the respondents are related to complicated
procedures or bureaucracy, internal competition or different priorities. A respondent also
emphasized that these funds are not designed to support customs needs or only very
partially.
8.
Case studies addressed to customs administrations of Member States and
Candidate Countries and the question of customs control equipment.
In the context of the impact assessment study conducted for setting up the future
Customs programme, case studies in specific countries were conducted, addressing the
protection of the various types of external borders (land, sea, air).
With regards to customs control equipment, the case studies pointed towards diverse
challenges faced by the customs administrations in different EU Member States. These
challenges range from the financing of
‘hard’ equipment, to the lack of data on
availability or experience with equipment, procurement, maintenance as well as shared
use of equipment.
The case studies have shown that whilst equipment needs in the context of CELBET
(expert team under Customs 2020 for land border enhanced operational cooperation -
Eastern and South Eastern Europe) supported the insights into equipment, there is a need
for additional comprehensive study to provide insights on the size of the equipment
related problems for other Member States and/or sea and air border specific perspectives.
The changing trade landscape especially demands for a continuous monitoring of
equipment availability, also to respond to new types of crises and threats, and support the
broadening of roles and responsibilities of customs.
67
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0074.png
Annex 3: Home Affairs Funds in the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020
Multiannual Financial Framework
Table 1
–
Summary overview of the Home Affairs Funds in the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programming periods
General
Programme
Policy
area
Fund / Specific Programme
Budget, Participation & Objectives
Previous Funds (2007-2013)
European Refugee Fund (ERF III)
EUR 614 million
91
, All MS except DK
Asylum
Support and encourage MS in receiving refugees and
displaced persons
Emergency measures to address sudden mass influx if
migrants and asylum seekers
European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country
Nationals (EIF)
EUR 825 million, All MS except DK
Support the integration of third-country nationals into
European societies
European Return Fund (RF)
EUR 676 million, All MS except DK
Improve return management
Encourage development cooperation between MS and
countries of return
External Borders Fund (EBF)
EUR 1 820 million, All MS (including RO & BG and the
Schengen associated states from 2010) except the UK and
IE
Financial solidarity amongst Schengen countries
Manage efficient controls and the flows at the external
borders
Improve management of the consular authorities
Specific Programme Prevention of and Fight against
Organised Crime (ISEC)
EUR 600 million, All MS
Crime prevention, law enforcement, witness protection
and support, victims protection
Specific Programme Prevention, Preparedness and
Consequence Management of Terrorism and Other
Security-related Risks (CIPS)
EUR 140 million, All MS
Protection of citizens and critical infrastructure from
terrorist attacks and other security incidents
Curent Funds (2014-2020)
Asylum Migration and Integration
Fund (AMIF)
EUR 3 137 million (initial)
All MS except DK
Strengthen and develop all aspects of
the CEAS
Support legal migration to the MS
and promote effective integration of
third-country nationals
Enhance fair and effective return
strategies
and
contribute
to
combating illegal immigration
Enhance solidarity and responsibility
sharing between MS, particularly
those most affected by the migratory
flows
Internal security Fund (ISF)
EUR 3 764 million (initial)
ISF Borders and Visa
All MS except IE and UK plus the
Schengen associated states CH, IS, LI,
NO
Ensuring a high level of security in
the EU and facilitate legitimate
travel
Visa and support integrated border
management
General
Programme
Solidarity and
Management
of Migration
Flows
(93% to 96%
shared
management;
remainder
under
centralised
direct
management)
Integration
of third-
country
nationals,
legal
migration
Return
Integrated
border
manageme
nt and visa
General
Programme
Security and
Safeguarding
Liberties
(centralised
direct
management)
Prevention
of and
fight
against
organised
crime
Combating
terrorism
and other
security-
related
risks
ISF Police
All MS except DK and UK
Ensure a high level of security in the
EU, fight against crime, manage
risks and crisis
91
After adoption of EASO; takes account of Decision No 458/2010/EU amending the European Refugee Fund basic act.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0075.png
Overview allocations AMIF and ISF
Please find below the comparison between the original allocations to AMIF and ISF and the
current allocations.
The funding available for AMIF and ISF originally amounted to EUR 6.9 billion for the 2014-
2020 programming period.
As a response to the migratory and security crises
and to support
the EU initiatives addressing these crises, the
financial programming for AMIF and ISF
reached EUR 11.2 billion in the course of 2017.
Support for the Home Affairs Agencies in the
2014-2020 programming period increased from EUR 2.1 billion to EUR 4.1 billion
92
. Put in a
broader context though, and considering that the overall value of the EU budget for the 2014-
2020 programming period is approximately EUR 1 087 billion, the Home Affairs Funds only
represent approximately 1%.
