eunbil · GT0N1597 · 2006-07-14 00:00:00 — To encourage transparency of actions taken by the national authorities To improve the overall efficiency of national administrations in their tasks Disbursement rate/amount spent per year Successful implementation of programme measured by: Number of projects implemented per activity area Number of training actions implemented Number of staff exchanges implemented Number of actions promoting data exchange implemented Number of studies, conferences and seminars conducted (Source: Commission) Increased cooperation between national administrations and with third countries Number of common operative centres and joint teams set up Number of cooperation activities in third countries set up (Source: Commission) Uniform application of Community law Improved transparency of actions taken by national authorities Improved efficiency of national administrations Mid-term evaluation to be completed by 2006. Teams of national experts Further objectives of FRONTEX agency: Better deployment of resources in circumstances requiring special assistance Increased competences of border guards Secondment of experts to teams. Provision of technical and operational assistance. Measured by: number of assignments carried out by teams (Source: Agency) Improved practice in border surveillance. use of results of teams work in border surveillance and efficiency of teams work (Source: Agency and MS) Reduced permeability of external borders (due to assistance to staff) Facilitated legitimate Evaluation methods - case studies, qualitative analysis. Policy sub-area 2: Visa policy and free movement of persons Objectives: Prevent illegal immigration and threats to public order Reduce time taken and costs of acquiring visas for legitimate travellers. Reciprocation with third countries on visa waivers. Reduce number of visas given to travellers who become overstayers and illegal migrants Abolish controls at internal EU borders Policy sub-area level indicators: The average time taken from application to receipt of (a particular class of) visa (Source: MS, VIS) The average costs (fees) for (a particular class of) visa (Source: MS, VIS) The number of third countries where the visa requirements of nationals to enter the EU match those EU citizens visiting the country in question (Source: Commission) The total population of third countries where the visa requirements of nationals to enter the EU match those EU citizens visiting the country in question (Source: Commission) The number of EU internal border crossings that are subject to controls (Source: MS) instruments Objectives Implementation at national level Indicators/evaluation questions Specific issues /comments Immediate results Outcomes Impacts Common application centres (for Schengen countries) Render the reception of visa applications more efficient through a better allocation of resources. Reduce costs in relation to capturing of biometrics. Harmonisation of reciprocal procedures by to the centres. Participation in setting up the centres. Number of centres established and MS involved (Source: MS). Number of visas issued through the centres (Source: MS). Increased efficiency of providing visa services. time taken to issue visas (Source: MS) (Source: MS). Improved use of visa related information (Source: MS). Reduced costs to visa applicants. Reduced costs to administrations. Increased bone fide . Evaluation method - efficiency analysis. Potential evaluation leadership from the MS and use of peer review process. Improve the implementation of the common visa policy by the exchange of visa data between Member States, in order to prevent visa shopping, to facilitate the fight against fraud, checks on visas, to assist in the identification of illegal immigrants, to facilitate the application of the II Regulation and to contribute to the prevention of threats to internal security. Implementation at the national level, including the development/adaptation of national systems. Number of number of visas refused, annulled, revoked, processing times (Source: Commission). (Source: Commission) Retention and sharing of data from visa applications and related decisions. Measured by: number of entries in VIS (Source: Commission). Measured: number of analyses conducted using VIS data (Source: Commission). Improvement of application procedures, of checks at the external borders and within the Schengen territory, of the application of the II Regulation, of the identification of illegal immigrants and of the detection of fraud. Monitoring and evaluation, by the Commission at EU level. The reciprocity mechanism (Council Regulation 851/2005) To ensure EU citizens can without a visa to all third countries whose nationals dont need a visa to to the EU. Co-operation with the Commission, information sharing on bilateral dialogue with third countries Number of third countries who have waived visa requirements for EU nationals (Source: Commission) Improved reciprocity measured by percentage of decrease of non-reciprocity cases Improved dialogue and diplomatic contacts with third countries Facilitated legitimate for EU travelers Diplomatic efforts on EU level vis-à-vis third countries concerned. The first Report of the Commission on reciprocity in visa waivers was adopted on 10 January 2006 Council Regulation on a Border code To implement common rules governing the movement of persons across borders, to include both rules on checks at external borders and rules on the removal of checks on persons at internal borders and the reintroduction of such checks in certain circumstances. To improve integrated border management Application in MS that apply the Schengen acquis Harmonisation of rules governing the movement of persons at internal and external borders (Source: Commission) Improved border management and control Improved control of external borders Facilitated within the Schengen acquis This regulation was adopted recently - February 2006. POLICY AREA: CITIZENSHIP AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: Relatively new policy area in JLS (although the citizenship policy as such is an established area in the EC/Commission activities), 1st pillar activities, a combination of instruments (legislation, funding programmes, new ). The nature of the instruments and their objectives leads to reliance on qualitative evaluation methods. However, there is scope for further improvements to the information base through surveys and the development of statistics. The objectives within the policy area are wide ranging and the sub policy areas as defined below are not distinct. There is some scope for evaluating sub sets of instruments in parallel. Policy sub-area 1: Citizenship of the Union Global objectives: Increase awareness of Union citizens of their rights and of the ways these can be enforced Decrease any obstacles for the enjoyment of their rights by Union citizens, in particular of the right to free movement and Increase participation of EU citizens in democratic life in the Union Facilitate the diplomatic and consular protection offered to the Union citizens in third countries Policy sub-area level indicators: Levels of citizens awareness of their rights and mechanisms of redress (Source: Surveys and Eurobarometer reports) Instances of right to free movement and hindered (Source: complaints made to Commission) Rates of voting registration and participation - percentage of increase/decrease (Source: Member States) Number of citizens standing for election to public office - percentage of increase/decrease (Source: Member States) Instances of use and complaints from EU citizens over levels of consular protection (Source: Member States) instruments Objectives Implementation at national level Indicators/evaluation questions Specific issues /comments Immediate results Outcomes Impacts Directive 2004/38/EC on free movement and Clarify and simplify existing Community law in field Transposition into national legal systems Relevant national laws adopted in line with Directive provisions and notified the Commission by 30.4.2006 together with a table of conformity. (Source: Commission) Correct application of rules and provisions contained in the law Measured by: number of court cases/complaints resulting from the Directive (Source: Commission) Facilitated free movement and Evaluation leadership by the EU. Would benefit from strong involvement of MS in evaluation Community legislation on the EP elections and on the right of non-national Union citizens electoral rights in their country of Ensure that the EP elections are conducted according to the basic principles of democratic elections Ensure the participation of non-national Union citizens to the EP elections and to the municipal elections Transposition into national legal systems Relevant national laws adopted in line with provisions of Community law and notified to the Commission (Source: Commission) Correct application of rules and provisions contained in the law Measured by: number of court cases/complaints resulting from the legislation (Source: Commission) EP elections carried out democratically. Non-national Union citizens participate in the elections on the same conditions as nationals in EP elections and in municipal elections. Fundamental Rights and Citizenship programme (part Citizenship) Improve awareness of citizenship of the Union and related rights Encourage citizens to participate to actively to democratic life Implementation of measures and projects. Number of projects supported (studies conducted, activities undertaken) (Source: programme monitoring system) Number of beneficiaries reached (Source: programme monitoring system) Improved intelligence base use of analytical results by policy makers (Source: Commission and MS) Dissemination of good practice in voter education and activation. level of awareness of Programmes outputs (Source: MS) Improved awareness of Union citizenship and related rights amongst EU citizens. Increased participation in democratic life. Clear intervention logic. Evaluation would benefit from systematic surveys of public awareness. Policy sub-area 2: Fundamental Rights Global objectives: Increase the awareness of fundamental rights amongst citizens. (This concerns the rights as protected on European Union and national level including the relevant regional and international instruments.) Decrease instances of breaches of fundamental rights (including breaches of privacy, personal data protection and protection from violence against children, women and youth) Reduce the instances of racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia Establish a (from EUMC) Increase number of participants in and their commitments to civil society Policy sub-area level indicators: Levels of citizens awareness of fundamental rights (Source: Surveys and Eurobarometer reports) Instances of breaches of fundamental rights, especially as a result of EU interventions (including breaches of privacy, personal data protection and protection from violence against children, women and youth) (Source: Commission and ) Instances of racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia (Source: ) Time commitments of population to participation in civil society (Source: MS) Number of civil society organisations in NMS since accession (Source: MS) instruments Objectives Implementation at national level Indicators/evaluation questions Specific issues /comments Immediate results Outcomes Impacts Relevant provisions of the Treaties on European Union and on European Community Ensure that the EU institutions and the Member States fully respect fundamental rights Compliance of the national legislation and practices with the fundamental rights Community legislation as well as implementing national laws adopted in compliance with the Treaty Correct application of rights and principles contained in the Treaty Measured