After taking into account the adjustment made to support the new tasks of the Home Affairs
Agencies
93
in implementing ‘smart borders’ initiatives (EES, ETIAS, revision of SISII and
interoperability), the level of funding for the two Funds amounts to EUR 10.8 billion
94
.
92
93
94
This support is provided directly to the Agencies, it is not part of the Funds.
The transfer of funding mainly concerns the transfer to the European Agency for the operational management of large-
scale IT Systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA) for the management of the EES, ETIAS and the
interoperability of IT systems.
Information based on the financial programming annexed to the Budget 2018.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0076.png
Table 2
–
Summary overview of the Home Affairs Funds in the 2014-2020 programming period (initial and current
allocation)
95
Fund
Asylum, Migration and
Integration Fund
Initial budget
EUR 3.137
billion
(EUR 459.47
million for 2018
budget)
EUR 2.760
billion
(EUR 453.23
million for 2018
budget)
EUR 1.004
billion
(EUR 133.93
million for 2018
budget)
EUR 3.764
billion
(EUR 587.16
million for 2018
budget)
EUR 6.901
billion
(EUR 1,046.64
million for 2018
budget)
Current budget
EUR 6.888
96
billion
(EUR 719.15
million for 2018
budget)
EUR 2.764
billion
(EUR 565.06
million for 2018
budget)
EUR 1.135
billion
(EUR 154.93
million for 2018
budget)
EUR 3.900
billion
(EUR 719.96
million for 2018
budget)
EUR 10.788
billion
(EUR 1,439.14
million for 2018
budget)
Participation
All EU Member States with the
exception of Denmark.
Internal Security
Fund
Borders
and Visa
All EU Member States with the
exception of Ireland and the United
Kingdom, and with the participation
of the Schengen Associated
Countries
97
.
All EU Member States with the
exception of Denmark and the United
Kingdom.
Police
Total Internal Security Fund
Total Home Affairs Funds
95
96
97
Financial programming as of 31 January 2018, as annexed to the Budget 2018.
Excluding the allocation to the AMIF national programme of the United Kingdom, the total allocation of AMIF would
be approximately EUR 6.358 billion.
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0077.png
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0078.png
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0079.png
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0080.png
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0081.png
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0082.png
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0083.png
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0084.png
Overview Subsidies Home Affairs Agencies
Please find below the comparison between the original subsidies to the Home Affairs Agencies
and the current level of subsidies.
Table 3
–
Summary overview of the Home Affairs Agencies in the 2014-2020 programming period
98
Home Affairs Agency
European Border and Coast
Guard Agency (EBCGA)
EU subsidy 2014-2020
(initial)
EUR 626.4 million
(EUR 91.27 million for 2018
budget)
EUR 656.54 million
(EUR 94.8 million for 2018
budget)
EUR 62.16 million
(EUR 9.13 million for 2018
budget)
EUR 574.19 million
(EUR 85.72 million for 2018
budget)
EUR 109.34 million
(EUR 15.95 million for 2018
budget)
EUR 104.43 million
(EUR 14.79 million for 2018
budget)
EUR 2,133.06 million
(EUR 311.66 million for 2018
budget)
EU subsidy 2014-2020
(current)
EUR 1,683.56 million
(EUR 298.29 million for 2018
budget)
EUR 753.02 million
(EUR 120.38 million for 2018
budget)
EUR 62.34 million
(EUR 9.22 million for 2018
budget)
EUR 1,079.78 million
(EUR 200.67 million for 2018
budget)
EUR 455.69 million
(EUR 90.84 million for 2018
budget)
EUR 105.78 million
(EUR 15.45 million for 2018
budget)
EUR 4,140.16 million
(EUR 734.83 million for 2018
budget)
European Union Agency for Law
Enforcement Cooperation
(Europol)
European Union agency for law
enforcement training (CEPOL)
European Agency for the
operational management of large-
scale IT systems in the area of
freedom, security and justice
(eu-LISA)
European Asylum Support Office
(EASO)
European Monitoring Centre for
Drugs and Drug Addiction
(EMCDDA)
Total
98
Financial programming as of 31 January 2018, as annexed to the Budget 2018.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0085.png
Overview implementation AMIF and ISF national programmes
Table 4
–
Implementation of AMIF and ISF national programmes
Asylum, Migration
and Integration Fund
EUR 100.59 million
Internal Security Fund
–
Borders and Visa
EUR 47.01 million
Internal Security Fund
–
Police
EUR 15.59 million
Request for payment of
the annual balance
99
2014/2015
Request for payment of
the annual balance
2016
100
Request for payment of
the annual balance
2017
101
Total
Committed by form of
agreement at national
level
102
Percentage of
allocation
103
EUR 358.21 million
EUR 137.04 million
EUR 47.92 million
EUR 604.56 million
EUR 186.61 million
EUR 94.93 million
EUR 1,063.36 million
EUR 2,180.08 million
EUR 370.66 million
EUR 905.29 million
EUR 158.44 million
EUR 471.63 million
48.06%
49.81%
60.08%
99
100
101
102
103
As included in the Commission Implementing Decision on the clearance of accounts C(2016) 3504 final, in accordance
with Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014, covering the implementation period 1 January 2014
–
15 October
2015.
As included in the Commission Implementing Decision on the clearance of accounts C(2017) 4490 final, in accordance
with Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014, covering the implementation period 16 October 2015
–
15 October
2016.
As included in the requests by Member States for payment of the annual balance, in accordance with Article 44 of
Regulation (EU) No 514/2014, covering the implementation period 16 October 2016
–
15 October 2017.
As included in the Annual Implementation Reports by Member States, submitted in accordance with Article 54 of
Regulation EU (No) 514/2014, presenting the level of commitments by form of agreement at national level as of 31
March 2018. For AMIF, data for Greece is as per 28 April 2017, for ISF Borders and Visa, data for Greece is as per 28
April 2017, for ISF Police, data for Greece is as per 28 April 2017 and data for Ireland is as per 1 December 2017.
Compared to the total allocation to the national programmes at the time of submission of the information by Member
States.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0086.png
Annex 4: Delineation of interventions in the post-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework
Overview of
delineation between the Migration and Integration Fund and the future European Structural and Investment Funds
104
Common areas of
intervention
Integration of third-
country nationals
Future AMIF
Early stage integration
(support services and
assistance, civic orientation
courses, etc.)
Horizontal integration
measures (integration
strategies, capacity building,
awareness raising, etc.)
ESF/EAFRD
Medium to long-term
integration
Programming
Earmarking in the ESF regulation:
The percentage of the total ESF
resources in each MS allocated to the
integration of TCN should be at least
equal to the percentage of the TCN in
the population of each MS.
For example, in Germany in 2016,
percentage of TCN in the total
population
is
5.9%
so
the
corresponding percentage from the
total ESF allocated in the operational
programme should be 6%.
EAFRD will continue to intervene for
social inclusion in rural areas. Those
interventions will also benefit third-
country nationals.
Monitoring
Common indicator in the ESF: number of third
country nationals only i.e. participants directly
benefiting from ESF intervention.
Indicators should be aligned between AMIF
and ESF to measure the same target group.
Amounts committed and spent at MS level for
integration of TCN in ESF should be tracked
(e.g. through categories of intervention).
EAFRD will monitor social inclusion
interventions in rural areas.
104
Overview prepared at technical level by the respective Commission services.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0087.png
Relocation under
Dublin
MS receives a 10 000 EUR
lump sum per relocated
applicant for international
protection who is granted
the status/rejected and needs
to be returned (up to a year)
MS receives an amount of
funding to cover the
integration needs equivalent
to 20,000 EUR for each
applicant for international
protection that has been
granted a status. A simplified
cost option, i.e. lump sum,
could be used if justified
under ESF.
The lump sums should be
implemented through ad-hoc top-ups
to the national ESF allocations
Proposed solution (in case of
difficulties in implementation by
ESF): Each year ESF can transfer to
AMIF amount estimated by DG
HOME based on MS reporting on the
status and DG HOME will top up MS
NPs
N/A
Common areas of
intervention
Infrastructure
(reception/detention
centres)
Future AMIF
All the detention and
reception infrastructure
(as default)
ERDF
In case of significant needs in
a MS where AMIF funding is
not sufficient
Programming
In the ERDF Regulation this type of
infrastructure should be eligible
Monitoring
Categories of intervention to capture the amounts
committed and spent in this field
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0088.png
Overview of delineation between the
Internal Security Fund and the future European Structural and Investment Funds
105
Common areas of
Future Security Fund
ESIF
Programming
intervention
ERDF
Earmarking in the ERDF regulation for security: YES
Cyber security
protection of critical infrastructure
from cyber attacks
prevent and combat cybercrime
Cyber protection of
transport/energy/environment/ICT
networks and transport hubs
Security deployment and
development of ICT including
(cyber)security
ERDF policy objective N° 1
Smarter Europe,
ERDF policy objective N° 3 More
connected Europe
Monitoring
Common Indicators in ERDF
regulation:
N° of ICT systems fulfilling either
pertinent cyber-security standards or
on which a cyber-security audit has
been performed that indicated
Requirement to take into
consideration security aspects in the sufficient resilience to cyberattacks.