by: number of court cases/complaints resulting from the legislation (Source: Commission Decreased level of breaches of FR Increased protection of rights of citizens Fundamental Rights and Citizenship programme (part Fundamental Rights) Improve awareness of FR as protected on European and national level Improve intensity and quality of interfaith and intercultural dialogue in MS Improve tolerance in the EU Improve quality of civil society organisations Improve rule of law Decrease breaches of FR in of measures and projects. Number of projects supported (studies conducted, activities undertaken) (Source: programme monitoring system) Number of beneficiaries reached (Source: programme monitoring system) Improved intelligence base use of analytical results by policy makers (Source: Commission and MS) Increased awareness of issues in focus under the action (Source: public opinion surveys, Commission) Improved awareness of FR amongst EU citizens Stronger civil society in the MS Clear intervention logic. Evaluation would benefit from systematic surveys of public awareness. Preparatory action to support civil society in the NMS in areas of rule of law, democracy, FR, media pluralism, fight against corruption. Improve quality of civil society organisations in NMS Improved rule of law in NMS Improve democracy in NMS Decrease breaches of FR in NMS Implementation of measures and projects. Number of projects supported (studies conducted, activities undertaken) (Source: programme monitoring system) Number of beneficiaries reached (Source: programme monitoring system) Increased awareness of issues in focus under the action (Source: public opinion surveys, Commission) Stronger civil society in the NMS Clear intervention logic but difficult to measure outcomes and impacts, in part because of the scale and scope of the underlying objectives. Strong involvement of MS in evaluation programme Reduce violence against children, adolescents and women Implementation of measures and projects. Number of projects supported (studies conducted, activities undertaken) (Source: programme monitoring system) Number of good practices identified (Source: programme monitoring system) Number of beneficiaries and victims reached (Source: programme monitoring system) Increased awareness of the issues in wider society (Source: public opinion surveys, Commission) Adoption of good practice in tackling violence (Source: MS). Better intelligence base. use of analytical results by policy makers (Source: Commission and MS) Number of knowledge and practitioner communities created (Source: Commission). Number of improved facilities for victims (Source: programme monitoring system) Reduced violence against children, adolescents and women Evaluation leadership by the EU. Major problems of data reliability at the level of impacts. Improve the availability, quality, and comparability of information on respect and promotion of FR. Improve co-ordination between stakeholders Improve public awareness of their FR Participation in Agencys activities Provision of data and analyses of FR. Measured by: number of analytical outputs (Source: Agency) Number of reporting activities (Source: Agency). Number of networks of stakeholders supported (Source: Agency). Better intelligence base. Measured by: use of analytical results by policy makers (Source: Agency and Commission) Better co-ordination of activities. Increased public awareness (Source: public opinion surveys, Agency and Commission). Decreased level of breaches of FR Evaluations of EU agencies have tended to focus on process issues. Whilst objectives are clear it will be difficult to assess causality and measure the impacts of the agency. Data Protection Directive Facilitate the free movement of personal information within the EU Protect rights of individuals Conclude agreements with third countries Transposition of Directive into national legal systems of Protection Supervisory authorities Relevant national laws adopted pursuant to the Directive provisions (Source: MS and Commission) Application of rules and provisions contained in the law. Measured by: - Appropriate enforcement mechanisms and remedies available to ensure respect for the law and assistance to individuals through: a) Judicial remedies b) Intervention of data protection supervisory authority (ex officio or following complaints) MS) Facilitated movement of personal information within the EU Harmonised protection of individuals at a high level (both inside the EU and in third countries for personal data transferred from the EU) Evaluation leadership by the EU but in partnership with : COORDINATION IN THE FIELD OF DRUGS Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: Activities in this policy area are cross pillar and cover a variety of areas, including health, cooperation, information, evaluation and coordination. The EU Drug Action Plan and EU Drug Strategy are very important documents endorsed by the Council as the basic policy framework for all drugs issues within the EU and within the context of the EU"s external relations. They cover all activities in this policy area and provide the guidelines for all Member States to implement the objectives and actions they contain into national policy. The Action Plan takes its lead from the objectives of the EU Drug Strategy and translates these objectives into 80 concrete actions. It concentrates on the two major aspects of drug policy, demand reduction and supply reduction, and also covers a number of cross-cutting themes: international cooperation, research, information and evaluation. It includes actions within EU competence (public health, precursor control, money laundering and development aid) as well as close cooperation between Member States and partnerships with international organisations. The Action Plan furthermore covers monitoring and evaluation and includes assessment tools and indicators for each action. The actions covered by the