design and construction of any
infrastructure
N° of ICT specialists trained
N° of end-users trained
N° of public transport networks and
infrastructure with improved
protection measures
Financial monitoring through
categories of intervention
public spaces
projects on innovative integration
of security into design of new
building/public space (excluding
construction and security
equipment
ERDF policy objective N° 5 Europe
closer to citizens
Common Indicators in ERDF
regulation:
105
Overview prepared at technical level by the respective Commission services.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0089.png
building cost)
purchase of CCTV, concrete
bollards and other preventive
equipment such as cyber-attack
resilient ICT-systems
Requirement to take into
N° of public spaces and related
consideration security aspects in the
infrastructures (such as transport
design and construction of any
hubs, shopping malls, public squares
infrastructure
or pedestrian zones) with improved
protection measures
N° of critical infrastructures with
improved protection measures
(understood as an asset, system or
part thereof located in a Member
State which is essential for the
maintenance of vital societal
functions, health, safety, security,
economic or social well-being of
people, and the disruption or
destruction of which would have a
significant impact in a Member State
as a result of the failure to maintain
those functions).
Financial monitoring through
categories of intervention
construction and refurbishment of
security and border management
relevant buildings
resilience against CBRNE
incidents
'centre of excellence' training
facilities where other MS will be
invited to train (e.g. special force
training hangar or shooting range,
CBRNE training ground)
refurbishment of existing buildings
to make them qualified to house
security and border management
large-scale IT-systems
construction CBRNE/forensic
laboratories, treatment facilities,
In case of significant needs in a
MS where ISF funding is not
sufficient
Common Indicators in ERDF
regulation:
N° of security relevant laboratories
and training facilities equipped with
the help of the fund
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0090.png
training grounds
border management
construction, upgrading and
maintenance of BCP
construction of 'enablers' around
BCPs, for example extra road
lanes
ERDF policy objective N° 3 More
connected Europe
Common indicators in ERDF
Regulation:
N° of infrastructure projects
contributing to facilitating smoother
border crossings
ESF
Protection of victims of crime
limited assistance to specific target
groups linked to serious crimes
with a cross-border dimension
such as terrorism, organised crime,
cybercrime
Assistance and protection of
victims e.g. medical,
psychological treatment,
counselling, and appropriate
communication technology for
their protection during criminal
proceedings
safe accommodation for victims of
crime such as of trafficking in
human beings
capacity building for law
enforcement, prosecution and
judiciary including cross-border
investigations
training, staff exchanges,
networking
In case of significant needs in a
MS where ISF funding is not
sufficient
ESF policy objective N° 4 More
social Europe
ESF policy objective N° 4 More
social Europe
Common Indicators in ESF
regulation/
N° of victims assisted with the help
of the fund
ERDF and ESF
Anti-radicalisation
measures focusing on root causes
of radicalisation
networks to exchange best
ESF/integration measures:
inclusive education for vulnerable
groups
ESF policy objective N° 4 More
social Europe
ERDF policy objective N° 5 Europe
Common Indicators:
Number of ex-offenders re-
employed with the support of the
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0091.png
practices e.g. RAN
operational projects between MS
and with third countries
operations with Europol's IRU to
remove violent extremism content
online
reintegration of offenders into
society, to enhance employability
of ex-offenders, social follow-up
of children raised in a radicalised
environment/with parents and/or
relatives in prison and families of
offenders
identification and analysis of
drivers and social patterns of the
radicalisation process at local level
(mappings, reports, analysis)
ERDF:
regeneration of deprived
communities
Reduction of inequalities
Increased quality of life
identification and analysis of
drivers and social patterns of the
radicalisation process in particular
at local level
closer to citizens
fund
Number of best practices regarding
prisoners and ex-offenders'
reintegration and at improving
transition from prison into the
labour market and society
Number of children and family
members assisted
number of social mappings, reports
and analyses
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
Note on integration support in the post-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework
1. General context
Integration is currently funded by a variety of EU Funds, among which AMIF is the
only Fund targeting specifically third-county nationals. Other Funds, in particular ESIF
Funds but also Erasmus+ are intervening in their respective domains (employment,
education, infrastructure, etc.) but without having the integration of third-country
nationals as specific or priority target group.
The large influx of third-country nationals to the EU since 2014 has triggered additional
needs for integration support in Member States. As integration is a long-term process,
the need for investing in this area will continue or even increase over the 2021-2027
period. In such a context, complementarities between the different funding instruments
in this area are essential in order to ensure a strong and consistent support to Member
States for the development and implementation of their integration policy.
2. Proposed principles of intervention of EU Funds in the field of integration and
delineation criteria between the future AMIF and ESIF Funds
2.1 Principles of intervention
The groups that are the most in need of integration support will remain in the years to
come asylum applicants / beneficiaries of international protection and family migrants
(largest group). These two groups have very specific needs in terms of integration and a
specific funding to the benefit of these groups, such as the one existing currently under
AMIF, will continue to be highly necessary, in particular at an early stage of the
integration process.
The suggested approach would combine interventions by the future AMIF and other EU
Funds as follows:
a) dedicated funding for actions specifically targeting third-country nationals in the
early integration phase as well as for horizontal measures supporting MS
policies and strategies (ensured by the future AMIF);
b) interventions in different thematic areas for longer term measures, which are not
necessarily specific only to third-country nationals and that would be
mainstreamed - subject to guaranteeing such expenditure by dedicated
envelopes/relevant benchmarks/specific earmarking - under ESIF and other EU
Funds.
2.2 Delineation criteria between AMIF and ESIF Funds
Following the principle above, the future AMIF instrument should finance integration
actions responding to the following criteria:
1. They are tailor-made to the needs of third-country nationals and are generally
implemented in the early stage of integration;
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0093.png
2. They are of a horizontal/broad nature, covering in a general manner the key
components of integration at the early stages; this means that they cannot concern
only specific individual themes such as education or integration into the labour
market; the latter should be covered by another EU Fund (such as ESF and
Erasmus+
106
);
3. They are horizontal actions supporting Member States capacities in the field of
integration (including cooperation and mutual learning activities between MS).
In the light of the above criteria, measures benefitting directly to third-country nationals
would be funded under AMIF only in relation to the early stage of integration [to be
further discussed if any time limit is included]. Medium to long term thematic
integration interventions would then be fully mainstreamed into ESIF and other Funds,
with measures and actions that can cover both EU citizens and third-country nationals.
On the other hand, general/horizontal integration measures such as capacity building,
exchanges with the host society, awareness raising campaigns or cooperation/mutual
learning activities between Member States on the integration of TCNs would continue
to be financed under AMIF. Due to their horizontal and not time-bound nature these
actions would not be mainstreamed into other specific Funds.
A mapping of the current possible interventions of ESIF Funds for integration and a
detailed list of activities to be financed under the future AMIF is included in the annex.
2.3. Specific needs of applicants/beneficiaries relocated amongst MS following
implementation of the Dublin reform
The Commission has presented a proposal to reform the Dublin system that includes a
relocation component (applicants for international protection relocated from Member
States under particular pressure to other Member States). Ongoing negotiations include
a significant financial incentive that would support Member States in accepting and
implementing the relocation system. It is not envisaged to link the incentive to any
specific costs, but to rather use it for covering a variety of needs in the Member States
showing solidarity by accepting to receive relocated applicants. Such costs could relate
to increasing the processing capacity of the Member States for examining the
applications for international protection, improving reception conditions, facilitating the
integration of those recognised to be in need of international protection as well as the
return of those who prove not to have international protection needs. The financial
incentives provided for applicants who need to be integrated after should be
significantly higher than those provided for applicants who will in the end be returned.
It is likely that the financial incentive will become a determinant factor for the final
compromise on the Dublin text, and a significant financial envelope will therefore need
to be reserved for this purpose. In this context, one possibility is to ensure that a part of
the financial incentive is covered by future AMIF, and a part by future ESIF funds. The
future AMIF could provide a dedicated financial incentive until the person is granted or
106
While noting that the future Erasmus+ cannot fund large-scale national integration activities.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0094.png
refused the international protection status (this could correspond to roughly one year
following the relocation). ESIF funds should kick off with a dedicated financial
envelope to cover the medium/longer integration needs of those relocated and
recognised to be in need of international protection (this could correspond to years 2 and
3). All these parameters might of course change in the course of the negotiations but it
is already clear that both AMIF and Structural Funds will need to intervene with
significant amounts.
3. Guaranteeing expenditure under other EU funds on integration of TCNs and
ensure effective implementation
In this scenario where it is envisaged to mainstream a substantive part of the financing
for integration of TCNs into ESIF and other EU Funds, it is necessary to include
safeguards to ensure that the overall EU support for such integration remains significant
and address the increasing MS' needs.
For ESIF Funds and other Funds to effectively intervene for the integration of TCNs in
full synergy with the future AMIF, it would be necessary to:
Provide for a form of earmarking in ESIF Funds to ensure that a certain amount
of Funds is actually used by Member States for the integration of third-country
nationals. This could be done at the level of the Fund, with additional flexible
funding for which Member States would bid or as part of the operational
programme (% or target) at the level of operational programmes. Other means of
guaranteeing such expenditure could also be explored;
Trace expenditure which is benefitting third-country nationals with an adequate
reporting system;
Align provisions and rules as much as possible between ESIF Funds and future
AMIF;
Have a single information point at Member State level for access to integration
funding, to make the access to EU funding for integration easier and more
transparent.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0095.png
Annex 5: Objectives of the Funds
Asylum and Migration Fund
Objectives of the Asylum and Migration Fund
Policy Objective
To contribute to an efficient management of migration flows in line with the Union
acquis
on
asylum and migration and in compliance with the Union's commitments on fundamental rights.