Action Plan are subject to an annual progress review by the Commission"s services. Evaluation in this area is already well-established through the methods and indicators developed during the evaluation of the previous EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan. Reliable data is available from , Europol and the Commission. As with other policies relating to complex, global socio-political issues, the evaluation of the impacts of EU drug policy is a problematical and sensitive matter due to the multiple factors that have to be taken into account and for which there may not be reliable data by their very nature (e.g. figures for trafficking in illicit drugs are always rough estimates; corruption caused by trade in drugs is hidden, etc.). To significantly reduce the prevalence of drug use among the population and to reduce the social harm and health damage caused by the use of and trade in illicit drugs, and to strengthen international cooperation (EU Action Plan on Drugs 2005-2008) Policy-level indicators: The EU Action Plan contains the major legal instruments such as the Council Decision on the information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances, or the Framework Decision on penalties for drug trafficking. It also contains the assessment tools and indicators required for the evaluation process of these instruments and all other actions. These have been drawn up in cooperation with the , who will help the Commission to keep track of implementation. On this basis the Commission will publish an and if necessary propose adjustments. Responsibility for implementation of actions and deadlines are clearly indicated in the Plan. To keep implementation on track, targets whose deadlines have passed or are unlikely to be met will be subject to recommendations for their implementation or identification of failure to implement. The Commission will carry out an impact assessment in 2008 in view of proposing a second Action Plan for 2009-2012. A final evaluation of the Strategy and the Action Plans will be carried out by the Commission in 2012. These evaluations will go beyond the strict confines of the Action Plan and will include, on the basis of the work of the , a general view of the evolution of the drugs situation in Europe. POLICY AREA: COMMON IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: New policy area. 1st pillar activities. Interventions include legislation, programmes and cooperation activities. Good, comparable data is required and is planned. MS consensus about broad aims but not at individual instrument level. Impacts of these instruments on third-countries, and in particular development countries, to be considered. Policy sub-area 1: Objectives: To establish a common asylum procedure and uniform status, To facilitate practical and collaborative cooperation, To address pressures on asylum systems and reception capacities. Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of asylum seekers applying for asylum in Member States other than the country of first entry (Source: Eurodac) Instances of MS breaching minimum defined standards (Source: Commission) Differences in standards of reception between Member States (Source: Commission) Differences between Member States with regard to the average time taken to determine the outcome of an application for asylum (Source: MS and Commission) Comparison of asylum acceptance rates among Member States (Source: Commission - ) Differences in the level of capacity per Member State (asylum systems and reception facilities) relative to needs (Source: Member States) instrument (and type of instrument) Objectives Implementation at national level Indicators/evaluation questions Specific issues /comments Immediate results Outcomes Impacts Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national) To reduce "asylum shopping" To increase responsibility sharing among MS. To increase efficiency by granting MS a realistic period in which to implement decisions on transfers. Adoption of measures implementing the Regulation at national level Number of take back requests (Source: Commission - ) Number of applicants sent to another Member State (Source: Commission - ) Number of multiple claims (Source: Commission - ) Number of registered irregular entrants (Source: Commission - ) Proportion of cases dealt within country of entry (Source: Commission - ) Decreased delay in the examination of claims and attribution of responsibility Measured by: average delay of examination before and after implementation of the Regulation (Source: MS) Decreased delay to implement decisions on transfers average delay of transfer before and after (Source: MS) Increased sharing of responsibility Greater efficiency and effectiveness in implementing decisions on transfers Reduction of persons making multiple claims Numbers are available through Eurodac which allows for an assessment of trends. Evaluation of the will be ready in 2006. Eurodac To facilitate application of the Regulation by identifying asylum seekers and persons who have entered the EU irregularly. To determine whether a foreign national has previously claimed asylum in another MS. Member States to send required data to central unit. Efficiency of the system Number of records per Member State (Source: Eurodac) Number of successful and rejected transactions recorded in the system (Source: Eurodac) Increased number of asylum applications being examined in the first country of asylum/entry Percentage rate of change before and after introduction of the system (Source: MS) Reduction of persons making multiple claims Percentage rate of change before and after (Source: MS) Improved efficiency in applying the Regulation Difficult to judge whether MS use system correctly and systematically. Some scope for peer review but there could be constraints on independent evaluation. Evaluation is underway of the system which considers both the Regulation and Eurodac.