Specific Objective
Strengthen and develop all aspects of the
Common European Asylum System, including its
external dimension.
Implementation measures
under this Specific Objective:
1. Ensuring a uniform application of the Union
acquis
and of the priorities related to the
Common European Asylum System.
2. Supporting the capacity of Member States' asylum systems as regards infrastructures and
services where necessary.
3. Enhancing solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States, in particular
towards those most affected by migratory flows, as well as providing support to Member
States contributing to solidarity efforts.
4. Enhancing solidarity and cooperation with third countries affected by migratory flows,
including through resettlement and other legal avenues to protection in the Union as well
as partnership and cooperation with third countries for the purpose of managing
migration.
Specific Objective
Support legal migration
to the Member States
and contribute to the integration of third-
country nationals.
Implementation measures
under this Specific Objective:
1. Supporting the development and implementation of policies promoting legal migration
and the implementation of the Union legal migration
acquis.
2. Promoting early integration measures for the social and economic inclusion of third-
country nationals, preparing their active participation in and their acceptance by the
receiving society, in particular with the involvement of local or regional authorities and
civil society organisations.
Specific Objective
To contribute to
countering irregular migration
and
ensure sustainability of return and
effective readmission in third countries.
Implementation measures
under this Specific Objective:
1. Ensuring a uniform application of the Union
acquis
and policy priorities regarding
infrastructures, procedures and services.
2. Supporting an integrated and coordinated approach to return management at the Union
and Member States' level, to the development of capacities for effective and sustainable
return and reducing incentives for irregular migration.
3. Supporting assisted voluntary return and reintegration.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0096.png
4. Strengthening cooperation with third countries and their capacities to implement
readmission agreements and other arrangements, and enable sustainable return.
Integrated Border Management Fund
–
Border Management and Visa
Objectives of the Integrated Border Management Fund
–
Border Management and Visa
Policy Objective
Contribute to guaranteeing a high level of security in the Union by ensuring strong and effective
integrated border management while safeguarding the free movement of persons within it, in full
compliance with the Union's commitments on fundamental rights.
Specific Objective
Supporting effective
European integrated border management
implemented by the
European
Border and Coast Guard
to facilitate legitimate border crossings, to prevent and detect illegal
immigration and cross-border crime and to effectively manage migratory flows.
Implementation measures
under this Specific Objective:
1. Improving border control in line with Article 4(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 by:
a) reinforcing the capacities for carrying out checks and surveillance at the external
borders, including measures to prevent and detect cross-border crime, such as migrant
smuggling, trafficking in human beings and terrorism;
b) supporting search and rescue in the context of carrying out border surveillance at sea;
c) implementing technical and operational measures within the Schengen area which are
related to border control;
d) carrying out analyses of the risks for internal security and analysis of the threats that
may affect the functioning or security of the external borders;
e) supporting, within the scope of this Regulation, Member States facing existing or
potential
disproportionate migratory pressure at the EU’s external borders, including
through technical and operational reinforcement, including by deploying migration
management support teams in hotspot areas.
2. Further developing of the European Border and Coast Guard, through common capacity-
building, joint procurement, establishment of common standards and any other measures
streamlining the cooperation and coordination between the Member States and the
European Border and Coast Guard Agency.
3. Enhancing inter-agency cooperation at national level among the national authorities
responsible for border control or for tasks carried out at the border, and at EU level
between the Member States, or between the Member States, on the one hand, and the
relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies or third countries, on the other.
4. Ensuring the uniform application of the Union
acquis
on external borders, including
through the implementation of recommendations from quality control mechanisms such
as the Schengen evaluation mechanism in line with Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013,
vulnerability assessments in line with Regulation (EU) No 2016/1624, and possible
national quality control mechanisms;
5. Setting up, operating, and maintaining IT systems in the area of border management,
including the interoperability of these IT systems and their communication infrastructure.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0097.png
Specific Objective
Supporting the
common visa policy
to facilitate legitimate travel and prevent migratory and
security risks.
Implementation measures
under this Specific Objective:
1. Providing efficient and client-friendly services to visa applicants while maintaining the
security and integrity of the visa procedure.
2. Ensuring the efficient and uniform application of the Union's
acquis
on visas, including
the further development and modernisation of the common policy on visas.
3. Developing different forms of cooperation among Member States in visa processing.
4. Setting up, operating and maintaining IT systems in the area of the common visa policy,
including the interoperability between these IT systems and their communication
infrastructure.
Integrated Border Management Fund
–
Customs Control Equipment
Objectives of the Customs Control Equipment Fund
Policy Objective
Support the customs union and customs authorities to protect the financial and economic interests
of the Union and its Member States, to ensure security and safety within the Union and to protect
the Union from unfair and illegal trade while facilitating legitimate business activity.
Specific Objective
Contribute to adequate and equivalent customs controls through the purchase, maintenance and
upgrade of relevant, state-of-the-art and reliable customs control equipment.
Internal Security Fund
Objectives of the Internal Security Fund
Policy Objective
Contribute to ensuring a high level of security in the Union, in particular by tackling terrorism
and radicalisation, serious and organised crime and cybercrime, and by assisting and protecting
victims of crime.
Specific Objective
To increase the
exchange of information
among and within the EU law enforcement and other
competent authorities and other relevant Union bodies, as well as with third countries and
international organisations.
Implementation measures
under this Specific Objective:
1. Ensure the uniform application of the Union
acquis
on security supporting information
exchange, including through the implementation of recommendations from quality
control and evaluation mechanisms such as the Schengen evaluation mechanism and
other quality control and evaluation mechanisms.
2. Set up, adapt and maintain security relevant national and Union IT systems and
communication networks, including their interoperability, and to develop appropriate
tools to address identified gaps.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0098.png
3. Increase the active use of national and EU security relevant information exchange tools,
systems and databases ensuring that these are fed with high quality data.
Specific Objective
To intensify
cross-border joint operations
among and within the EU law enforcement and other
competent authorities
in relation to serious and organised crime
with a cross-border
dimension.
Implementation measures
under this Specific Objective:
1. Increase law enforcement operations between Member States, including when
appropriate with other relevant actors, in particular to facilitate and improve the use of
joint investigation teams, joint patrols, hot pursuits, discreet surveillance and other
operational cooperation mechanisms in the context of the EU Policy Cycle (EMPACT),
with special emphasis on cross-border operations.
2. Increase coordination and cooperation of law enforcement and other competent
authorities within and between Member States and with other relevant actors, for
example through networks of specialised national units, Union networks and cooperation
structures, Union centres.
3. Improve inter-agency cooperation at national level among the national authorities in each
Member State and at Union level between the Member States, or between the Member
States, on the one hand, and the relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies, on the other.
Specific Objective
To support effort at
strengthening the capabilities to combat and to prevent crime
including
terrorism, in particular through increased cooperation.
Implementation measures
under this Specific Objective:
1. Increase law enforcement training, exercises, mutual learning, specialised exchange
programmes and sharing of best practice including in and with third countries and other
relevant actors.
2. Exploit synergies by pooling resources and knowledge among Member States and other
relevant actors through, for instance, the creation of joint centres of excellence, the
development of joint risk assessments, or common operational support centres for jointly
conducted operations.
3. Promote and develop measures, safeguards, mechanisms and best practices for the early
identification, protection and support of witnesses, whistle-blowers and victims of crime
and to develop partnerships between public authorities and other relevant actors to this
effect.
4. Acquire relevant equipment and set up or upgrade specialised training facilities and other
essential security relevant infrastructure to increase preparedness, resilience, public
awareness and adequate response to security threats.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0099.png
In order to allow for a comparison with the objectives of the Funds in the 2014-2020
programming period, please find an overview of these objectives below.
Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund
Objectives of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund
General Objective
Contribute to the efficient management of migration flows and to the implementation,
strengthening and development of the common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and
temporary protection and the common immigration policy, while fully respecting the rights and
principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Specific Objectives
1) To strengthen and develop all aspects of the Common European Asylum System,
including its external dimension.
2) To support legal migration to the Member States in accordance with their economic and
social needs, such as labour market needs, while safeguarding the integrity of the
immigration systems of Member States, and to promote the effective integration of third-
country nationals.
3) To enhance fair and effective return strategies in the Member States which contribute to
combating illegal immigration, with an emphasis on sustainability of return and effective
readmission in the countries of origin and transit.
4) To enhance solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States, in
particular towards those most affected by migration and asylum flows, including through
practical cooperation.
Internal Security Fund
–
Borders and Visa
Objectives of the Internal Security Fund
–
Borders and Visa
General Objective
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.
Specific Objectives
1) Supporting 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 immigration.
2) 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 Frontex Agency, to ensure, on one hand, a uniform and high level of control and
protection of the external borders, including by the tackling of illegal immigration and,
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
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0100.png
it, in accordance with the obligations contracted by the Member States in the field of
human rights, including the principle of
non-refoulement.
Internal Security Fund - Police
Objectives of the Internal Security Fund - Police
General Objective
To contribute to ensuring a high level of security in the Union.
Specific Objectives
1) Crime prevention, combating cross-border, serious and organised crime including
terrorism, and reinforcing coordination and cooperation between law enforcement
authorities and other national authorities of Member States, including with Europol or
other relevant Union bodies, and with relevant third countries and international
organisations.
2)
enhancing the capacity of Member States and the Union for managing effectively
security-related risks and crises, and preparing for and protecting people and critical
infrastructure against terrorist attacks and other security-related incidents.
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0101.png
ANNEX 6: Overall design of the new Customs Control
Equipment component
In-depth analysis and comparison of the benefits and drawbacks of the various
management modes allowed identifying
direct management
–
through the provision of
centrally coordinated grants to national authorities where ownership of equipment
remains with these national authorities
–
as the preferred delivery mechanism
of the
new Customs Control Equipment component for the reasons explained in section 4.1.1.
This annex presents the proposed overall design of this component.
As a new field of EU intervention, it will be of utmost importance to
ensure focus and
delivery
of the Customs Control Equipment component. Also,
policy choices
will be
needed before deploying completely the actions: whereas an ongoing Customs 2020
programme activity allowed taking stock of the situation at the EU external land frontier
and mapping it in terms of presence of customs officers and available equipment for all
BCPs concerned, only limited information is currently available for sea and air borders
and for postal hubs.
Against this backdrop, a dedicated
model tailored to the specific circumstances and
needs
of the Customs Control Equipment instrument has been designed. It builds on the
requirement of a central coordination
–
beyond national borders for delivering uniform
customs application
–
rooted deeply in national expertise and experience. Four building
blocks corresponding to the four identified steps will help to deliver on the identified
general and specific objectives:
Assessment
Inventory
Typology & Standard
Gap analysis
Estimation of necessary
funds
Programming
Horizontal coordination
Work plan
Grant agreement
Implementation
Monitoring &
control
Purchase
Support to
procurement
Reporting
Control
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0102.png
The
first step
will consist in
assessing the needs
at each border type: land, sea, air,
postal hubs. Concretely, it will replicate the successful CELBET experience to all other
border types. CELBET
107
–
Central and South-Eastern Land Border Expert Team
–
is a
structured form of enhanced operational cooperation between all 11 Member States at the
EU land border. Led by one Member States (Estonia in the case
at hand), it pools resources of the national customs authorities
over a period of 18 months with the financial support of the
C2020 programme to work on 6 different topics, including one
team dealing with “Customs equipment and procurement” (EQ
Team).
CELBET EQ Team made an inventory of equipment at the EU
land border by processing more than 9200 data fields from 172
BCPs at EU land border and identifying the main characteristics
of BCPs. Building on this extensive knowledge, it proposed a
typology of BCPs (e.g. road vs rail border crossings, with truck
traffic or only with non-commercial traffic) and identified jointly the proposed equipment
standards for each category. A gap analysis between the inventory and defined standards
allowed estimating the necessary funds.
Although no equivalent detailed assessment of the situation and needs exists for other
border types, project groups also funded by the C2020 programme
–
RALFH,
ODYSSUD, ICARUS or the Technology Detection Group
–
exist and the replication of
CELBET to other borders should build on their expertise and experience.
The
second step
will focus on
programming.
The key outputs will be the work
programme and corresponding grant agreements. As one separate assessment will be
available for each border type further to the work of the respective expert teams, drafting
the work programme will not be limited to checking eligibility but rather extend to
organising the allocation of funds in line with customs priorities, threats and volumes.
The experience and knowledge of the existing RIMSCO (Risk Management Strategy
Implementation Coordination Group
108
) could support the work of the Commission in
this respect. Also, policy choices
–
supported by comitology procedure
–
will be required
at the time of adoption of the work programme.
The
third steps
will be
implementation.
Once grant agreements have been signed,
Member States will be able to source equipment in line with the contractual conditions.
All standard procedures will apply and EU support
–
e.g. through examining means of
supporting joint procurement
–
remains possible.
The fourth and final step will consist in
monitoring and control.
The control strategy
will be tailored to the low risk profile associated to the financial transactions in view a.o.
of the specific identity of the beneficiaries, i.e. customs authorities of the Member States.
107
108
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/expert-teams-europa_en
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3305
 kom (2018) 0473 - Ingen titel
1910340_0103.png
Annex 7: Performance indicators for the mid-term review
Please find below an overview of key performance indicators that are tentatively to be
used for the performance element of the mid-term review of the national programmes.
Asylum and Migration Fund
1. Number of persons resettled.
2. Number of persons relocated.
3. [Key performance indicator related to the integration of third-country nationals.]
4. Number of returnees.
Integrated Border Management Fund
–
Border Management and Visa
1. Number of consulates developed or upgraded with the help of the Instrument out
of the total number of consulates.
2. Number of staff trained and number of training courses in aspects related to the
common visa policy with the help of the Instrument.
3. Border control infrastructure, transport means and other equipment items
financed with the help of the Instrument.
4. Number of staff trained in aspects related to the integrated border management
with the help of the Instrument.
Internal Security Fund
1. Number of law enforcement officials trained in the areas of terrorism, organised
crime and cybercrime.
2.
[…].